Consciousness-Based Education

Transcription

introduct ion to the ser ies
Consciousness-Based Education:
A Foundation for Teaching and
Learning in the Academic Disciplines
■
Volume IV
and Physics
■
Volume Editor, Gerald T. Geer
Contributing Editor, John S. Hagelin, Ph.D.
Executive Editor, Craig Pearson, Ph.D.
Managing Editor, Dara Llewellyn, Ph.D.
■
2009
Maharishi University of Management
Fairfield, Iowa 52557
1
Consciousn ess-ba sed educat ion a n d ph y sics
A c k n o w l e d gm e n t s
Special acknowledgment goes to Yali Jiang for her outstanding contribution to the creation and compilation of this physics volume of the
book series Consciousness-Based Education: A Foundation for Teaching and Learning in the Academic Disciplines. We would like to thank
David Scharf, Ph.D., for his invaluable help in selecting the physics
articles published in this volume. Recognition is also due the staff of
the Maharishi University of Management Library for their reference,
electronic, and archival support and to Shepley Hansen for the design
of the series.
ISBN:
ISSN:
©2009 Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. All rights
reserved. ®Transcendental Meditation, TM, Transcendental MeditationSidhi, TM-Sidhi, Maharishi Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi TMSidhi, Yogic Flying, Consciousness-Based, Consciousness-Based Education,
Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi University of Management, Maharishi
International University, Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment,
Science of Creative Intelligence, Maharishi Science of Creative Intelligence,
Maharishi Vedic Science and Technology, Maharishi Ayurveda, Maharishi
Ayur-Veda, Maharishi Ayurveda Medical Center, Maharishi Vedic Vibration
Technology, Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, Vedic Science, Global
Country of World Peace, Maharishi Peace Palace, Peace Palace, Maharishi Vedic University, Maharishi European Research University, Maharishi
Yagya, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, Maharishi Gandharva Veda, Maharishi
Jyotish, and Maharishi Vedic Psychology are registered or common law trademarks licensed to Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation, a
501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization, and used under sublicense or
with permission.
2
I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e S e r ies
H
Craig Pearson, Ph.D.
Executive Vice-President
igher education faces a complex set of challenges today. We
are seeing resources diminish at the same time we are hearing
calls for greater access and affordability. Demands for greater
transparency and accountability are being sounded by both the general
public and the government. Government is exerting increasing controls
in this long-independent area.
These challenges, however, are merely financial and political, and
they are hardly limited to colleges and universities. The fundamental
challenges are educational and center around the students themselves.
Challenges include high levels of stress, pervasive substance abuse (particularly binge drinking), lack of preparedness for college-level work,
and mental and emotional disabilities. In most of these areas, the
problem is serious and worsening. Though colleges and universities are
striving to address these challenges, few would claim we are turning
the tide.
An encouraging trend is the increasing focus in higher education
nationwide on promoting student learning. Yet these laudable efforts
do not take into account the powerful forces working in opposition. It is
well known that learning is inhibited by stress, sleep deprivation, alcohol, and poor diet—and these are among the most conspicuous features
of the college student experience.
Something new is required. Education needs a reliable means of
developing students directly from within. We need a systematic method
for cultivating their creative intelligence, their capacity to learn, and
their natural humanity. All education aims at these goals, of course—
but the approach thus far has been from the outside in, and the results
have been haphazard at best.
Consciousness-BasedSM education was established to address this
need. It integrates the best practices of education and places beneath
them a proper foundation—direct development of the student from
inside out.
3
The outcomes of Consciousness-Based education have been unprecedented and scientifically verified. These outcomes include significant
growth of intelligence, creativity, learning ability, field independence,
ego development, and moral maturity, among others. These results are
remarkable because many of these values typically plateau in adolescence—but Consciousness-Based education promotes this growth in
students of all ages, developing potentials that otherwise would have
remained unexpressed.
Beyond this rich cognitive growth, Consciousness-Based education significantly reduces student stress, boosts self-esteem, improves
health, reduces substance use, and enhances interpersonal relationships. All of these benefits come together to create exceptional learning
environments. This approach even measurably improves the quality of
life in the surrounding society.
Consciousness-Based education was founded by Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi, the world authority on the science of consciousness. First pioneered at Maharishi University of Management (previously Maharishi
University of Management, 1971–1995) in Fairfield, Iowa, Consciousness-Based education is being adopted by schools, colleges, and universities around the world. It is easily integrated into any school, without
any change in mission or curriculum of that school.
Consciousness-Based education recognizes that student learning
depends fundamentally on students’ levels of consciousness or alertness. The more alert and awake the student, the more successful and
satisfying the learning.
Consciousness-Based education consists of three components:
•a practical technology for directly developing students’ potential
from within,
•a theoretical understanding of consciousness that gives rise to
a unifying framework for knowledge, enabling students to easily
grasp the fundamental principles of any discipline and to connect
these principles to their own personal growth, and
•a set of classroom practices, arising from this understanding, that
also helps promote effective teaching and learning.
4
The Transcendental Meditation program
At the heart of Consciousness-Based education is the practice of the
Transcendental Meditation® technique. The technique was brought to
light by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi from the Vedic tradition of India, the
world’s most ancient continuous tradition of knowledge. It is practiced
for 20 minutes twice daily, once in the morning and once in the afternoon, while sitting comfortably with eyes closed. It is simple, natural,
and effortless—so simple, in fact, that ten-year-old children can learn
and practice it. It has been learned by more than six million people
worldwide, of all ages, religions, and cultures.
The Transcendental Meditation technique differs from other procedures of meditation and relaxation in its effortlessness. It involves
no concentration or control of the mind. Neither is it a religion, philosophy, or lifestyle. It involves no new codes of behavior, attitudes, or
beliefs, not even the belief it will work.
The Transcendental Meditation program is the most extensively
validated program of personal development in the world. It has been
the subject of more than 600 scientific research studies, conducted at
more than 250 universities and research institutions in more than 30
countries worldwide. These studies have been published in more than
150 scientific and scholarly journals in a broad range of fields, including
Science, Scientific American, American Journal of Physiology, International
Journal of Neuroscience, Memory and Cognition, Social Indicators Research,
Intelligence, Journal of Mind and Behavior, Education, Journal of Moral
Education, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Business and
Health, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Human Stress,
Lancet, Physiology and Behavior, and numerous others. No approach to
education has as much empirical support as Consciousness-Based education.
This approach, moreover, has been successfully field tested over the
past 35 years in primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools all over
the world, in developed and developing nations, in a wide variety of
cultural settings—the United States, Latin America, Europe, Africa,
India, and China.
The Transcendental Meditation technique enables one to “dive
within.” During the practice, the mind settles inward, naturally and
spontaneously, to a state of deep inner quiet, beyond thoughts and per5
ceptions. One experiences consciousness in its pure, silent state, uncolored by mental activity. In this state, consciousness is aware of itself
alone, awake to its own unbounded nature.
The technique also gives profound rest, which dissolves accumulated
stress and restores balanced functioning to mind and body.
This state of inner wakefulness coupled with deep rest represents a
fourth major state of consciousness, distinct from the familiar states
of waking, dreaming, and sleeping, that is known as Transcendental
Consciousness.
In this restfully alert state, brain functioning becomes highly integrated and coherent. EEG studies show long-range spatial communication among all brain regions. This coherence is in sharp contrast to
the more or less uncoordinated patterns typical of brain activity.
With regular practice, this integrated style of functioning carries over
into daily activity. Research studies consistently show a high statistical
correlation between brainwave coherence and intelligence, creativity,
field independence, emotional stability, and other positive values. The
greater one’s EEG coherence, in other words, the greater one’s development in these fundamental areas. At Maharishi University of Management, students even have the option of a Brain Integration Progress
Report—an empirical measure of growth of EEG coherence between
their first and last years at the University.
The brain is the governor of all human activity—and therefore personal growth and success in any field depend on the degree to which
brain functioning is integrated. The increasingly integrated brain functioning that spontaneously results from Transcendental Meditation
practice accounts for its multiplicity of benefits to mind, body, and
behavior.
Every human being has the natural ability to transcend, to experience the boundless inner reality of life. Every human brain has the natural ability to function coherently. It requires only a simple technique.
Theoretical component—
a unified framework for teaching and learning
Scholars have long called for a way to unify the diverse branches of
knowledge. Current global trends are making this need ever more
6
apparent. The pace of progress is accelerating, the knowledge explosion
continues unabated, and knowledge is becoming ever more specialized.
Academic disciplines offer a useful way of compartmentalizing
knowledge for purposes of teaching, learning, research, and publication. But each academic discipline explores only one facet of our
increasingly complex and interrelated world. The real world, however,
is not compartmentalized—an elephant is not a trunk, a tusk, and a
tail. Academic disciplines, consequently, are criticized as inadequate,
in themselves, for understanding and addressing today’s challenging
social problems.
Today, more than ever, we need a means of looking at issues comprehensively, holistically. We need a way of discovering and understanding
the natural relationships among all the complex elements that compose
the world, even among the complex elements that compose our own
disciplines.
Various attempts to address this need have been made under the
rubric of interdisciplinary studies—programs or processes that aim to
synthesize the perspectives and promote connections among multiple
disciplines. Some of these efforts have been criticized as superficial
joinings of disciplinary knowledge. But the chief criticism of interdisciplinary studies—leveled even by its proponents—is that looking
at an issue from multiple perspectives does not, in itself, enable one
to find the common ground among contrasting viewpoints, to resolve
conflicts, and to arrive at a coherent understanding.
The diverse academic disciplines can be properly unified at only one
level—their source. All academic disciplines are expressions of human
consciousness—and if the fundamental principles of consciousness can
be identified and understood, then one would gain a grasp of all human
knowledge in a single stroke.
Consciousness-Based education does precisely this—and not as an
abstract, theoretical construct but as the result of students’ direct experience of their own silent, pure consciousness. In this sense, practice of
the Transcendental Meditation technique forms the laboratory component of Consciousness-Based education, where the theoretical predictions of Consciousness-Based education can be verified through direct
personal experience.
7
This theoretical component offers a rich and deep yet easy-to-grasp
intellectual understanding of consciousness—its nature and range, how
it may be cultivated, its potentials when fully developed. This theoretical component also identifies how the fundamental dynamics of
consciousness are found at work in every physical system and in every
academic discipline at every level.
With this knowledge as a foundation, teachers and students in all
disciplines enjoy a shared and comprehensive understanding of human
development and a set of deep principles common to all academic
disciplines—a unified framework for knowledge. With this unified
framework as a foundation, students can move from subject to subject, discipline to discipline, and readily understand the fundamental
principles of the discipline and recognize the principles the discipline
shares with the other disciplines they have studied. This approach
makes knowledge easy to grasp and personally relevant to the student.
Pure consciousness and the Unified Field
Consciousness has traditionally been understood as the continuous flux
of thoughts and perceptions that engage the mind. Thoughts and perceptions, in turn, are widely understood to be merely the by-products
of the brain’s electrochemical functioning.
Maharishi has put forward a radically new understanding of human
consciousness. In Consciousness-Based education, pure consciousness
is understood as the foundation and source of all mental activity, the
most silent, creative, and blissful level of the mind—the field of one’s
total inner intelligence, one’s innermost Self. (This unbounded value of
the Self is written with an uppercase “S” to distinguish it from the ordinary, localized self we typically experience.) Direct experience of this
inner field of consciousness awakens it, enlivens its intrinsic properties
of creativity and intelligence. Regular experience of pure consciousness through the Transcendental Meditation technique leads to rapid
growth of one’s potential, to the development of higher states of human
consciousness—to enlightenment.
But consciousness is more, even, than this.
Throughout the twentieth century, leading physicists conjectured
upon the relation between mind and matter, between consciousness
and the physical world; many expressed the conviction that mind is,
8
somehow, the essential ingredient of the universe. But Maharishi goes
further. He has asserted that mind and matter have a common source,
and that this source is pure consciousness. Consciousness in its pure,
silent state is identical with the most fundamental level of nature’s
functioning, the Unified Field of Natural Law that has been identified and described by quantum theoretical physicists over the past several decades. Everyone has the potential to experience this field in the
simplest form of his or her own awareness. Considerable theoretical
evidence, and even empirical evidence, has been put forward in support
of this position.
Maharishi has developed these ideas in two bodies of knowledge,
the first known as the Science of Creative Intelligence®, the second as
Maharishi Vedic Science and TechnologySM. The Science of Creative
Intelligence examines the nature and range of consciousness and presents a model of human development that includes seven states of consciousness altogether, including four higher states beyond the familiar
states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. These higher states, which
develop naturally and spontaneously with Transcendental Meditation
practice, bring expanded values of experience of one’s self and the surrounding world. Each represents a progressive stage of enlightenment.
Maharishi Vedic Science and Technology examines the dynamics of
pure consciousness in fine detail. It reveals the fundamental principles
of consciousness that may then be identified in every field of knowledge
and every natural system.
Most important for teaching and learning, these sciences reveal how
every branch of knowledge emerges from the field of pure consciousness and how this field is actually the Self of every student.
Strategies for promoting teaching and learning
Consciousness-Based education also includes a battery of educational
strategies that promote effective teaching and learning. Foremost among
these is the precept that parts are always connected to wholes and that
learning is most effective when learners are able to connect parts to
wholes. In Consciousness-Based education, the parts of knowledge are
always connected to the wholeness of knowledge, and the wholeness of
knowledge is connected to the Self of the student.
9
consciousn ess-ba sed educat ion a n d Ph y sics
one means of making these connections is through Unified Field
Charts. These wall charts, developed by the faculty at Maharishi university of Management and used in every class, do three things: (1) they
show all the branches of the discipline at a glance; (2) they show how
the discipline emerges from the field of pure consciousness, the unified
Field of natural Law at the basis of the universe; and (3) they show that
this field is the self of the student, which the student experiences during practice of the transcendental Meditation technique.
in this way students can always see the relation between what they
are studying and the discipline as a whole, and they can see the discipline as an expression of their own pure consciousness. again, this
is more than an intellectual formulation—it is the growing reality of
students’ experience as they develop higher states of consciousness.
another strategy is Main Point Charts. developed by the faculty for
each lesson and posted on the classroom walls, these charts summarize
in a few sentences the main points of the lesson and their relationship to the underlying principles of consciousness. in this way students
always have the lesson as a whole in front of them, available at a glance.
The next paradigm shift
if higher education is fundamentally about student learning and
growth, then consciousness-based education represents a major paradigm shift in the history of education. to understand this change, it
is useful to reflect on the encouraging paradigm shift that has already
been taking place in education over the past several decades.
This shift involves a move from what many call an instruction paradigm to a learning paradigm. in the instruction paradigm, the mission of
colleges and universities is to provide instruction; this is accomplished
through a transfer of knowledge from teacher to student. in the learning paradigm, the mission is to produce student learning; this mission
is achieved by guiding students in the discovery and construction of
knowledge.
This shift is a vitally important advance in education, leading to more
successful outcomes and more rewarding experiences for students and
teachers alike. but a further paradigm shift remains, and we can understand it by examining a fundamental feature of human experience.
10
Maharishi observes that every human experience consists of three
fundamental components: a knower, a known, and a process of knowKNOWER  PROCESS OF KNOWING  KNOWN
ing linking knower and known. we may also use the terms experiencer, object of experience, and process of experiencing, or observer,
observed, and process of observation.
This threefold structure of experience is nowhere more evident than
in schools: The knowers are the students, the known is the knowledge
to be learned, and the process of knowing is what the full range of
teaching and learning strategies seek to promote.
understanding this threefold structure helps us understand the paradigm shifts that are taking place.
The instruction paradigm places emphasis on the known. it focuses
on the information students are to absorb and the skills they are to
learn. in this paradigm, the instructor’s role is to identify what students
need to know and deliver it to them.
The learning paradigm emphasizes the process of knowing. it recognizes that students must be actively involved in the learning process, that knowledge is something individuals create and construct for
themselves, and that students have differing learning styles and differing interests that must be taken into account. in this paradigm, the
instructor’s role is to create learning environments and experiences that
promote the process of learning.
The consciousness-based paradigm embraces the known and the
process of knowing but places primary emphasis on the knower—on
11
consciousn ess-ba sed educat ion a n d Ph y sics
developing the knower’s potential for learning from within. The following diagram shows the respective emphases of each approach:
KNOWER

LEARNING
PARADIGM
KNOWN

DEVELOPMENT OF
CONSCIOUSNESS
PARADIGM
PROCESS OF
KNOWING



INSTRUCTION
PARADIGM
but the learning paradigm does not so much abandon the instruction paradigm as enlarge it so that it includes the process of knowing as
well as the known. and the consciousness-based approach completes
the enlargement to include the knower:
development of
consciousness paradigm
Learning
paradigm
instruction
paradigm
consciousness-based education, in summary, is a theory and practice
grounded in a systematic science and technology of consciousness,
making available the complete experience, systematic development, and
comprehensive understanding of the full range of human consciousness. More than 30 years’ experience and extensive scientific research
12
confirm the success of this approach and its applicability to any educational institution.
About this book series
This series of twelve volumes is the result of a unique faculty-wide project
that began with the founding of Maharishi University of Management
in 1971 and continues to this day. Each volume in the series examines a
particular academic discipline in the light of our Consciousness-Based
approach to education.
Each volume includes:
•an introductory paper introducing the Consciousness-Based
understanding of the discipline;
•a Unified Field Chart, if available for publication, for the discipline—a chart that conceptually maps all the branches of the discipline and illustrates how the discipline emerges from the field of
pure consciousness and how that field is the Self of every individual.
Thus, these charts connect the “parts” of knowledge to the “wholeness” of knowledge and the wholeness of knowledge to the Self of
the student;
•subsequent papers that show how this understanding may be
applied in various branches of the discipline;
•some examples of student work exploring how the ConsciousnessBased approach enhances learning in the discipline; and
•an appendix describing Maharishi Vedic Science and Technologies
of Consciousness in detail.
Executive Editor, Craig Pearson
Managing Editor, Dara Llewellyn
13
VolumeDiscipline
1
Volume Editor
Maharishi Vedic Science
Frederick Travis
2EducationChristopher Jones
3
Physiology & HealthKenneth Walton
Janet Kernis
Robert Scheider
Paul Morehead
4
5
6
Physics
Gerald Geer
Mathematics
Paul Corazza
LiteratureTerrence Fairchild
7Art
Matthew Beaufort
8
ManagementDennis Heaton
Jane Schmidt-Wilk Bruce McCollum
9
GovernmentRachel Goodman
William Sands
10Computer ScienceKeith Levi
Mark Rainbow
11Sustainable Living
Mabel Scaroni-Fisher
David Fisher
12World PeaceRachel Goodman
We welcome inquiries and further contributions to this series.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Dara Llewellyn, Managing Editor
Consciousness-Based Education Book Series
Fairfield, Iowa 52557
Phone: 641-472-7000
14
vol u m e i n t rod u c t ion a n d ta bl e of c on t e n t s
I NTRODU C T I ON TO t h e V OLU M E
Over the past 300 years, modern science has systematically probed
deeper levels of nature’s functioning, from surface macroscopic diversity to smaller and smaller time and distance scales. This inward march
of the physical sciences has led to the progressive unification of fundamental force and matter fields, culminating in the discovery of the unified field—a single, universal, unified field of intelligence at the basis of
all forms and phenomena in the universe. Millions of times more fundamental and more powerful than the nuclear force, the unified field
is the ultimate source of the order displayed throughout the cosmos.
Through its purely self-interacting dynamics, the unified field systematically gives rise to all the more diversified levels of nature’s functioning—the grand unified, electroweak unified, subnuclear, nuclear,
atomic, molecular, macroscopic, astrophysical, and cosmological scales.
This profound discovery has revealed that the universe is superficially
diverse but fundamentally unified.
The discovery of the unified field is the culmination of years of
advanced research in quantum gravity theory—and the fulfillment of
Einstein’s lifelong dream of finding a single unified source for all the
diversified laws of nature governing the vast universe. But for millennia
another science, based on rigorous, repeatable investigation of nature’s
functioning through subjective means, has laid out in exquisite detail
the inner workings of the universe. This is the ancient Vedic Science
of India, complete with its own powerful technologies of consciousness that reveal the deep structures of natural law and the unity of
life at their basis. Now that modern science has also glimpsed this
underlying unity, the descriptions of the universe revealed by these two
approaches—one modern and objective, one ancient and subjective—
can be compared. And they have been found to be precisely correlated
with each other, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Despite differences in language and approach, these two descriptions are fundamentally identical.
The papers in this volume of Consciousness-Based Education: A Foundation for Teaching and Learning in the Academic Disciplines explore the
profound relationship between these most advanced discoveries of
quantum physics and the most advanced knowledge of consciousness
from Vedic Science, systematically revived in this scientific age by our
15
consciousn ess-ba sed educat ion a n d ph y sics
University’s founder, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The confluence of these
two profound streams of knowledge in Consciousness-Based education
has led to profound insights about the nature of our universe and the
full potential of human life—and offers a scientifically validated means
to fulfill the highest goals of education.
Accessing the Unified Field Within
The discovery of the unified field has profound practical relevance to
individual life—in particular, to human brain development—and to
society as a whole. Through the powerful, highly advanced technologies of consciousness provided by Maharishi Vedic Science—Transcendental Meditation and its advanced techniques—human attention can
turn effortlessly within to experience and explore deeper levels of mind
that directly correspond to more fundamental levels of intelligence
in nature. This inner exploration of consciousness culminates in the
direct experience of the unified field in the simplest, most settled state
of human awareness—a state of pure inner wakefulness or “pure consciousness.” Research identifies this experience as a fourth major state
of human consciousness, physiologically distinct from waking, dreaming, and sleeping—and also confirms that brain functioning becomes
profoundly integrated through this direct experience of the unified field
at the source of thought.
In ordinary waking consciousness, the brain functions without much
internal synchrony: electroencephalographic (EEG) measurements
show little coordination or correlation in electrical activity among the
different areas of the brain. But the direct experience of the unified
field through the Transcendental Meditation technique completely
reorganizes brain activity, resulting in a unique state of orderliness of
brain functioning called global EEG coherence. In this state, all areas
of the brain—the left and right hemispheres, the frontal and occipital
lobes, the temporal and parietal lobes of the brain—begin to function
holistically, in concert, in a highly integrated way. And research shows
that EEG coherence is directly correlated with increased intelligence
(IQ ), creativity, learning ability, short-term and long-term memory,
academic performance, moral reasoning, psychological stability, emotional maturity, alertness, and reaction time. Therefore, this experience
constitutes an educational breakthrough of the foremost magnitude.
16
Consciousness-Based education unifies these most advanced scientific discoveries in physics, physiology, and neuroscience with the most
ancient knowledge and experience of the unity of life from the Vedic
Science of consciousness. This extraordinary educational innovation,
with its proven technologies of consciousness, promotes full development of the human brain and leads to dramatic, measurable improvements in individual life. Over 600 scientific studies, conducted at 250
universities and research institutes in more than 30 countries during
the last four decades, have confirmed that the practice of Transcendental Meditation improves intelligence (IQ ), creativity, cognitive skills,
moral reasoning, and academic achievement, as noted above; decreases
stress, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and stress-related disorders;
and optimizes health. When incorporated into schools, the Transcendent Meditation program has a dramatic impact on student well-being
and learning, resulting in improved academic performance; reduced
absenteeism, suspensions, and school violence; and increased graduation rates. In addition, the educational technologies of ConsciousnessBased education, when fully and properly applied in groups, have been
scientifically shown to create measurable changes in the social trends of
entire countries by enlivening field effects of consciousness, leading to
reduced crime, violence, and terrorism and to national peace, security,
and invincibility.
The present volume of Consciousness-Based Education and Physics explores these relationships between consciousness and physics in
depth and from many different angles. Part I sets forth the fundamental connections between physics and consciousness, providing details
in particular of the self-interacting structure of the unified field as the
unifying basis of both mind and matter. From this foundation, Part II
elaborates on correspondences between modern science and Vedic Science in their respective descriptions of the universe. Part III explores
how the human mind and brain may access deeper levels of nature’s
functioning as understood by physics, in particular through the practice of the advanced technologies of consciousness provided by Maharishi Vedic Science.
17
Part I: Foundations of Physics and Consciousness
My article “Is Consciousness the Unified Field?” opens Part I of this
volume with an in-depth review of advances in physics during the last
50 years, focusing on the progressive unification of force and matter
fields and the discovery of the unified field as the unified source of all
the diverse streams of natural law governing the universe. The article
also provides a detailed description of the parallels between the unified
field, as described by modern physics, and the nature of consciousness
as described by Maharishi Vedic Science, including the quantitative
and qualitative correspondences between these two descriptions of
the universe. The article also gives a summary of scientific research
on applications of unified field-based technologies of consciousness to
reduce crime, violence, and other seemingly intractable social problems
in order to create lasting peace in society.
The next two articles explore inconsistencies inherent in orthodox
interpretations of quantum theory to show why a more comprehensive
understanding of the universe may be required. In “Quantum Measurement and the Program for the Unity of Science,” David Scharf
examines the conundrum that the contemporary reductivist view of
physics—the idea that all forms and phenomena can ultimately be
described in terms of microphysics—cannot account for the role of
measurement in microphysical terms. Since measurement implies a
measuring apparatus, how can that compound structure be a fundamental component of a microphysical description? Similarly, in “Consciousness: From Reductive Physicalism to Ultimate Holism,” Robert
Boyer points out that the matter-mind-consciousness paradigm of the
current model of cosmogenesis according to reductivist physics—which
holds that the parts create the whole—fails to explain how higher-order
mind gains control over the parts from which it is created. He proposes
instead a consciousness-mind-matter paradigm, based on advances in
quantum field theories, in which the universe condenses within the real,
nonlocal, nonphysical wholeness of the underlying Unified Field—a
paradigm that parallels the worldview of Vedic Science by giving primacy to consciousness.
18
Part II: Physics in the Light of Maharishi Vedic Science
Part II of this volume explores the resonances between modern science
and Vedic Science in greater depth. My article “Restructuring Physics
from its Foundation in Light of Maharishi Vedic Science” argues for a
renaming of the fundamental particles and forces of physics from the
more holistic perspective of unified field theory as illuminated by Vedic
Science, given that the current physics nomenclature is often arbitrary
and reflects earlier, outmoded understandings of the universe. Robert
Boyer and Park Hensley, in “Toward an Integrated View of Particles
and Forces,” compare descriptions of cosmogenesis from underlying
fields as described by modern physics and by the Sankhya tradition
of Vedic knowledge, thereby revealing the remarkable complementarity of these two frameworks. Robert Klauber then explores symmetry
in physics, the principle through which wholeness remains unchanged
while its component parts change, as the fundamental reality of the
unified field—and symmetry breaking as the spontaneous process
through which the different levels of nature’s functioning sequentially
emerge from the unified field. His two papers, “Symmetry Simplified:
The Modern Science–Vedic Science Connection” and “Pragya-Aparadh
and Broken Symmetry: A Simplified View,” compare these principles
from physics with Vedic Science descriptions of direct experience of the
unified field through advanced technologies of consciousness, showing
how the absence of that unified experience gives rise to fragmented
perceptual and conceptual experience in the ordinary waking state of
human consciousness. Finally, Richard Wolfson provides an in-depth
comparison of the fundamental levels and organizational structures of
nature described in Maharishi Vedic Science with the fundamental
levels and theoretical structures of nature described in physics. In his
paper “Physics Organized According to the Eight Prakriti Elements
and to the Ten Mandalas of Rig Veda,” he shows that the holistic
description given by Maharishi Vedic Science, when integrated with
modern theories of physics, offers a more comprehensive framework
for understanding the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe.
Part III: Quantum Mind: An Exploration
With this deeper understanding of both modern physics and Vedic Science, we move in Part III to a consideration of “quantum mind”—that
19
is, nonlocal mind operating at deeper quantum-mechanical levels of
nature from where field effects of consciousness can begin to operate
and create effects in the physical universe. In “Modern Physics and
Subtle Realms: Not Mutually Exclusive,” Robert Klauber expands on
the quantum-mechanical principle that many particles can occupy the
same space simultaneously, showing how quantum field theories of
force field/particle coupling do not disallow the possibility of limitless other realms of unseen matter coexisting with the physical realms
available to our senses. I expand on this idea in two short descriptions
of hidden sector matter as a natural mechanism for macroscopic quantum coherent phenomena in biological systems. I suggest that there
may be a weak electromagnetic coupling between hidden sector matter and observable matter, leading to potentially high concentrations of
hidden sector matter in cellular structures and to a practical neurological foundation for the measurable field effects of consciousness. These
hypotheses, outlined in the abstract “Realistic Superstring Mechanisms
for Quantum Neuronal Behavior,” are given full reign in a follow-up
interview for the feature film What the Bleep Do We Know?! Next, in his
article “Making Room for Mental Space,” Robert Boyer explores the
nature of space and time as understood across all levels of physics—the
classical Newtonian paradigm, Einstein’s general relativity, quantum
theory, quantum gravity theory, and unified field theory—in order to
find a place for the causally efficacious conscious mind. He concludes
that an expanded level of existence beyond space and time, such as that
suggested by Vedic Science, may be required for this purpose. Finally,
Russell Hebert et al. provide new research suggesting a possible neurological foundation for such nonlocal experiences of mind and consciousness. In their paper “Enhanced EEG Alpha Time-Domain Phase
Synchrony during Transcendental Meditation: Implications for Cortical Integration Theory,” they suggest that the alpha phase synchrony
observed during meditation may alter the signal-to-noise ratio of alpha
and gamma oscillations, decreasing gamma firing along with “content”
of consciousness and allowing the formation of fixed-end standing
alpha waves in the brain that create a stationary environment favorable
for the formation of information fields and nonlocal binding processes.
On this basis the authors propose a phase-synchrony model of cortical
integration that has significant implications both for mind-body health
20
and performance and for a deeper understanding of meditative experiences of the total unification and integration of consciousness.
Implications and Future Directions
As all these papers clearly reveal, the consciousness—physics relationship has profound implications both for our understanding of the universe and for human development. When physics is explored in the light
of Maharishi Vedic Science, these two powerful and highly successful
frameworks of knowledge—one modern and objective, one ancient
and subjective—illuminate each other in significant ways, revealing
qualitative and quantitative correspondences as well as the fundamental unity at the basis of each. These correspondences have already led
to profound insights, important discoveries, and practical applications,
and many more will follow in the years ahead.
Perhaps the most important discovery arising from the physics-consciousness connection is that powerful field effects of consciousness,
generated by large groups of people directly experiencing the unified
field through advanced technologies of consciousness, can create a
measurable positive impact on national and even global trends. More
than 50 studies show that such peace-creating groups can neutralize
acute ethnic, political, and religious tensions within given populations
and thereby create measurable reductions in crime, violence, terrorism,
and even open warfare. The extensive research confirming these effects
is reviewed at length in the World Peace volume of this ConsciousnessBased Education series.
I would like to close this introduction by considering how and why a
consciousness-based approach to peace and national defense could create these remarkable outcomes.
As physics has uncovered more fundamental levels of nature’s functioning, each level has always given rise to technological applications
more powerful than existing technologies: nuclear weaponry, for example, is vastly more powerful than chemical weaponry. But physics also
explains why nuclear weapons are more powerful. The quantum principle, or uncertainty principle, states that dynamism increases at more
fundamental scales: more precisely, the energy associated with a physical process is inversely proportional to the distance scale or time scale
associated with that process. Therefore, nuclear power, associated with
21
transitions at the nuclear scale, is a million times more powerful than
chemical technologies based on molecular transformations, because the
atomic nucleus is a million times smaller and more powerful than the
molecular level.
Any apparently impregnable structure at one level of technology
can always be overpowered by a more fundamental level of technology.
Diamonds, indestructible at the chemical level, can be shattered by the
decay of their carbon atoms; the iron nucleus, the mostly tightly bound
of all nuclei, can be shattered by the action of grand unified forces. The
ultimate application of this basic principle takes place at the level of
the unified field, at the superunified scale—the Planck scale of nature’s
functioning, which is a million million million times smaller and more
powerful than the nuclear scale. At this deepest level, nature’s functioning is completely invincible.
A technology based upon the unified field, the complete, most comprehensive level of nature’s functioning, will therefore be vastly more
powerful than any previous technology. Yet it will also be completely
different from all previous technologies based upon diversified levels
of natural law—nuclear technologies, chemical technologies, biological technologies, electronic technologies—because these all utilize
specific laws of nature in isolation. Not being holistic, they all have
been accompanied by unforeseen negative side effects, such as the toxicants of nuclear power. But because the unified field is the source of all
streams of natural law, it is completely holistic. And therefore unified
field-based technologies of consciousness represent the most powerful, safe, holistic means of defense for any nation because they utilize
the deepest, most potent level of nature’s functioning to produce completely holistic and life-nourishing effects. Extensive research on the
group application of unified field-based technologies of consciousness
confirms these outcomes, and we have therefore named this approach
the Invincible Defense Technology to indicate its unique power and
effectiveness. This approach is now being implemented in countries
around the world, with positive, measurable transformations of social
trends observed wherever it has been applied.
Thus the profound insights and discoveries resulting from the present
exploration of physics and consciousness have given rise to a completely
unexpected but exhilarating outcome: the possibility, through wide-
22
spread application of unified field-based technologies of consciousness,
of eliminating crime, violence, and war from our world and creating
lasting peace on earth. I look forward to expanding this research and
reporting the results to you in the years ahead.
John S. Hagelin, Ph.D.
Contributing Editor
23
ta ble of contents
Series Introduction......................................................................3
Volume Introduction................................................................. 15
Part I: Foundations of Physics and Consciousness
Is Consciousness the Unified Field? A Field Theorist’s
Perspective................................................................................. 29
John Hagelin, Ph.D.
Quantum Measurement and the Program for the
Unity of Science...................................................................... 123
David C. Scharf, Ph.D.
Consciousness: From Reductive Physicalism to
Ultimate Holism...................................................................... 153
Robert W. Boyer, Ph.D.
Part II: Physics in the Light of Maharishi Vedic Science
Restructuring Physics from its Foundation in Light
of Maharishi Vedic Science..................................................... 175
John Hagelin, Ph.D.
Toward an Integrated View of Particles and Forces................. 275
Robert W. Boyer Ph.D. and Park Hensley, Ph.D.
Symmetry Simplified: The Physics–Vedic Science
Connection.............................................................................. 299
Robert D. Klauber, Ph.D.
24
Pragya-aparadh and Broken Symmetry: A Simplified
View........................................................................................ 307
Physics Organized According to the Eight Prakriti Elements
and to the Ten Mandalas of Rig Veda..................................... 317
Richard Wolfson, Ph.D.
Part III: Quantum Mind: An Exploration
Modern Physics and Subtle Realms: Not Mutually
Exclusive.................................................................................. 347
Realistic Superstring Models for Quantum
Neuronal Behavior (abstract)................................................... 355
John Hagelin, Ph.D.
Hidden Sector Matter: An Interview with Dr. John Hagelin
Cate Montana.......................................................................... 359
Making Room for Mental Space............................................. 369
Enhanced EEG Alpha Time-domain Phase Synchrony
During Transcendental Meditation: Implications
for Cortical Integration Theory............................................... 415
Russell Hebert, Ph.D., Dietrich Lehmann, Ph.D.,
Gabriel Tan, Ph.D., Frederick Travis, Ph.D.,
and Alarik Arenander, Ph.D.
25
26
f ou n dat ions of ph y sics a n d cons ciousn es s
Part I
B
Foundations of Physics
and Consciousness
27
28
is consciousness the u nif ield f ield?
Is Consciousness the Unified Field?
A Field Theorist’s Perspective
◼
29
about the author
John Hagelin received his Ph.D. in physics from Harvard University
in 1981 and is currently Professor of Physics, Director of the Institute
of Science, Technology and Public Policy, and honorary chair of the
Board of Trustees at Maharishi University of Management. He is a
world-renowned quantum physicist, educator, author, and public policy
expert.
Dr. Hagelin has conducted pioneering research at CERN (the
European Center for Particle Physics) and SLAC (the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center) and is responsible for the development of a highly
successful grand unified field theory based on the superstring. Author
of more than 70 papers published in journals such as Physics Letters,
Nuclear Physics, and The Physical Review, his scientific contributions in
the fields of electroweak unification, grand unification, supersymmetry and cosmology include some of the most cited references in the
physical sciences. In addition, Dr. Hagelin has spent much of the past
quarter century leading a scientific investigation into the foundations
of human consciousness. In his book, Manual for a Perfect Government,
Dr. Hagelin shows how, through educational programs that develop
human consciousness, and through policies and programs that effectively harness the laws of nature, it is possible to solve acute social problems and enhance governmental effectiveness.
In recognition of his achievements, Dr. Hagelin was named winner
of the prestigious Kilby Award, which recognizes scientists who have
made “major contributions to society through their applied research in
the fields of science and technology.” The award recognized Dr. Hagelin
as “a scientist in the tradition of Einstein, Jeans, Bohr and Eddington.”
30
abstr act
Progress in theoretical physics during the past decade has led to a progressively more unified understanding of the laws of nature, culminating in the
recent discovery of completely unified field theories. The parallel discovery of
a unified field of consciousness raises fundamental questions concerning the
relationship between the two. Following a general introduction to unified
quantum field theories, we consider the proposal due to Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi that the unified field of modern theoretical physics and the field of “pure
consciousness” are identical. We show that the proposed identity between consciousness and the unified field is consistent with all known physical principles, but requires an expanded physical framework for the understanding
of consciousness. Such a framework may indeed be required to account for
experimentally observed field effects of consciousness and phenomenological
aspects of higher states of consciousness.
Foreword
This article is divided into two parts. Part I is a general introduction to unified quantum field theories, which provides a conceptual foundation for the
analysis in Part II. Although written for the nonspecialist, it is our hope that
this presentation of fundamental principles will be of sufficient depth and
clarity to be of interest to the specialist as well. The specialist may, however,
if he chooses, proceed directly to Part II, as both Part I and Part II are intended to be self-contained.
Part I:
An Introduction to Unified Quantum Field Theories
t was Einstein’s deep conviction that the laws of nature had a simple, geometric, unified foundation and that this unification could be
understood by the human intellect. In an attempt to construct such
a unified theory, he devoted the later part of his life to extending his
geometric theory of gravity, known as general relativity, to include the
electromagnetic force. Unfortunately, the theoretical tools and understanding needed to achieve such a unification were not yet available,
and his quest for a unified field theory remained largely unfulfilled.
Within the past decade, there have been a number of significant
breakthroughs that have led to a revitalization of progress and hope in
I
31
this fundamental research area. One of these is the principle of spontaneously broken symmetry, which locates deeply hidden symmetries of
nature at fundamental spacetime scales and explains the emergence of
diverse forces from an initially unified field. A second breakthrough has
been the discovery of a profound symmetry principle called supersymmetry, which is capable of unifying force fields and matter fields in the
context of a single field. A third is the discovery of superstring theories.
Here we present an introduction to the conceptual foundations of
unified field theories. This analysis includes a discussion of quantum
field theory, spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism, electroweak unification and grand unification, supersymmetry,
supergravity and superstring theories. In our presentation, we have
strived to maintain some of the quantum-mechanical and field theoretic aspects of these subjects that are usually omitted in an introductory
treatment. We also provide an up-to-date appraisal of the experimental
and theoretical status of these theories.
1.1 Quantum Field Theory
The quantized theory of fields, in both its particle and string formulations, is the most sophisticated and successful framework to emerge
within the field of physics. It provides a natural extension of quantum
mechanics from the nonrelativistic domain of atomic and molecular
systems to the relativistic domain of nuclear and elementary particle
physics.
Quantum field theory is fundamentally a theory of fields, which
formally stands in relation to classical field theory as nonrelativistic
quantum mechanics stands in relation to the classical mechanics of
a point particle. The application of quantum mechanics to fields has
immediate and profound consequences. One such consequence is that
the energy levels of the field become discrete or “quantized.” Unlike a
classical field, whose propagating waves can have any amplitude and
can thereby possess arbitrary energy, the stable propagating states of a
quantum field are constrained to have discrete energies.
This discreteness in the energy levels of a quantum field provides a
natural framework for the understanding of elementary particles: under
certain conditions, this discreteness can give rise to a granular or particulate appearance to nature, which we then interpret as composed of
32
elementary particles. For example, particles of light or “photons” are
simply propagating waves of the quantized electromagnetic field, the
discreteness of whose energy levels gives the appearance of a discrete
number of particles. In a similar way, all the elementary particles in
nature represent discrete states of excitation of their respective underlying quantum fields.
The energy levels of a quantum field are illustrated in Figure 1. The
least excited state of a field or ground state corresponds to the state of no
particles, and is therefore also called the vacuum state. The first excited
state of a field corresponds to the presence of a single particle with
energy E ≅ Mc2. The second excited state corresponds to the presence
of two particles, with total energy E ≅ 2Mc2, etc.1
In addition to these stable particle states, a quantum field can
sustain other forms of activity (Figure 1, dashes). These other configurations are unstable; they do not propagate and do not possess
well-defined energy, and therefore do not have a natural interpretation
in terms of particles.2 These transient modes of activity of a quantum
field play the role of forces between particles.
This dual characteristic of a quantum field as “particle” and “force”
is illustrated in Figures 2a and 2b, which display the Feynman diagrams
responsible for the scattering of electrons and photons, respectively. A
Feynman diagram is a graphical representation of the time evolution
of all the quantum fields involved in any basic scattering process. For
a given process there may be many contributing diagrams. Figure 2a
represents the simplest and most important contribution to electron
scattering. It shows two incoming electron lines exchanging energy
and momentum through the exchange of a photon, followed by two
outgoing lines. These incoming and outgoing lines are called external
lines, and represent physical particle states of the electron field. The
internal photon line does not correspond to a stable particle state of the
electromagnetic field, even though it is often called a virtual photon. It
1 Actually, a system of N particles does not have a precisely discrete spectrum of energies, since
the particles can possess kinetic energy of motion in addition to mass-energy. The energy levels
are truly discrete for states corresponding to nonrelativistic particles or to particles all traveling with the same momentum. A proper relativistic statement of the principle is that the stable
“particle” states of a field obey a mass-shell condition which says that the energy and momentum
for each particle with mass M are related by the relativistic formula E = sqr(p2 + M 2).
2 These virtual configurations formally correspond to a superposition or quantum-mechanical
coexistence of particle states.
33
represents a nonpropagating, transient state of the electromagnetic field
which transfers energy and momentum from one electron line to the
other. It has no natural interpretation in terms of particles, but plays
the role of a force between particles. Thus we observe in Figure 2a that
the electromagnetic field plays the role of a force while the electron field
assumes a particle role.
Figure 1. The modes of activity of a quantum field include 1) the stable,
propagating states of the field with well-defined, discrete energies, which
have a natural interpretation as elementary particles; 2) transient field
configurations which do not propagate and play the role of forces between
particles (dashed line); and 3) vacuum fluctuations—the continuous, quantum-mechanical activity of the field present in the vacuum state and in all
the excited states.
Now let us consider an analogous process where the respective roles
of the electromagnetic and electron fields are reversed. The dominant contribution to the scattering of photons is shown in Figure 2b,
in which two photons scatter through the intermediate agency of the
electron field. In this example, the electromagnetic field plays the role
of incoming and outgoing particles while the electron field transfers
34
energy and momentum between photons and thereby acts as a force.
One can therefore conclude that any quantum field can assume the
role either of particle or of force, depending on whether that quantum
field is in a physical particle state or in a “virtual” state. The historical
distinction between the fundamental force fields such as the photon field
and matter fields such as the electron field is nevertheless useful, and we
will return to it shortly.
The scattering of light by light (Figure 2b) is an interesting process
because there is no analogous effect in classical electromagnetic theory.
Because the classical equations governing the electromagnetic field
(i.e., Maxwell’s equations) are linear in the field strength, light does
not interact with itself and the scattering of two electromagnetic waves
does not occur in vacuo. The scattering of light by light is therefore a
uniquely quantum-mechanical effect and is consequently miniscule at
ordinary energies and distances.
The fact that electron scattering corresponds to a familiar classical process whereas the scattering of light does not is explained by the
fact that the Feynman diagrams in Figures 2a and 2b belong to different classes. Figure 2a is called a “tree” diagram. Tree diagrams are
diagrams without closed loops and correspond to processes associated
with classical field behavior. Figure 2b is representative of a “loop” diagram. Each loop in a Feynman diagram is accompanied by one power
of Planck’s constant (ћ); hence Figure 2b represents a process that is
proportional to ћ . Loop diagrams thus pertain to processes that are
inherently quantum-mechanical. They often result in nonlinear effects
that are not present at the classical level, such as the scattering of light
by light.
Besides the discreteness of the energy levels of a quantum field, there
is a second consequence of the application of quantum mechanics to
fields, which follows from the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty
principle states that one cannot simultaneously specify the value of two
or more properties of a system if the quantum-mechanical operators
corresponding to those properties do not commute with each other—
i.e., if they are quantum mechanically “incompatible.” For example,
nonrelativistic quantum theory treats the state of a particle as a wave
function which evolves according to the Schrodinger wave equation.
Because the particle is represented by a wave, it is impossible to pre-
35
cisely define the position of the particle (unless the wave function were
infinitely peaked about some value of x) or the momentum of the particle (unless the wave function were a pure, oscillatory complex exponential). Certainly the conditions on the wave function that would allow
a precise specification of position (i.e., infinitely peaked) and a precise
specification of momentum (i.e., infinitely spread out) are incompatible.
This leads to a reciprocal relation between the uncertainty (∆x) in the
particle’s position and the uncertainty (∆p) in its momentum known
as the uncertainty principle: (∆x)(∆p) ≥ ћ/2. This does not necessarily imply that quantum-mechanical knowledge is incomplete. It simply
means that the set of observables (e.g., position and momentum) that
are familiar and useful at the macroscopic level of classical mechanics
provides an inappropriate basis for the description of reality at microscopic scales.
Figure 2. The dominant Feynman contributions to electron scattering and
photon scattering. Figure 2a shows the scattering of two electrons through
the exchange of a virtual photon. Figure 2b shows the scattering of two photons through a virtual electron-positron loop.
The application of this same uncertainty principle to fields in the
context of quantum field theory has an analogous effect. Classically,
the amplitude or strength of a field at any point in space and the rate
of change of the amplitude can both be simultaneously specified. In
36
quantum field theory, these two quantities are incompatible—i.e., they
do not commute, just as the position and momentum of a particle are
incompatible in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The result is very
similar to what occurs in the nonrelativistic theory. In nonrelativistic
quantum mechanics, the point particle assumes a description in terms
of a wave function, which expresses the indefiniteness of the particle’s
position and momentum. In quantum field theory, at every point in
space the amplitude of the field is described by a “wave function” that
expresses the indefiniteness of the field and rate of change of the field at
that particular point. This result can be expressed in a more global but
equivalent way: whereas the amplitude of a classical field has a definite
shape described by a definite function of space and time, a quantum
field can be seen as coexisting in all possible shapes at once—i.e., in a
superposition of field shapes.
It is instructive to consider the vacuum state of a quantum field from
this perspective. Classical expectations would lead us to expect that the
least excited state of a field would be a state in which the field amplitude
is zero everywhere. However, such a state would be highly unnatural
from the standpoint of the uncertainty principle, according to which
a definite field shape (flat, or otherwise) necessarily implies that the
rate of change of the field is completely unspecifiable, corresponding
to a state of infinite energy density. This situation is directly analogous to the nonrelativistic quantum theory of a point particle, in which
the localization of the particle to a definite position in space requires
a sharply peaked wave function which, according to the uncertainty
principle, implies an infinite spread in momentum and therefore an
infinite spread in energy. Hence, a quantum field that is everywhere
flat would constitute a poor candidate for the lowest energy state of the
field. The vacuum state of a quantum field must therefore correspond to
a coexistence of field shapes (see Figure 1).
Another constraint that must be satisfied in constructing the vacuum state of a quantum field is Poincare invariance. Since the vacuum
state corresponds to the absence of all physical particles and forces, it
actually corresponds to the dynamics of empty space. It must therefore possess all the symmetries of space, which include invariance with
respect to translations, rotations, and “boosts” (changes in the velocity
of an observer’s frame of reference). An arbitrary superposition of field
37
shapes would not be invariant with respect to translations, rotations
and boosts, but would in general have a “lumpy” structure. The vacuum state must therefore correspond to a very definite balance of field
shapes which is stable in time, uniform in space, etc. — i.e., Poincare
invariant. This state is not the state of complete inertia associated with
the classical vacuum. The true, quantum vacuum possesses an intrinsic
dynamism which is increasingly evident at more fundamental scales. A
high resolution “picture” or measurement of a quantum field in vacuo
would reveal highly energetic field shapes, as shown in Figure 1.3
These energetic field shapes, which are present in the vacuum state as
well as in all the excited states of the field, are known as vacuum fluctuations. They formally give rise to a large vacuum energy, which for convenience is usually subtracted out of the theory. However, it should not
be felt that these quantum-mechanical fluctuations are consequently
less real, for they have important physical ramifications, which include
the spontaneous de-excitation of atoms and the Lamb shift. In addition, the energy associated with these vacuum fluctuations is expected
to have additional consequences in any theory which includes gravity.
In particular, it can lead to a potentially large gravitational self-attrac3 One can expand the vacuum state of a quantum field in a basis of classical shape states in the
following way. Consider a free, hermitian scalar field φ>( -x,t). One can define eigenstates of the
field operator with the property that
φ(x,t 0 ) f ,t 0 = f (x ) f ,t 0
where the eigenstates |f,t 0> correspond to definite shapes f( -x ) of the Heisenberg field φ( -x,t) at
some fixed time t=t 0. Since these classical shape states form a complete (continuum normalized)
basis, one can expand the vacuum state |0> as a superposition of these states:
0 =
∫ [ df ]Ω[ f ]
f ,t 0
By requiring that all particle lowering operators a( -x ) annihilate the vacuum, it is easy to show
that the vacuum wave functional Ω [f] is given by
Ω[ f ] = e
−
1
4π
∫ dx dy dkf ( x ) f ( y ) e
ik •( x − y ) k 2 +m 2
Because this vacuum wave functional Ω[f] is nonvanishing for all f( -x ), one observes that the
quantum vacuum actually corresponds to a superposition of all classical field shapes.
In a similar way, the physical particle states of a field, like the vacuum state, do not correspond
to definite field shapes but to quantum-mechanical superpositions of shapes. However, for these
excited states the associated wave functional is no longer Poincare invariant.
38
tion of space that is experimentally not seen. In fact, the astrophysical
bounds on this gravitational self-attraction are approximately one hundred orders-of-magnitude smaller than the vacuum energy one would
expect from a naive calculation. This enormous discrepancy remains
a persistent puzzle that has not been satisfactorily resolved, although
several clues have recently appeared in the context of supergravity and
superstring theories.
We have thus identified three distinct modes of activity of a quantum field:
l) the stable “particle” states of a field, which possess well-defined,
discrete energies and lend themselves naturally to an interpretation
in terms of particles;
2) transient field configurations that do not propagate and do not
have well defined energy, which appear as internal lines in Feynman diagrams and play the role of forces between particles; and
3) vacuum fluctuations—the continuous, purely quantum-mechanical activity of a quantum field present in the vacuum state as well
as in all the excited states.
Quantum field theory thereby presents a rather simple and profound
view of nature in which the previously unrelated concepts of particle
and force are naturally unified within a single theoretical construct:
“particle” and “force” simply correspond to different modes of activity
of an underlying quantum field.
Over the past fifty years, quantum field theory has enjoyed profound
success as a theory of the electromagnetic interactions. Within the last
decade, it has seen renewed success as a fundamental theory of the
strong interactions and weak interactions as well. There is at present no
experimental evidence to indicate that quantum field theory is in any
sense incomplete. There are, however, recent theoretical arguments that
this quantum field theoretic framework of elementary particles may
need to be expanded into a quantum field theory of elementary strings.
This will be the topic of a later section.
39
1.2 Electroweak Unification and Broken Symmetry
In recent years, the primary challenge in theoretical physics has been to
further simplify our understanding of nature by reducing the number
of fundamental fields needed to account for the very rich and diverse
particle phenomenology observed in accelerators during the past few
decades. This search for simplicity led to the introduction of the quark
model by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig, which
replaced a large number of strongly interacting particles or “hadrons”
by a few fundamental subconstituents called quarks. The quark model
in turn led to the modern theory of the strong interactions, known as
quantum chromodynamics, in which the strongly interacting hadrons
are described as bound states of quarks held together by gluons. These
quarks and gluons are believed to be inextricably confined within the
interior of hadrons by a dynamical mechanism known as “quark confinement.” As a consequence, quarks and gluons can never exist as free
particles, implying that their associated quantum fields are dynamically
prevented from assuming free particle states, further illustrating the
inadequacy of the particle concept for physics at fundamental scales.
Much of the recent progress towards a unification of the fundamental particles and forces has been based on the principle of spontaneously
broken symmetry, which locates deeply hidden symmetries of nature at
fundamental spacetime scales. The application of this profound, unifying principle has resulted in the successful unification of the weak and
electromagnetic forces by physicists Glashow, Salam and Weinberg. In
addition to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces, this
unified electroweak theory unites various matter fields into “doublets,”
which include the electron and the neutrino, the up-quark and the
down-quark, etc. (see Table 1).
The electron and the neutrino belong to a class called leptons—matter fields that do not participate in the strong interactions. Apart from
this common feature, the electron and the neutrino appear to have little
in common. The neutrino is a massless particle and is therefore constrained to move at the speed of light. In addition, the neutrino has no
electric charge and as a consequence does not interact electromagnetically. The neutrino interacts with other matter only through the weak
force, which is extremely feeble in comparison with the electromag-
40
netic force. As a consequence, a neutrino can pass directly through the
sun or the earth with very little chance of scattering.
In contrast to the neutrino, the electron has a mass and is therefore
forbidden to move with the speed of light. Due to the electron’s charge,
it interacts very readily with matter via the electromagnetic force. This
interaction is responsible for upholding atomic and molecular structure,
for chemical interactions, and thus for the majority of macroscopic,
observable behavior.
It may seem peculiar, given these distinctions, that the electron and
the neutrino are believed to be fundamentally indistinguishable—unified components of a single field known as a left-handed lepton doublet.4 The apparent difference between these two fields is in a sense
superficial—the result of spontaneous symmetry breaking.
One way in which to understand the fundamental indistinguishability of these apparently diverse fields is to compare the scattering of
electrons (Figure 2a) to the scattering of neutrinos (Figure 3). Because
the neutrino has no electric charge, neutrino scattering cannot occur
through the agency of the electromagnetic field. It occurs by virtue of
the neutral Z° boson, one of the force fields responsible for the weak
interaction (see Table 1). In comparison with electron scattering via the
electromagnetic field (Figure 2a), the scattering of neutrinos through
the weak interaction (Figure 3) is observed to be very much weaker. It
is easy to see why this is so.
The Z° boson has a mass order of 90 GeV/c2, where 1 GeV/c2 is
comparable to the mass of the proton. This means it requires 90 GeV
worth of energy to “create” a Z° boson—i.e., to excite the Z° field from
its ground state to its first excited state (see Figure 1). At ordinary scales
and temperatures, there is not nearly enough energy available to excite
the Z° field, with the result that Z° bosons are not a familiar part of
our universe.
Despite the absence of Z° particles, neutrino scattering can occur via
Figure 3, albeit at a much suppressed rate. This is possible since the Z°
boson in Figure 3 does not correspond to a physical particle state of the
field, which would require at least 90 GeV of energy to create. It corresponds to a nonpropagating virtual state of the field which transfers
4 It is actually the left-handed component of the electron field which is unified with the neutrino. Any massive fermion, such as the electron, really consists of two separate components or
chiralities, corresponding to a left-handed and a right-handed polarization state.
41
energy and momentum from one incoming neutrino line to the other.
Because this virtual state of the Z° field is nonpropagating, the range of
influence of the weak force is extremely short, which helps to explain
why the weak interaction is so weak at ordinary scales and energies.
Table 1. The fundamental matter fields and force fields of the standard lowenergy theory. The matter fields, which have spin-½, include the electron
e and its associated neutrino νe, the muon µ and its associated neutrino νe ,
the tau τ, and its associated neutrino ντ, and six quark flavors: up u, down
d, charm c, strange s, top t and bottom b. Each quark flavor comes in three
identical replications or “colors”: red r, green g and blue b. The spin-1 force
fields include the photon γ responsible for the electromagnetic force, three
weak bosons W±, Z° responsible for the weak force, and eight gluons g
responsible for the strong force. The spin-2 graviton G is responsible for the
force of gravity.
42
However, the strengths of neutrino scattering (Figure 3) and electron scattering (Figure 2a) become comparable at high energies, where
the energy barrier associated with the Z° mass is increasingly negligible.5 When the energy of the incoming particles is very large compared to the Z° mass, the two scattering strengths become identical.
This example demonstrates how the electron and the neutrino take on
identical physical characteristics at extremely high energies, which is
an indication of their fundamental indistinguishability. It also suggests
that if the Z° were massless and therefore actively participated in physics at ordinary scales, the electron and the neutrino would possess identical physical properties and behavior: the fundamental equivalence of
the electron and the neutrino would be restored. It is therefore the mass
of the Z° boson which makes the weak interactions weak, and thereby
leads to the apparent asymmetry between the electron and the neutrino. If the Z° were massless like the photon, the electron and the neutrino would behave as indistinguishable components of a unified field
called the left-handed lepton doublet.
The concept of a unified field is a profound one and deserves further reflection. Consider the example of a one-dimensional field theory,
e.g., a vibrating guitar string. There are two independent but physically
equivalent ways in which a guitar string can be excited. If the guitar is
held vertically, it can vibrate in the left-right direction or the forwardbackward direction. Both directions elicit the same tone and hence no
musician invests a great deal of effort exciting one mode as opposed to
the other. And though the string possesses two independent degrees of
freedom, it would seem unnecessarily cumbersome to speak of two different strings. In precisely the same way, the electron and the neutrino,
if the electroweak symmetry were an unbroken symmetry, would constitute two independent but physically equivalent degrees of freedom of a
single unified field.
In this way, the unified electroweak theory of Glashow, Salam and
Weinberg provides a unification of the electron with the neutrino, and
in a precisely analogous way, a unification of the muon and the taon
with their associated neutrinos (see Table 1). It also leads to a unifica5 Here again, the physical equivalence of electron scattering and neutrino scattering pertains to
experiments with left-handed polarized electrons only. This technical distinction is not important to the physical arguments being made.
43
tion of the up-quark with the down-quark, the charm-quark with the
strange-quark, and the top-quark with the bottom-quark.
Figure 3. The dominant Feynman contribution to neutrino scattering
involves the exchange of a massive virtual Z° boson.
However, this unification may seem rather insubstantial, as it occurs
only at asymptotically high energies or in a hypothetical world where
the weak bosons W±, Z° are massless. In point of fact, this hypothetical world of massless weak bosons is not purely imaginary. According
to the standard Big Bang cosmological model and its new inflationary
innovations, the universe began in a primordial state of astronomically
high temperature and density.
In the extremely high temperature environment characteristic of the
first one-billionth of a second in the evolution of the universe, the weak
interaction bosons are believed to have been massless, and the fundamental symmetry between the weak and electromagnetic forces and
between the electron and the neutrino, etc., was exactly restored. The
mechanism responsible for breaking the electroweak symmetry as the
universe cooled and for giving the W± and Z° their mass is called the
Higgs mechanism.
The Higgs mechanism of symmetry breaking requires the introduction of new spinless quantum fields called Higgs fields. We will
illustrate the Higgs mechanism using the simplest example of a single
massless force field (e.g., the electromagnetic field) interacting with two
44
Higgs fields S1 and S2. Classically, the strength or amplitude of the
Higgs fields in their ground state is determined by the minimum of a
potential energy function V(S1, S2) which describes the energy of the
fields S1 and S2 as a function of their amplitudes (Figure 4a, b). We will
assume that the theory has a γ whereby the theory is unchanged when
the fields S1 and S2 are swapped or rotated continuously into each other,
which implies that the fields S1 and S2 enter the potential energy function V in a symmetric way; e.g.,
V(S1, S2)= m 2 (S12+S22) + g (S12+S22)2
Figure 4. The potential energy function V(S1, S2) corresponding to (a) the
case of unbroken symmetry and (b) the case of broken symmetry.
Such a theory is said to possess a one-parameter continuous symmetry,
since the theory is invariant under the replacement of the fields (S1, S2)
by any rotated combination (cosθ S1 - sinθ S2, sinθ S1 + cosθS2) for an
arbitrary angle θ.
The theory behaves differently under the influence of the potential
V(S1, S2) depending on the sign of m 2. (The positivity of g is required
for the stability of the theory.) For small values of S1 and S2, the shape
of the potential V is dominated by this quadratic term proportional
to m 2. If m 2 > 0, as in Figure 4a, the equilibrium value of the fields St
and S2 is located at the origin. This case corresponds to a symmetric
45
theory containing two identical particles with mass m. If m 2 < 0, the
potential assumes the shape of a “Mexican hat” and the origin becomes
unstable (Figure 4b). The fields S, and S2 settle into a new equilibrium
point somewhere along the trough of the hat, where S12 + S22 = |m 2|�2.
This minimum corresponds to a state of broken symmetry, for once the
fields S1 and S2 have assumed a definite nonzero value, the manifest
S1 - S2 rotational symmetry of the theory is lost—the theory has settled into an asymmetric minimum. This can occur despite the fact that
the underlying mathematical structure of the theory, expressed by the
potential V(S1, S2), is symmetric.
Whereas the unbroken theory (Figure 4a) describes two identical
particles with mass m, the broken theory contains one massive and one
massless particle. The massive particle corresponds to radial vibrations
of the fields S1, S2. The massless particle corresponds to vibrations along
the perimeter of the rim itself, where the potential V is flat. The presence of a massless particle is a completely general feature of spontaneous symmetry breaking, and is an illustration of Goldstone’s theorem.
The massless particle which results from spontaneous symmetry breaking is called a Goldstone boson.
In the presence of a force field, the result of spontaneous symmetry
breaking is quite different. If a force field is introduced in such a way
that the underlying mathematical structure of the theory remains symmetric, then in the broken symmetry case (Figure 4b) the force field’s
interaction with the massless Goldstone boson has very special consequences. The massless Goldstone boson responds to the force field in
such a way as to produce a screening or canceling effect on the force.
This situation is analogous to the cancellation of an electromagnetic
field inside a conductor. The free electrons within the conductor automatically respond to any applied electromagnetic field in such a way
that the electric field is canceled by the electrons’ own electromagnetic
influence. In a similar way, the massless Goldstone boson responds to
the force field in such a way that the influence of the force is canceled.
As a consequence, the propagation of the force field is severely attenuated and the influence of the force becomes extremely short ranged.
Thus the combined influence of a massless, long-range force and
the massless Goldstone boson is to produce a short-range force. Since
in quantum field theory, for reasons we have previously discussed, a
46
short-range force is generally associated with a massive field, the result
of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the presence of a massless force
field is effectively to produce a massive force field. This process is known
as the Higgs mechanism. It is often said that the massless force field
“eats” the massless Goldstone boson that results from symmetry breaking and thereby becomes massive (i.e., short ranged).
One can observe from the form of the potential V and from Figures 4a and 4b that whether or not the symmetry is broken and the
force fields acquire a mass depends on the sign of m 2. However, m2
is a temperature-dependent parameter. A finite, nonzero temperature
has the effect of adding a positive constant to m 2, with the result that
m 2 is effectively an increasing function of temperature. Hence, even if
m 2 is negative at low temperatures, corresponding to a state of broken
symmetry, it is possible for m 2 to become positive at high temperatures.
This would result in a restoration of symmetry.
Such is believed to have been the case for the electroweak symmetry
in the very early stages of cosmic evolution. For the first one-billionth
of a second in the evolution of the universe, when the cosmic temperatures were above 1015 K degrees, the universe was in a unified phase,
in which the weak bosons W±, Z° were massless and the electron and
the neutrino were indistinguishable particles. Then as the universe
expanded and cooled, the m 2 term in the potential gradually became
negative, and the universe entered a broken phase in which the W± and
Z° bosons acquired a mass and the electron and neutrino, etc., assumed
very different physical characteristics.
In an approximate sense, physics at high temperatures, physics at
high scattering energies, and physics at fundamental spacetime scales
are all equivalent. Formally, a high temperature field theory is equivalent to a field theory with a periodic boundary condition in the time
coordinate, or to a theory on a tiny time slice. For this reason, one often
speaks of physics at fundamental scales and physics at high temperatures as equivalent. These are somewhat distinct from scattering experiments performed at high energies, where we have seen that nature
appears only approximately symmetric as one goes to asymptotically
high energies. This can be contrasted with the effect of high temperatures, which results in a sudden transition to a completely symmetric
phase of the theory.
47
1.3 Grand Unification
Electroweak unification derives its name from the fact that the weak
fields W±, Z° and the electromagnetic field become members of the same
mathematical symmetry group called SU(2) Χ U(l). The fact that this
symmetry is actually the product of two separate factors shows that the
unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces occurring at this level
is not very complete. A more profound unification of the fundamental
forces and particles occurs in the context of grand unification.
Grand unified theories are theories which unify the strong, weak,
and electromagnetic forces. They also automatically result in a unification of quarks with leptons (see Table 1). The simplest and in many
respects the most compelling model of this type was proposed in 1974
by H. Georgi and S. Glashow. This model is based on a simple mathematical symmetry group called SU(5). In addition to the strong, weak
and electromagnetic forces, these theories predict the existence of new
supermassive forces, which are needed to complete the grand unified
family (Figure 5). These superheavy fields are expected to have masses
of order 1014 - 1015 GeV!
At extremely high temperatures characteristic of the very early universe, or at scattering energies that are large compared to this superheavy mass scale, these supermassive fields structure a unification
between quarks and leptons, just as the weak interaction bosons W± ,Z°
uphold the unification of the electron and neutrino at high energies.
However, with grand unification it is more evident how the principle
of spontaneously broken symmetry constitutes a framework for a profound unification of the fundamental forces. In the Georgi-Glashow
SU(5) theory, the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces, together
with the new superheavy “X” and “Y” bosons (Figure 5), become indistinguishable components of a single grand unified force field with 24
degrees of freedom.
Unlike the weak interaction W± and Z° bosons, the superheavy
bosons associated with grand unification cannot be produced in any
existing or conceivable particle accelerator on account of their superheavy mass. However, as virtual particles in Feynman graphs, these
superheavy fields can give rise to exotic processes with highly distinctive experimental signatures. In particular, because these grand unified forces change quarks into leptons, in most grand unified theories
48
the proton is unstable, with lifetimes ranging from 1026 -1032 years. For
example, the Georgi-Glashow SU(5) model predicts proton decay into
various final states, especially into e+π°, at a rate which depends sensitively on the mass of the superheavy X and Y bosons. Most estimates
place this mass between (1 to 6) Χ 1014 GeV, with a consequent range
for the proton lifetime between 2 Χ 1026 and 1031 years.
Figure 5. In the Georgi-Glashow SU(5) grand unified theory, the strong,
weak, and electromagnetic forces (G, W and B) are unified along with new
superheavy X and Y fields, giving rise to a single 24-component grand unified force field.
In the past several years, there have been a number of major collaborative experimental programs looking for proton decay in deep
underground detectors using pools of water or massive iron detectors as
proton sources. These experiments have not found definitive evidence
for proton decay, resulting in a lower bound on the proton lifetime of
tp > 2 Χ 1032 years.
49
The fact that this bound already conflicts with our previous estimate
in the simplest SU(5) grand unified theory is rather embarrassing from
the standpoint of this model and has prompted many interpretations.
The most optimistic appraisal is that the theoretical uncertainties in the
proton lifetime are too large to say whether or not the simplest grand
unified model is ruled out. The proton lifetime depends very sensitively
on the grand unified mass scale, which is only approximately known,
and there are additional uncertainties associated with the low-energy
strong interaction dynamics of the decay process. Others have interpreted the proton’s longevity as evidence in favor of their own, more
complicated unified models, in which the proton lifetime is often more
difficult to pin down. Unfortunately, the existing bounds on the proton
lifetime make it somewhat unlikely that a detailed analysis and comparison of various proton decay modes required to discriminate among
competing theories will ever be experimentally feasible. It may be that
the competition among the various extant grand unified models will
have to be settled on the basis of more theoretical considerations.
Of the competing theories, there is one class of models which is of
special importance. These are the supersymmetric extensions of grand
unification. Supersymmetry not only provides a new and profound
degree of unification in physics, but also offers a natural framework
for resolving one of the most difficult technical problems with previous
grand unified and electroweak theories— namely, the “naturalness” or
“gauge hierarchy” problem.
1.4 Supersymmetry
Until this point, our discussion has focused on a symmetry principle
capable of uniting fields belonging to the same spin class, e.g., spin-½
electrons with spin-½ neutrinos, the spin-1 photon with the spin-1 W±
and Z° weak interaction bosons, etc. A more profound degree of unification has recently become possible through the discovery of a new
mathematical symmetry principle capable of unifying particles of different spin. This new unifying principle, termed supersymmetry, thereby
provides a possible framework for the unification of all the fundamental
particles and forces.
According to quantum field theory, all quantum fields belong to
one of several fundamental categories distinguished by their quantum-
50
mechanical spins. The most pedagogical approach to understanding
spin is to consider the physical particle states of a quantum field. If
one adopts a very classical and particulate view of such states, then
one can imagine these “particles” as physically spinning and therefore
possessing intrinsic angular momentum. According to quantum field
theory, the magnitude of this angular momentum is quantized, i.e.,
constrained to take discrete values equal to half-integer multiples of
Planck’s constant: 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, etc. in units of ( ћ ). Fields with
spin-1/2, such as the electron and neutrino, are generically called matter
fields. The force fields, which include the photon, the gluons and the
weak interaction bosons, have spin-1. The graviton has spin-2. Among
the spin-0 fields are the Higgs fields responsible for spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Spin is of fundamental importance in quantum field theory, since the
spin determines to a large degree the properties of a field. For example,
the fact that the graviton has spin-2 is enough to derive all the essential
characteristics of gravity.
The fundamental spin types can be further grouped into two hypercategories called bosons and fermions. Bosons include all fields with
integer-valued spins—spin 0, 1, 2, etc. Fermions are fields with halfinteger values—spin-1/2, 3/2, etc. These two categories—bosons and fermions—possess highly contrasting statistical properties.
Bose particles display an enhanced statistical tendency to occupy the
same quantum-mechanical state (i.e., to have the same position, the
same momentum, etc.). This tendency leads to phenomena of collective
coherence among bosons. For instance, laser light derives its remarkable intensity and focus from the fact that photons of light (i.e., bosons)
emitted by atoms in the process of de-excitation tend to be produced in
perfect directional and phase coherence.
In contrast, fermions are actually forbidden from occupying the
same quantum state by a principle known as the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle is responsible for the fact that only a single electron
can occupy any given atomic state. (An atomic state is defined as an
electron orbital possessing definite energy, orbital angular momentum
and spin.) This essential limitation means that the electrons in a complex atom are forced to occupy larger and more complicated orbitals,
whereas if the electrons were bosons, they would all tend to occupy the
51
least excited state or ground state. This fermionic property of electrons
is ultimately responsible for the great diversity of chemical behavior
among the various elements.
Bosons and fermions, with their highly contrasting properties, have
been extremely difficult to reconcile. For example, electroweak and
grand unified theories have only resulted in the unification of spin1/2 matter fields among themselves (including the electron, the neutrino and the quarks) and the unification of spin-1 force fields among
themselves (including the photon, the weak interaction bosons and the
gluons). Since the universe includes a variety of spin types, it is obvious that this type of theory is fundamentally incapable of producing a
completely unified field theory.
Prior to the discovery of supersymmetry, it was not at all clear how
to generalize these theories to include the unification of bosons with
fermions. In fact, it was several years after the introduction of supersymmetry before the scientific community became aware of its potential significance (Ramond, 1971; Neveu and Schwartz, 1971; Wess and
Zumino, 1974).
Supersymmetry, in its simplest form, unifies particles of adjacent
spin types—spin-0 fields with spin-1/2 fields, spin-1/2 fields with spin-1
fields, etc. It thereby links bosons and fermions into a special type of
unified field called a superfield. In this way, simple supersymmetry or
“N = l supersymmetry” provides a new degree of unification which is
in principle capable of unifying force fields (spin-1 bosons) with matter
fields (spin-1/2 fermions).
The most straightforward application of this principle fails in that
none of the observed matter fields of nature constitute suitable “supersymmetric partners” of any of the known forces. The unification of
force fields with matter fields through supersymmetry can apply only to
force fields and matter fields with identical physical characteristics such
as mass, electric charge, color charge, etc. Unfortunately, there are no
such pairs of force fields and matter fields with identical physical characteristics among the known elementary particles and forces.
This would seem to rule out supersymmetry as a possible symmetry
of nature, were it not for the fact that the requirement of equal masses
for the force fields and matter fields can be relaxed if supersymmetry is
spontaneously broken. The breaking of supersymmetry results in a mass
52
splitting between the elementary particles and their supersymmetric
partners, which can account for the fact that no supersymmetric partners of any known particles or forces have yet been observed. In fact,
it is relatively easy to construct spontaneously broken supersymmetric
models in which all the supersymmetric partners are heavy enough to
have escaped detection at present accelerator energies. However, such
models generally do predict the exciting prospect of discovering supersymmetric particles in the near future.
One might feel compelled to ask what justification there could be
to introduce a fundamentally new symmetry principle like supersymmetry for which there are no known examples and for which no experimental evidence exists. The most obvious incentive, which is to unify
the observed force and matter fields, is obstructed by the fact that none
of the observed force fields and matter fields are suitable supersymmetric partners of each other, possessing different charges, etc. As a consequence, the introduction of supersymmetry requires the addition of
new supersymmetric partners for all of the known force fields and matter fields, and is therefore extremely uneconomical. One must therefore
find some other strong theoretical justification for supersymmetry.
One important justification for supersymmetry has to do with the
breaking of the electroweak symmetry, i.e., with the Higgs mechanism
by which the W± and Z° bosons acquire their mass. A necessary feature
of the Higgs mechanism is that the Higgs boson’s mass is of the same
order of magnitude as the scale of electroweak breaking, i.e., the W±
and Z° mass scale, which is O(100) GeV. However, it is difficult to
understand how the Higgs boson could be so light compared to the
grand unified scale, which is O(1015) GeV. The difficulty stems from
the fact that there are quantum-mechanical contributions to the Higgs
boson masses that are themselves of the order of the grand unified scale.
These quantum-mechanical contributions result from Feynman
loop diagrams involving virtual spin-1 forces (Figure 6a). One can
always arrange for a cancellation of these large quantum-mechanical
contributions to the Higgs boson masses by a judicious and careful
adjustment of parameters in the underlying theory, but this requires
an unattractive and artificial fine-tuning of parameters to an accuracy
of one part in 1026! This unmotivated juggling of parameters which
is apparently needed to explain the lightness of the Higgs bosons
53
(and therefore the scale of weak interaction symmetry breaking) in
the presence of large quantum-mechanical contributions is called the
“naturalness” or “gauge hierarchy” problem. The term hierarchy refers to
the widely disparate mass scales associated with electroweak symmetry
breaking and grand unified symmetry breaking: Mw, Mz < < MGUT.
Supersymmetry provides an elegant solution to this problem in
which the large quantum-mechanical contribution to the Higgs mass
disappears. A natural cancellation occurs due to the presence of new,
supersymmetric partners of the spin-1 forces appearing in Figure 6a.
The new spin-1/2 partners, known as gauginos, give rise to extra contributions to the Higgs mass (Figure 6b) which precisely cancel the quantum-mechanical contributions from Figure 6a. The cancellation results
from the fact that the usual spin-1 forces and the spin-1/2 gauginos
have precisely the same couplings and interaction strengths, as required
by supersymmetry. This cancellation also extends to more complicated
Feynman diagrams containing an arbitrary number of loops. Such a
cancellation is, in fact, required among diagrams containing as many
as thirteen loops if the desired technical solution to the gauge hierarchy problem is indeed to be achieved. The fact that supersymmetry
accomplishes this miracle provides a natural solution to a long-standing
technical problem with all previous unified field theories.6
The desired cancellation of quantum-mechanical contributions only
occurs if the new supersymmetric particles have masses that are comparable to the familiar particles and forces: the cancellation is precise if
and only if supersymmetry is unbroken, in which case all the supersymmetric particles have precisely the same mass as their familiar partners.
One can use this argument to conclude that all the new supersymmetric
particles should have masses that are not much heavier than the known
particles and forces; otherwise a sufficiently precise cancellation would
not occur. This raises exciting prospects for the discovery of supersymmetric particles at existing particle accelerators and at those presently
under construction.
There are many experimental searches for supersymmetric particles currently underway. For example, there have been experimental
6 This supersymmetric mechanism does not explain why the Higgs bosons would be so light
to begin with, even in the absence of large quantum-mechanical contributions. This issue is
treated differently in various extant supersymmetric models, and a great deal of success has been
achieved here, too.
54
searches for strongly interacting supersymmetric particles in hadron
colliders, such as the proton-antiproton collider at CERN in Geneva.
So far, these experimental searches have been able to put lower bounds
on the masses of strongly interacting supersymmetric particles, which
include “gluinos” (the spin-1/2 supersymmetric partners of the spin-1
gluons) and “squarks” (the spin-0 supersymmetric partners of the spin1/2 quarks).
Figure 6. Large quantum-mechanical contributions to the Higgs mass due
to Feynman diagrams involving (a) ordinary spin-1 force fields, and (b) their
spin-½ supersymmetric “gaugino” partners. These contributions cancel in
the limit of exact supersymmetry.
It would appear sensible to focus experimental attention on looking
for what should theoretically be the lightest supersymmetric particles,
since they would be expected to show up first in today’s particle accelerators. According to theoretical and experimental constraints (Ellis
et al., 1984), the lightest supersymmetric particle or “LSP” is probably some type of neutral gaugino or Higgsino, which are respectively
the spin-1/2 supersymmetric partners of spin-1 force fields and spin-0
Higgs fields. Of these the photino, which is the supersymmetric partner of the photon, is perhaps the most plausible from the standpoint of
astrophysical and cosmological constraints.
Although the photino formally interacts with electromagnetic
strength, being the supersymmetric partner of the photon, its interaction with ordinary matter is very much suppressed because such interactions necessarily involve the exchange of charged supersymmetric
virtual particles, which are known to be quite heavy. Hence the photino, much like a neutrino, would escape detection in ordinary particle
55
detectors, which makes the photino difficult to see experimentally. It
is nevertheless possible to search for “missing energy” in particle interactions, which can be a signal for a photino escaping the interaction
region. Missing energy and momentum can be a distinctive signature
for photino production and is currently being used to search for photinos in e+e- annihilation experiments and in hadron colliders as well.
In most supersymmetric theories the LSP is absolutely stable
against decay (Fayet, 1980). This fact has profound cosmological
and astrophysical implications. It means, for example, that photinos
might populate the universe today in large numbers and contribute
significantly to the overall mass density of the universe. This follows
from the fact that the photino, along with all other particles, would have
been present in thermal equilibrium in the very early universe, when
according to the Big Bang cosmology, temperatures were extremely
high. Later, as the universe expanded and cooled, the heavier particles
naturally decayed into lighter ones, leaving a universe that is populated
by only the lightest particles. However, the LSP is stable against decay
and can disappear from the universe only by pair annihilation. Since
pair annihilation is rather inefficient, many of the primordial LSPs
should survive today as supersymmetric relics of the Big Bang.
The presence of photinos in the universe today would be rather
inconspicuous since they interact so weakly with ordinary matter.
However, if their numbers are as large as calculations imply, they can
contribute significantly to the overall mass density of the universe. They
can consequently change the geometrical structure of the universe from
an open universe to a closed universe.
An open universe is a universe that continues to expand forever, and
for which the curvature of spacetime is negative (similar to the geometry of a saddle). A closed universe is a universe which stops expanding
after a finite time and begins to recollapse, and where the curvature of
spacetime is positive (similar to the surface of a sphere).
According to the equations of general relativity, whether the universe
is open or closed depends on the average mass density of the universe.
The observed mass density of the universe associated with luminous
objects like stars suggests that our universe is open, since this mass
density is a factor of five or more below the critical density required
for a closed universe. However, this observation is incompatible with
56
the new, inflationary cosmology, which predicts that the universe must
appear to be on the brink of closure whether the universe is fundamentally open or closed (for reviews, see Guth, 1984; Linde, 1984). Inflationary cosmologies therefore require considerably more mass density
than can be ascribed to luminous matter. This additional mass density
must be in the form of “dark matter” whose presence would have thus
far been undetected.
The LSP is a natural candidate for this dark matter. In fact, the
mass density of photinos predicted within the framework of the most
promising supersymmetric theories, i.e., supergravity and superstring
theories, agrees very well with the cosmological mass density needed
to close the universe (Ellis, Hagelin and Nanopoulos, 1985; Campbell
et al., 1986). This contrasts with other, nonsupersymmetric dark matter
candidates, which do not naturally predict the correct amount of dark
matter needed to close the universe, but which are made to fit in an ad
hoc way.
Supersymmetric dark matter has an added advantage of belonging
to a category known as “cold” dark matter. Cold dark matter consists
of relatively massive particles, which would have been nonrelativistic
at the time when galaxy formation occurred. Cold dark matter has a
tendency to coalesce gravitationally into clumps of all sizes and mass
scales. This leads to the prediction that cold dark matter would be concentrated in galaxies, galactic clusters, stellar clusters, etc. and would
actually have participated in the formation of these objects (for a review,
see Primack, 1984).
The fact that supersymmetric dark matter would cluster in galaxies,
etc. leads to a possible solution to a second dark matter puzzle related
to the dynamics of these gravitationally bound systems. For example,
the rotational velocities of stars within galaxies suggests that the true
mass of a galaxy is much larger than that which can be ascribed to its
visible components. Indeed, the rotational dynamics of galaxies suggests that as much as 90% of their mass is dark matter, which surrounds
the galaxy in the form of an invisible “halo.” Cold dark matter, such as
supersymmetric dark matter, can thereby provide a simultaneous solution to both the universal and galactic dark matter puzzles.
It may be that supersymmetric dark matter in the galaxy is observable (Silk et al., 1985). Galactic photinos passing through the sun
57
would scatter and become trapped at a predictable rate. As photinos
accumulate within the sun, the probability that two photinos will
collide and annihilate increases. An equilibrium concentration results
when the rate at which photinos annihilate is equal to the rate of trapping. The annihilation of photinos can give rise to neutrinos in the final
state, which can easily escape the sun due to their weak interaction
with matter. These neutrinos would strike the earth at a calculable rate
and could then be observed in underground detectors designed to look
for proton decay. For photino masses greater than 6 GeV and less than
0(40) GeV, the estimated neutrino fluxes can easily exceed the isotropic cosmic ray neutrino flux backgrounds, and are therefore potentially
observable (Hagelin et al., in press).
Rather than attempt an exhaustive survey of the numerous experimental proposals for discovering supersymmetry at various experimental facilities, we would like to discuss a long-standing problem of
fundamental importance to which supersymmetry has recently brought
great hope.
1.5 Quantum Gravity and Supergravity
Since the publication of his Principia in 1686, Newton’s inverse square
law of gravity has continued to provide an adequate computational
framework for nearly all terrestrial and celestial applications. However, it became clear near the beginning of this century that Newton’s
gravitational theory would require substantial modification in order to
be compatible with Einstein’s special relativity. This, in part, led Einstein to develop his general theory of relativity, an elegant geometrical
framework in which gravity is viewed as the curvature of spacetime
geometry.
Einstein’s theory led to more precise computations of conventional
gravitational phenomena as well as to entirely new predictions, such as
the bending of light in a gravitational field and the formation of black
holes. However, it was soon after the introduction of general relativity
that quantum mechanics replaced classical mechanics as the foundational theory of nature, and that the classical theory of general relativity
was recognized to be fundamentally incomplete.
During the past few decades, there have been many attempts to
reformulate Einstein’s general relativity as a quantum theory. These
58
efforts have been largely unsuccessful. One positive outcome has been
the realization that the force of gravity must be described by a massless spin-2 “graviton” field. This spin is sufficient to guarantee that the
gravitational force will attract all objects proportionally to their massenergy. It is this universally attractive nature of the gravitational field
which lends itself to a geometrical interpretation. In this respect, gravity is different from the other fundamental forces, which have spin-1
and therefore possess both attractive and repulsive aspects.
A quantum theory of gravity raises fundamental questions concerning the structure of spacetime and the causal framework on which our
understanding of nature rests. It is relatively easy to understand why
this is so based on our previous consideration of quantum field theory.
We can apply our description of a quantum field to the field of spacetime geometry itself, since the field of gravity can be viewed as the curvature of spacetime geometry. The uncertainty principle then implies
that spacetime itself cannot have a definite shape, but instead exists as a
quantum-mechanical superposition of shapes (see Figure 1).
This fact has profound implications regarding the nature of time
and distance. The measured distance between any two points A and
B depends upon the curvature of the geometry in which one imbeds
one’s measuring stick. Since many geometries coexist simultaneously,
the distance between any two points is not well-defined. The concept of
distance has, at best, a statistical meaning, pertaining to measurements
that are repeated numerous times.
In practice, when we measure distances at laboratory scales, we are
effectively averaging over such quantum fluctuations, since the time
and distance scales over which measurements are typically sustained
are very large compared to the scale of such quantum fluctuations. The
scale at which quantum gravitational effects are expected to become
~
~
~
important is the Planck scale: DP1 -- 10-33 cm, Tp1 -- 10-44 sec, or EP1 -1019 GeV, depending on whether we characterize the Planck scale in
terms of distance, time or energy. The Planck scale defines an intrinsic
uncertainty in our ability to assign a definite length or time interval.
The inability to specify time and distance precisely results in a corresponding indefiniteness in the notion of causality. In the usual spacetime framework of special relativity, the causal relationship between
two events is strictly defined by whether or not a light signal originat-
59
ing from an initial event A could reach a subsequent event B in time
to influence it. If so, event B is said to be in the future light cone of
event A. Because the speed of light represents the ultimate velocity
for the propagation of information in special relativity, event A can
causally influence B if and only if B lies in the future light cone of
A. Moreover, if B lies outside the future light cone of A, it becomes
impossible to specify whether event A or event B occurs first, for this
will now depend upon the state of motion of the observer. In such a
case, where neither event lies within the other’s future light cone, the
events are said to be “space-like separated” and no causal relationship
or influence between the two events is possible. Thus, two events have a
well-defined temporal sequence only if one event lies within the future
light cone of the other.
Due to the intrinsic uncertainty in the definition of time and distance in quantum gravity, it is generally not possible to specify with
certainty whether one event lies within the future light cone of another;
hence the sequence of events is not well defined. Under these circumstances, it becomes difficult to assign cause and effect relationships, and
there is little reason to believe that the familiar concepts of space, time,
and causation have meaning at the Planck scale.
Moreover, the dynamics of the gravitational field possess an intrinsic
nonlinearity which makes these quantum fluctuations even more interesting. Because gravity is attracted to mass-energy, and because these
gravitational fluctuations can themselves possess significant massenergy, gravitational fluctuations can be strongly self-attracting. The
Planck scale is the scale at which the energy inherent in these quantum
fluctuations is so great that these gravitational fluctuations become profoundly modified by their own self-interaction. This nonlinear dynamics
is expected to produce a phase transition in the structure of spacetime
geometry at the Planck scale, in which the microscopic structure of
spacetime can assume a multiply-connected or “foamy” structure (Harrison et al., 1965).
Certain implications of these topological fluctuations for physics at
ordinary scales have been explored (Zel’dovich, 1976; Hawking et al.,
1979, 1980). One possible consequence is that spin-0 particles propagating through a background of spacetime foam would receive a large
~
gravitational contribution to their mass of order Mp1 -- 1019 GeV/c2. This
60
would appear to compound the gauge hierarchy problem regarding the
lightness of the Higgs field needed for the breaking of the electroweak
symmetry, were it not for the fact that supersymmetry can again protect
the Higgs from acquiring large masses through this mechanism.
A second class of behavior that can arise as a result of topological fluctuations is nonlocal effects. It seems plausible that multiply-connected
geometries could result in nonlocal influences. Hawking has identified
one such class of effects that appears to require a nonlocal interpretation. He has demonstrated that initially pure quantum-mechanical
states can evolve into mixed states as they propagate through a background of gravitational “knots” or instantons (Hawking, 1982, 1984).7
The key point here is that the evolution of pure states into mixed
states cannot (Hawking, 1984) be accommodated within a local framework, or even a framework that is local on scales much larger than the
Planck length, for such would necessarily involve unacceptably large
violations of energy and momentum conservation (Banks et al., 1984).
Such an effect therefore requires a nonlocal framework relating pure
states in the infinite past to mixed states in the infinite future.
Further progress in quantum gravity during the past quarter of a
century has been blocked by serious technical difficulties. The quantization of Einstein’s general relativity leads to problems when quantum-mechanical contributions to gravitational processes are computed.
These quantum-mechanical contributions, which result from Feynman
loop diagrams, appear to be infinite, whereas such quantum corrections
are known to be very small. Many years of research in quantum gravity
have found no simple solution to this difficult problem, which has led to
a consensus among theorists that general relativity as a quantum theory
is fundamentally inconsistent.
One clue to the solution to this problem is that the formal behavior of
the theory is improved if all the force and matter fields apart from gravity are removed from the theory: pure, self-interacting gravity has been
shown to be free of infinities resulting from Feynman diagrams containing
up to one loop. This technical improvement suggests an avenue for progress, wherein gravity is unified with other fields through supersymmetry.
Rather than introducing other fields into the theory in an arbitrary way,
7 This effect can be viewed as a violation of unitary time evolution as a result of quantummechanical phase information falling irreversibly across gravitational event horizons associated
with micro black holes (Hawking, 1984).
61
if the gravitational field itself were expanded through supersymmetry to
incorporate other spin types, perhaps the formal behavior of the theory
would be as good as for pure self-interacting gravity. Such an approach
turns out to be very successful. The extension of the gravitational field
by supersymmetry to include additional spin types preserves all the
technical advantages of pure, self-interacting gravity, and in many cases
improves them (for a review, see van Nieuwenhuizen, 1981).
The application of supersymmetry to quantum gravity is called
supergravity. The simplest example of a supergravity theory is N = l
supergravity, in which gravity is unified with its nearest spin neighbor—the spin-3/2 gravitino field. For such a theory to be realistic, it
is also necessary to add the other known force and matter fields into
the theory, which can also be done in a supersymmetric way, as in the
N = l supersymmetric models discussed earlier. Although a great deal
of attention has been given to these N = l supergravity models, which
provide a highly successful description of physics at energies well below
the Planck scale, as a fundamental theory they are inadequate. In these
theories, only the gravitino is actually unified with gravity: force fields
and matter fields are still added to the theory as separate fields, and
infinities reappear once these fields interact with gravity.
It would therefore seem desirable to extend the principle of supersymmetry so that more fields can be unified with gravity in a fundamental way. It turns out that such “extended” supergravity theories are
not difficult to formulate. The number of spin types that can be unified
with the spin-2 graviton can be sequentially expanded to include spin
3/2, 1, 1/2 and 0. N = l supergravity is the simplest theory, in which only
one other spin type, spin-3/2, is unified with gravity via supersymmetry.
In N = 2 supergravity, two other spin types, spin-3/2 and spin-1, become
unified with gravity, and so forth. The maximum number of supersymmetries is N = 8, since any larger number would necessarily introduce
fields with spins greater than 2. It is widely held to be impossible to
construct quantum field theories involving spins greater than 2, since
such theories contain infinities that appear to be fundamentally incurable. N = 8 supergravity is therefore the largest and richest supergravity
theory one can construct.
The formal properties of N = 8 supergravity are remarkably good for
a quantum field theory of gravity involving many other spin types. N =
62
8 supergravity is known to be free of infinities for Feynman diagrams
with as many as three loops, and it is conceivable that N = 8 supergravity may be free of infinities altogether, although at present this seems
unlikely. The absence of infinities in the N = 8 theory for diagrams with
up to three loops does not occur by magic, nor is it simply the attitude
or conviction that all fields are unified with gravity which renders the
theory finite. It results from a precise cancellation of infinities among
the many loop diagrams that contribute to a given scattering process.
Such cancellations occur as a result of the precise number and nature
of the different spin components united by supersymmetry. Taken
together, these spin components constitute a unified family of fields
known as the N = 8 supermultiplet (see Table 2).
It follows that the number and type of fields present in a unified
supersymmetric theory is strictly determined, which gives the theory
considerable predictive power. For example, one can examine the particle content specified by N = 8 supergravity theory to check whether
or not it resembles the observed elementary particles in nature. Comparing Table 2 with the observed structure of elementary particles in
Table 1, one finds an apparent discrepancy between the number of
fields associated with each spin type. For example, there are 28 spin-1
fields belonging to the N = 8 supermultiplet, which is in apparent conflict with the 8 strong interaction gluons, 3 weak bosons, and 1 photon,
which is a total of 12 spin-1 force fields seen in nature.
Furthermore, the 12 known force fields do not fit mathematically
within the 28-member structure of the N = 8 supermultiplet. The formal structure of the relationship of the 12 force fields among themselves shown in Figure 5 is such that they cannot be made to fit within
the structure of the supermultiplet. (The situation is analogous to fitting a tall cigar into a wide-mouthed jar—the volume may be sufficient
63
but the shape is inappropriate.) One is forced to conclude that the N=8
supermultiplet is simply not big enough to accommodate the observed
force fields of nature, let alone the extra spin-1 forces required for grand
unification. The same conclusion applies to the spin-1/2 matter fields—
the 56 spin-1/2 members of the N = 8 supermultiplet are insufficient to
account for three “generations” of quarks and leptons (Table 1).
One possible way out of this problem is the creation of additional
force fields through the binding of spin-0 fields within the supermultiplet into spin-1 bound states (Ellis, 1983). This mechanism is suggested by the presence of a hidden symmetry in the structure of the N
= 8 theory, in which pairs of spin-0 fields formally behave like spin-1
force fields (Cremmer and Julia, 1979). If a physical binding of these
spin-0 fields were to occur, there would be 63 resulting spin-1 fields
that could uphold a rich, SU(8) grand unified structure. These 63 force
fields would include the 24 force fields required by an SU(5) grand
unified theory (Figure 5), which in turn would include the 12 familiar
fields responsible for the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.
Furthermore, if such a binding of spin-0 components within the N
= 8 supermultiplet were to occur, it is reasonable to assume that a similar binding would occur among all the other components of the N = 8
supermultiplet in a symmetric way. This provides a possible mechanism
for the production of additional spin-½ matter fields, which appear to
have the structure needed to account for the known matter fields.
This binding process also leads to the formation of states with spin
> 2, which typically result in an inconsistent theory. These do not
represent a fundamental problem here since they are not fundamental components of the theory—they are simply bound states of more
fundamental constituents with spin ≤ 2. They may, however, represent a phenomenological problem, since these higher spin particles are
not seen at ordinary energies. These higher spin states would have to
be exorcised from any realistic theory, possibly by giving them a large
mass, although it is presently not obvious how to do so. It is also not
clear that the binding of components within the supermultiplet needed
to accommodate the observed particles and forces actually occurs in the
N = 8 supergravity theory, and the problem of gravitational infinities
beyond three loops remains a fundamental problem which has to be
addressed before this theory can be considered realistic.
64
It is worth noting that N = 8 supergravity has a more elegant, compact and powerful formulation in 10 + 1 = 11 spacetime dimensions
(Duff et al., 1986; de Wit and Nicolai, 1984). One can formulate the N
= 8 supergravity theory as a much simpler N = l supergravity theory in
11 dimensions, which when viewed from the usual 3 + 1 dimensional
perspective appears as the more complicated N = 8 theory. The extra
11 - 4 = 7 spatial dimensions occurring in this formulation might be
real physical dimensions of spacetime, or they may simply represent a
formal construction invented to simplify the theory. There is a growing
theoretical preference to regard these extra dimensions as real, in which
case one has to explain why these extra dimensions of spacetime are not
ordinarily observed.
The answer lies in spacetime compactification, a process in which the
extra dimensions of spacetime, for dynamical reasons, get spindled into
tubes of such small radius that they are unobservable. Starting from the
11-dimensional theory, there are several geometrically distinct ways in
which the extra dimensions can be compactified. These result in different 3+1 dimensional theories at low energies, only one of which corresponds to the N = 8 supergravity theory described above. As a second
example, it may be possible starting from U-dimensional supergravity
to obtain an N = l supersymmetric theory in 3 + 1 dimensions. These
alternative possibilities give the 11-dimensional approach greater flexibility in addition to its simplified mathematical structure.
1.6 The Heterotic String
In recent years, supergravity has been displaced in the affections of theorists by the E8 Χ E8 heterotic string theory (Schwartz, 1982; Green,
1983; Gross et al., 1985; Candelas et al., 1985; Witten, 1985; Dine et
al., 1985). Superstring theory is a natural extension of the framework
of quantum field theory which may provide both an elegant framework
for the unification of all the fundamental particles and forces and a
quantum theory of gravity that is completely free of infinities.
A superstring theory is fundamentally a quantum field theory of
elastic strings. As a quantum theory, it stands in relation to a classical string as quantum field theory stands in relation to a classical
particle (see Figures 7A and 7B). A classical particle is a pointlike
object described by a definite position x. A string is a one-dimensional
65
extended object described by a position function x( σ ) that depends
on a “string parameter” σ, which specifies where one is on the string
(Figure 7B). Whereas a classical particle has no internal structure and
possesses only the ability to move through space, a string has the added
ability to sustain internal modes of vibration. A vibrating string therefore has a much richer spectrum of energies than a simple particle in
motion. This richness is reflected in the energy levels of a quantized
string field, which have a more complex structure than those of a quantum field theory of elementary particles.
The spectrum of string excitations includes a number of “massless”
modes and an ascending tower of “massive” modes corresponding to
more and more excited vibrational states of the string. Because the distance scale associated with the length of the string is of the order of the
Planck length, the uncertainty principle states that the energies associated with these higher vibrational string modes are of the order of the
Planck energy. In the low-energy limit of the theory relevant to physics
below the Planck scale, only the massless modes of the string play an
important role. In this low-energy limit, the string theory resembles an
ordinary quantum field theory of elementary particles. There is nothing
in the world of observable scales and measurements that could reveal
that these elementary “strings” possess a one-dimensional structure or
are otherwise any different from elementary “particles.”
However, one important difference does arise when we consider the
formal properties of gravity in the context of the string theory. The
spin-2 graviton comprises one of the massless modes of the string,
which has all the usual properties and problems of the graviton in any
other field theory. However, in the case of the string theory, the massless modes of the string are supplemented by massive string modes.
These massive string modes will modify any field theoretic calculation
at high energies, and they lead to a precise cancellation of the infinities that result from the graviton alone. In this way, the string theory
provides what seems to be a completely consistent, finite theory of gravity—something which is apparently not possible within the framework
of an ordinary quantum field theory.
The E8 Χ E8 heterotic string is a theory of interacting “closed” strings.
A closed string is a string in which the two ends are tied together to
form a continuous unbroken loop. For mathematical consistency, the
66
heterotic string is necessarily formulated in 9 + 1 = 10 spacetime dimensions. The ordinary 3 + 1 dimensional structure of spacetime is recovered upon compactification of the extra 9 - 3 = 6 spatial dimensions.
This string theory has no free parameters: the structure of the theory
is completely determined by geometric principles. This gives the theory
remarkable predictive power, provided one’s computational tools are
sufficient to unfold its dynamics. The massless modes, which comprise
the low-energy or “field theory” limit of the theory, are in principle
determined by the underlying structure of the theory. This low-energy
limit looks like a supersymmetric field theory containing two E8 families of force fields in addition to the graviton and gravitino. One of the
E8 families contains the familiar spin-1 force fields along with their
spin-1/2 supersymmetric partners. The fields associated with the other
E8 family decouple from the observable universe—they do not interact
with ordinary matter except through the force of gravity. It has been a
source of speculation that this “invisible” E8 family might be a natural
candidate for the dark matter needed to close the universe and to explain
the gravitational dynamics of galaxies and galactic clusters. Such hopes
are probably misplaced, since there is not expected to be much of this
“shadow matter” left in the universe today.8 However, there is a natural
dark matter candidate in the visible E8, sector of the superstring theory. In realistic low-energy models derived from the superstring (Ellis,
Enqvist et al., 1985, 1986), the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is
similar to that of previous supersymmetric theories, namely a gauginoHiggsino mixture which is predominantly a photino (Campbell et al.,
1986). However, in the superstring case, the mass and composition of
the LSP are more tightly constrained, leading to a more definite prediction for the density of dark matter in the universe today. Fortunately,
this prediction agrees remarkably well with the estimated quantity of
dark matter required to close the universe. The superstring theory
therefore appears highly successful from a cosmological standpoint.
8 The hidden sector gauge interactions are expected to become strong at some high mass scale
and have a spectrum of bound states which are gauge and flavor singles. There is therefore no
quantum number to prevent them from decaying gravitationally into pairs of observable sector particles, and thus one does not expect the hidden sector to contain a stable dark matter
candidate.
67
A classical particle is completely described by its position x- as a function of
time.
In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics a particle coexists in a superposition
of many positions x-. The system is described by a wave function ψ( x- ) which
is related to the probability that the particle exists at the point x- .
In quantum field theory the wave function of nonrelativistic quantum
mechanics ψ( x- ) becomes an operator-valued function ψ( x- ) with the ability
to create and destroy a particle at the point x-. The state of the system is generally described by a quantum-mechanical superposition of field shapes.
Figure 7A. Quantum Field Theory
68
A classical string is described by a position x- (σ) which is a function of a string
parameter σ as well as time.
In a first quantized string theory, a string coexists in a superposition of many
positions and orientations x- (σ) . The system is described by a wave functional
ψ[x- (σ)] , which is related to the probability that the string exists with a position and orientation given by x- (σ).
In a second quantized string theory the string wave functional ψ[x- (σ)]
becomes an operator-valued functional ψ[x- (σ)] with the ability to create and
destroy an entire string x- (σ). The state of the system is generally described as
a quantum-mechanical superposition of string wave functionals.
Figure 7B. Superstring Theory
69
There are many other phenomenological predictions from the superstring, limited only by our calculation ability to unfold its detailed
dynamics. As a consequence of the compactification from 10 dimensions to 4, the E8 symmetry associated with the visible sector is broken
at the Planck scale to a smaller grand unified symmetry known as E6,
or possibly to a subgroup of E6. E6 is one of the few generalizations of
SU(5) that is known to provide a realistic grand unified theory. At the
same time, the extra six dimensions of space which undergo compactification form a compact geometric manifold that has its own states
of vibration. The massless vibration modes associated with this manifold give rise to the appearance at low energies of several generations
of matter fields, which provide natural candidates for the quarks and
leptons along with their supersymmetric partners. According to the
underlying E6 symmetry, each generation contains 27 matter fields as
opposed to the 15 quarks and leptons associated with each generation
in the standard low-energy theory (Table 1).9 The extra 12 fields represent new particles predicted by the superstring, which include an extra
charge -1/3 quark and a pair of Higgs doublets that can be used to break
the weak interaction symmetry.
A key feature of these theories is that they are supersymmetric. The
supersymmetric structure of the underlying 10-dimensional string theory survives the compactification process, leading to precisely the type
of low-energy supersymmetric model that has successfully been used to
address the gauge hierarchy problem.
Thus superstring theory, in addition to providing the first consistent
quantum theory of gravity, automatically leads to a realistic low-energy
structure in which the gauge hierarchy is naturally protected by supersymmetry. These are significant achievements which were not possible
in the context of previous unified field theories based on supergravity.
These achievements have resulted in a consensus among many theorists
that the E8 Χ E8 hieratic string theory may ultimately provide the fulfillment of Einstein’s quest for a completely unified understanding of
the fundamental particles and forces of nature.
9 Each of the matter fields in Table 1, with the exception of the neutrinos, has both a lefthanded and a right-handed polarization state, leading to a total of 15 states for each generation
of quarks and leptons.
70
Part II:
Consciousness and the Unified Field
Progress towards a foundational theory of consciousness has recently
become possible through the investigation of the simplest and most
fundamental structures of awareness using experiential technologies
provided by Vedic science. These fundamental states of consciousness
have been observed to possess a close structural correspondence to the
physical structure of natural law at fundamental scales. Indeed, the
discovery of a Unified Field of consciousness at the foundation of conscious experience has prompted the proposal that this Unified Field
of consciousness and the unified field of modern theoretical physics
are identical, providing a possible framework for a completely unified
understanding of both subjective and objective existence.
Following a brief historical perspective, we will review the research
pertaining to this unified state of consciousness. In light of this research,
we will consider the proposal made by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that
the unified field of modern theoretical physics and the field of pure
consciousness are identical. We will then discuss recent experimental
evidence in support of field effects of consciousness predicted on the
basis of this proposal. We will show that the proposed identity between
pure consciousness and the unified field is consistent with all known
physical principles, but requires an expanded physical framework for
the understanding of consciousness which leads to a more integrated
picture of the physical world and the full range of human experience.
Indeed, such a framework appears to be required to account for experimentally observed field effects of consciousness and other phenomenological aspects of higher states of consciousness, which are otherwise
anomalous within the paradigms that are currently in vogue.
II.1 Historical Perspectives
In our previous discussion of unified quantum field theories, there
has been no reference to consciousness or to any subjective aspect of
experience. Indeed, the empirical approach of modern science has been
designed to remove the element of subjectivity as much as possible
from the field of scientific investigation. The term “consciousness” has
been excluded from science largely because it has been too vague and
indefinite in its meaning to lend itself to scientific discussion. More71
over, because consciousness by its very nature can never be the object of
sensory experience, it would seem to lie outside the realm of objective
investigation.
This same empirical approach has come to dominate the field of
psychology, which has adopted a behavioral approach to the study of
human interaction. Indeed, of the more than forty divisions of the
American Psychological Association, none are directly concerned with
the phenomenon of consciousness per se. Each of these divisions is concerned only with a specific and isolated aspect of conscious experience
(Knibbeler, 1985). Within this empirical framework, no single, foundational theory of consciousness comparable to a unified quantum field
theory in physics has emerged. Thus there remains a critical need in
modern psychology to develop a single, comprehensive theory of mind
and consciousness that can account for the structure and full range of
mental processes (Vroon, 1975).
Now, for the first time in history, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has provided a highly coherent theoretical account of what consciousness is
and how it relates to the objective field of investigation. Even more
importantly, he has provided a reliable, systematic method by which
consciousness can be isolated and directly experienced in its most fundamental state.
Maharishi’s work, which will be further outlined in subsequent
sections, is based on his revival of an ancient science of consciousness
known as Vedic Science. Vedic science gives consciousness a unique
ontological status. According to the Vedic tradition, consciousness is
not an emergent property of matter that comes into existence through
the functioning of the human nervous system, but is considered fundamental in nature. It is the essential core of life—a vast, unbounded,
unified field which gives rise to and pervades all manifest phenomena
(Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966; Bhagavad Gita, 1975; Sankaracharya,
1977; Principal Upanishads, 1974). The nature of consciousness which is
said to characterize this unified field is pure consciousness—an abstract,
unbounded field of consciousness which is not qualified by any object
or individual experience. From this viewpoint, the crucial role of the
human nervous system is to provide a material structure of sufficient
integrated complexity to reflect, qualify and individualize conscious-
72
ness, providing the potential for individual experience (Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi, 1977; Dillbeck et al., 1986).
The Vedic tradition also holds that it is possible for the individual to
experience pure consciousness—the essential nature of consciousness
itself. For this to occur, individual consciousness must be allowed to
experience its “pure, self-interacting state,” in which consciousness is
awake only to itself, rather than identified with objects of perception,
thought, or feeling. In this state, the knower, the process of knowing, and the known are said to be unified, since consciousness itself
constitutes both the knower and the content of experience (Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi, 1985, pp. 64-66). A systematic refinement of the functioning of mind and body is said to be necessary for this experience to
take place, and a set of procedures for such a refinement is described in
the Vedic texts (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966, 1969; Patanjali, 1978).
Although historically this perspective has inspired a number of
thinkers within psychology and philosophy, its empirical consequences
have lain dormant for lack of availability of the experiential procedures
critical to validating the theoretical principles. Over the past thirty
years, however, Maharishi has revived the experiential and empirical
basis of this knowledge through a simple mental technology taught to
over three million people around the world and has stimulated scientific research on its effects (Chalmers et al., in press; Orme-Johnson
and Farrow, 1977). At the same time, by reformulating the theoretical
basis of Vedic knowledge in a scientific framework that is accessible and
empirically testable, he has placed the Vedic knowledge in a position to
enter the intellectual mainstream of the West and revived it in the East
as well. This modern scientific formulation of the Vedic knowledge is
known as Maharishi Vedic Science (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1985).
The Vedic perspective, in which consciousness occupies an ontologically fundamental position, contrasts with the largely mechanistic view
of nature characteristic of our particular time and culture. This mechanistic worldview is the product of more than three centuries of scientific
investigation dedicated almost entirely to the analysis of macroscopic,
inert matter. The extremely inert and mechanical view of nature that
has emerged from the physics of prior centuries defines a certain paradigm or worldview which is deeply inscribed in our thinking and in our
educational institutions (Kuhn, 1970). This paradigm would seem to
73
preclude the possibility that nature could possess in any fundamental
sense the lively and dynamical characteristics that we normally associate with consciousness.
According to this inherited perspective, consciousness is entirely the
product of complex biochemical processes occurring within the brains
of man and other higher animals. Thus to impute conscious characteristics to nature (or specifically to the unified field) is, according to this
perspective, to anthropomorphize. It must be emphasized, however, that
this point of view is merely one among many. It has no direct foundation in knowledge and should not therefore be formally associated with
science. At present, it represents only a particular metaphysics, and one
which is not well supported by facts. Within this limited framework,
for example, there has been essentially no progress in the development
of a consistent interpretation of the quantum theory in the last half century (Herbert, 1985). We will also see that this view of consciousness is
incompatible with a growing body of data in the domain of individual
and collective consciousness.
There are many indications that consciousness may require a more
fundamental position in our conception of nature. Within particle
physics, for example, many authors have noted the emergence at fundamental scales of characteristically subjective qualities, such as dynamism, intelligence, and attributes of self-awareness (Davies, 1984,
pp. 104-112; Llewellyn Smith, 1981; Pagels, 1982). Dynamism, for
instance, results from the fact that quantum-mechanical operators
associated with position and momentum do not commute,10 leading to
a reciprocal relationship between distance and momentum known as
the uncertainty principle, which results in the fact that nature becomes
increasingly energetic at more fundamental spacetime scales. The
vastly greater energy associated with nuclear transitions compared with
chemical transformations provides a practical demonstration of the
increasing dynamism intrinsic to more fundamental scales. An extension of the same principle to the scale of superunification leads to an
estimated energy density of 10112 ergs per cubic centimeter [i.e., one
Planck energy (1.2 Χ 1019 GeV/c2) per Planck volume (10 ~ 33 cm) 3]. This
can be compared to the observable mass-energy of the known universe,
10 Please refer to Part I of this article for details regarding these and other technical subjects
where necessary.
74
which is an estimated 1080 ergs.11 Hence the historically inert view of
the universe resulting from the investigation of macroscopic matter is a
poor characterization of nature at microscopic scales.
It may also be said that “intelligence” is more concentrated at fundamental scales. This can be seen, for instance, in the context of grand
unified theories, in which the strong, electromagnetic and weak interactions become unified components of a single field whose behavior
is governed by a single compact expression. Since the laws of nature
formally express the order and intelligence governing the behavior of
natural phenomena, as the laws of nature becomes more compact and
concentrated, intelligence can be said to become more concentrated.
If, as particle theorists are inclined to believe, all the laws of nature
have their ultimate origin in the dynamics of the unified field, then
the unified field must itself embody the total intelligence of nature’s
functioning.
From a field theorist’s perspective, an attribute of “self-awareness”
can be seen in the non-Abelian property of self-interaction present in unified, non-Abelian gauge fields. An example of an Abelian field is electromagnetism, which governs most phenomena at
macroscopic scales. Because the equations governing the electromagnetic field are linear in the field strength, the electromagnetic field does
not possess the self-interacting property of a non-Abelian field. As a
consequence, two rays of light pass through each other with no interaction and hence no “awareness” of the other’s presence. A non-Abelian
field, such as the gluon field of quantum chromodynamics, a grand
unified field or a superunified field, possesses the nonlinear property
of self-interaction which is not found in an Abelian field. As a consequence, a non-Abelian field responds dynamically to its own presence.
As these characteristically subjective qualities begin to emerge, much
of the objective character of macroscopic matter begins to disappear at
microscopic scales. The concrete notion of a particle is supplanted in
nonrelativistic quantum mechanics by a more abstract and unlocalized
wave function, which represents only the probability for a particle to
exist. In a second quantized field theory, this wave function (which is
technically a field) is replaced by a still more abstract and unlocalized
quantum field, in which the state of the field is described by a wave
11 Assuming
Ω =1 and a closed Friedman universe.
75
functional, representing only the probability that a given field shape
exists (see Figure 7). Furthermore, in the context of quantum gravity,
even the essential framework of spacetime itself becomes indefinite,
being replaced by a quantum-mechanical superposition of spacetime
metrics. Thus one could argue that as certain subjective characteristics
become more dominant, the concrete and objective nature of existence
starts to become more tenuous at fundamental scales.
One interpretation of these observations is that the distinction
between “subjectivity” and “objectivity” becomes less meaningful at
microscopic scales. This point has already become clear in the context
of quantum measurement. Because the uncertainty principle implies
that the act of measurement inevitably disturbs the system under observation, the classical notion of an objective and independent observer is
inconsistent with the structure of quantum-mechanical reality. Indeed,
one of the few significant developments in the understanding of the
measurement process is based on a framework in which the quantummechanical system and the measurement apparatus are formally treated
as a single quantum system evolving under the influence of a Schroedinger-like equation (Hepp, 1972; Bell, 1975; Zurek, 1982, 1983). From
this viewpoint, the separation between the observer and the observed
is seen as a rather artificial construction from a mathematical standpoint. Thus the clear separation between the observer and the observed,
which is the cornerstone of modern empiricist thinking, is ultimately a
conception whose utility may be limited to the classical domain.
According to Vedic science, the separation between the observer
and the observed is a matter of viewpoint only. It represents a particular perspective which is viable only on a gross sensory level,
but which must ultimately be abandoned for a fully consistent
understanding of self and the environment (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
1985; Sankaracharya, 1977; Patanjali, 1978). The unified field, experienced as the most fundamental state of human awareness, is considered to be a level of reality at which such a separation cannot be
inferred. The experience of the unified field of consciousness, in which
the observer, the process of observation and the observed are unified, is
considered to be a means of realizing the ultimate inseparability of the
observer and the observed, leading to a completely unified view of self
76
and the environment traditionally known as “enlightenment” or “unity
consciousness” (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966, 1985).
The structure of the unified field from the standpoint of modern theoretical physics is consistent with this view in which the unified field is
both a subjective and an objective reality. Since it is generally assumed
that the unified field is the only dynamical degree of freedom present
at the superunified scale, to the extent that a subject-object relationship can be defined there at all, the “observer” and the “observed” must
both be found within the dynamical self-interaction of the unified field
itself. From this perspective, the unified field is formally as much a
field of subjectivity as a field of objectivity. Hence the proposed identity
between the “objective” unified field of modern theoretical physics and
a “subjective” unified field of consciousness is consistent from a logical
standpoint.
Most particle theorists would agree that the unified field is the source
of both subjective and objective existence. This is because most physicists would like to avoid the necessity of introducing anything external
to the laws of physics, such as a metaphysical explanation for consciousness, feeling that the unified field should be the dynamical origin of all
phenomena. This point of view has been frequently attacked by individuals outside the sciences as being too “reductionistic,” i.e., reducing one’s inner experience to the “billiard ball” behavior of elementary
particles. This objection may result from a misunderstanding of the
nature of physics at fundamental scales, which is not mechanical in
the Newtonian sense, but is increasingly dynamic and subtle. Recall
that the classical notion of a particle is supplanted in the nonrelativistic
quantum theory function, which in turn gets replaced by a still more
abstract and unlocalized quantum field in a second quantized theory.
Thus “reducing” subtle mental phenomena to the Poincare invariant
dynamics of a unified quantum field might more accurately be described
as “expansionism” as opposed to reductionism.
II.2 A Unified Field of Consciousness
A detailed consideration of the relationship between the unified field
and consciousness would benefit from a precise and comprehensive
theory of consciousness comparable to the understanding of the unified field available through modern theoretical physics. Unfortunately,
77
no single, comprehensive theory of consciousness has historically been
available.In fact, psychologists have avoided theorizing about consciousness because they have felt conceptually ill-equipped to do so.
According to Neisser (1976), “To tackle the issue of consciousness
[within the framework of existing ideas] would lead only to philosophically naïve and fumbling speculation.” Thus there still remains a critical
need in modern psychology for a single, comprehensive theory of consciousness that can account for the structure and full range of mental
processes (Vroon, 1975).
Progress in the direction of a foundational theory of consciousness
has recently been made possible through the investigation of the simplest and most fundamental structures of awareness using experiential
technologies provided by Maharishi Vedic Science.
In this section, we will attempt to summarize and interpret some of
the most important and relevant experimental and theoretical developments in this field. Throughout this investigation, it will be useful to
consider consciousness from the most universal perspective, resisting
the egocentric tendency to confine one’s view of consciousness to the
very limited range of ordinary waking experience. Indeed, much of the
recent progress in this field has come from accessing a broader data base
of conscious experience than has traditionally been available through
the waking, dreaming and deep sleep states of consciousness.
Waking consciousness is a complex form of awareness which results
from an excited state of the brain physiology. As a consequence, it has
been difficult to construct a simple and coherent theory of consciousness
based on the analysis of waking experience. This obstacle has prevented
any single, universally accepted theory of consciousness from arising in
the field of psychology. This situation would be analogous in physics to
developing the quantum theory through an analysis of complex macromolecules in a high temperature environment (Domash, 1977). The
solution in physics is to replace the complex macromolecule with the
hydrogen atom. Similarly, in psychology the solution primarily comes
from studying simpler, more fundamental structures of awareness.
Whereas waking consciousness represents a complex form of awareness corresponding to a complex state of neurophysiological functioning, the brain is also capable of sustaining simpler and more integrated
states of functioning, corresponding to more silent and more unified
78
states of awareness (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966, 1977; Wallace,
1986). These unified states are fundamental to the understanding of
psychology from the classical Vedic perspective, and the Vedic texts
prescribe specific procedures for the experience and investigation of
these states (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966, 1969; Patanjali, 1978).
According to Maharishi Vedic Science, the mind is hierarchically
structured in layers from gross to subtle, from excited to de-excited,
from localized to unlocalized or field-like, and from diversified to unified. Underlying the subtlest level of mind is said to be the Self—a
purely abstract, least excited, completely Unified Field of consciousness, identified as the dynamic and self-sufficient source of all mental
processes (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966).
While we are typically aware of only the more active, surface levels of the mind which are engaged in thought, perception and action,
according to Vedic Science, every thought or perception undergoes a
“vertical” microgenesis from a least excited, holistic or seed form to a
more precipitated and concretely articulated manifestation until it is
finally available to conscious awareness and participates in the process
of experience and action (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966).
Hence Maharishi Vedic Science posits a vast realm of subtle levels
of mind and cognitive processing that typically lies outside of conscious
awareness. The traditional view in the psychodynamic literature is that
the unconscious domain of mind serves as a repository for primitive
or repressed thoughts and desires. In contrast, Maharishi Vedic Science describes deeper levels of the mind as causally prior, intrinsically
more dynamic, abstract, comprehensive and unified—parallel to the
structure of more fundamental levels in physics (Alexander, Davies et
al., 1987).
Subjectively, these unified states of awareness arise when the
mind systematically experiences, through a subjective technology, more abstract and fundamental stages in the development of a
thought. As the mind thereby becomes less and less localized by the
specific boundaries of a thought, awareness becomes correspondingly
more expanded. When the faintest impulse of thought or feeling is
“transcended” in this manner, consciousness is left alone to experience itself. In this state of pure consciousness, said to be the least excited
79
state of consciousness, consciousness is experienced as an abstract, unbounded field (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966).
From a structural standpoint, ordinary waking consciousness is
characterized by the three-fold structure of “observer” (i.e., the lively
field of subjectivity itself or rishi in the language of Vedic science), the
“process of observation” (the mechanics of thought and perception
or devata), and the “observed” (the content of experience or chandas)
(Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1985). Thus, in the waking state of consciousness there is always an object of perception, whether this is a
gross object of sensory experience, or a thought, or merely an abstract
feeling. Although the object of perception provides the essential content of waking experience, both the observer and the process of observation are necessarily also present. At deeper levels of awareness, the
object of perception is experienced as more intimate to the subject, i.e.,
the separation between the “observer” and the “observed,” which is the
defining characteristic of waking consciousness, becomes less distinct.
In the state of least excitation or “ground state” of consciousness, the
three essential components of waking experience—the observer, the
process of observation, and the observed—are unified in one structure
of “pure, self-interacting consciousness” known as samhita in Maharishi
Vedic Science (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1985).
This unified ground state of consciousness is marked by the onset of
a unique complex of physiological and neurophysiologic changes indicating profound integration and coherence of brain functioning. Physiological research on this unified state of awareness began in 1970 with
the work of R.K. Wallace (1970).
This research, together with much of our discussion, focuses on
the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs developed
by Maharishi. The Transcendental Meditation technique has been
described as a systematic means for taking the conscious mind from
active levels of awareness to more abstract and fundamental levels of
mental activity, resulting in the experience of pure consciousness. The
TM-Sidhi program trains the individual to engage thought from the
level of pure consciousness as a means to more quickly stabilize the
experience of pure consciousness. There are several reasons for confining our discussion to this unique set of mental procedures:
80
l) The Transcendental Meditation technique is widely practiced
throughout North America and most of the world, resulting in
the widespread availability of subjects with experience ranging
from several months to over 25 years.
2) The Transcendental Meditation technique is taught throughout the world in a standardized manner, which ensures that
different subjects are practicing the identical mental procedure.
3) There now exists a large body of published scientific research
on the physiological, psychological, and even sociological effects
of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs.
There is no comparable body of literature connected with other
specific mental techniques, and an analysis of what literature
is available finds little evidence that other meditative practices
affect basic physiological or psychological parameters to the
same degree (Eppley et al., in press; Ferguson, 1981).
It was Maharishi who originally proposed that each state of consciousness should be accompanied by a unique style of physiological
functioning, and who thereby predicted that the experience of pure
consciousness would have physiological correlates distinct from waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states of consciousness (Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi, 1966, pp. 132-134). This prediction motivated Wallace’s
original research on the Transcendental Meditation technique, which
found evidence from studies of the electroencephalogram (EEG), skin
resistance, and metabolic indicators that a fourth state of consciousness might indeed be occurring during the Transcendental Meditation
practice (Wallace, 1970; Orme-Johnson, 1973).
Subsequent research has produced a variety of physiological and biochemical data indicating that the state occurring during Transcendental Meditation differs markedly from eyes-closed relaxation and that
the repeated experience of this state is accompanied by lasting changes
in the style of physiological functioning (see reviews by Alexander et
al., 1986; Wallace and Jevning, in press). Many of the observations
appear to fall into one of the following three categories: (1) indicators of
deep rest, which include alternative breathing patterns, reduced blood
81
lactate, and decreased glycolytic metabolism (Jevning et al., 1983;
Wolkove et al., 1984;Jevning et al., 1985; Kesterson, 1986); (2) signs of
increased alertness, such as faster reaction times and faster recovery of
motor reflexes (Appelle and Oswald, 1974; Haynes et al., 1977; Wallace
et al., 1983); and (3) indications of reduced levels of stress and improved
resiliency to stressful experiences, for example, lowered plasma cortisol
and Faster recovery of normal galvanic skin resistance following a loud
noise (Jevning, Wilson and Davidson, 1978; Orme-Johnson, 1973).
A recent in-depth study of breathing patterns during Transcendental Meditation (Kesterson, 1986) concluded that a highly distinctive
feature of the physiology of meditation is the maintenance of alertness along with reduced sensitivity to C02, hypoventilation, apneustic
breathing, and decreased respiratory quotients.
The improved resistance to stress, which appears to be a direct result
of the regular practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique,
may be explained in part by an increase in neuromodulators such as
serotonin (Bujatti and Riederer, 1976; Walton et al., in press). Serotonin appears to exercise a global influence on brain systems related to
conscious experience and alertness (Jacobs, 1985) and is also capable of
mediating the increased prolactin levels seen in Transcendental Meditation (Jevning, Wilson and VanderLaan, 1978) as well as the decreased
cortisol levels and altered respiratory patterns noted above. In addition,
increased plasma levels of the neuromodulator vasopressin (O’Halloran
et al., 1985) may be responsible (de Weid and Gispen, 1980) for the
improvements in memory and learning that result from regular practice
of the Transcendental Meditation technique (Miskiman, 1977; Nataraj
and Radhamani, in press). Hormonal changes, which include striking longitudinal decreases in plasma levels of TSH and growth hormone that occur with the practice of the Transcendental Meditation
and TM-Sidhi programs (Werner et al., 1986), are suggestive of a more
efficient neuroendocrine system.
EEG changes consistently associated with the practice in contrast
to eyes-closed relaxation include significant increases in EEG coherence above a .95 threshold, particularly in frontal regions (Dillbeck
and Bronson, 1981; Levine, 1976); an increase in high amplitude alpha
activity in frontal and central derivations, particularly in the slow alpha
frequencies; and the occurrence of synchronous theta trains and high-
82
amplitude theta activity (Banquet, 1973; Hebert and Lehmann, 1977;
Wallace et al., 1971).
These studies provide evidence that the state occurring in Transcendental Meditation is uniquely different from waking, dreaming, and
deep sleep. Indeed, the integrated complex of physiological changes
occurring spontaneously during the Transcendental Meditation technique is consistent with the suggestion of a fourth major state of consciousness. Because this state appears to have characteristics of both
heightened wakefulness and deep rest together, it has been characterized as a state of “restful alertness.” The prefix “major” is used to indicate that this state of consciousness appears to be universally attainable
and hence as natural as waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states of
consciousness.
One obvious difference between pure consciousness and the three
primary states of consciousness is that some initial guidance (i.e.,
personal instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique) is
necessary to systematically experience pure consciousness. A second
difference is that whereas the three primary states of consciousness are
considered necessary for the survival of the organism, pure consciousness apparently is not. On the other hand, the cumulative research
on the Transcendental Meditation technique has shown that almost
every parameter of physiological and psychological health is positively
affected by the regular experience of pure consciousness. As a consequence, for example, it has been shown that the normal deterioration of
physiological and psychological functioning which results from biological aging can be retarded and even arrested and reversed through the
regular practice of Transcendental Meditation (Wallace et al., 1982;
Alexander et al., 1986). Thus, although pure consciousness is apparently not necessary for survival, it can be argued that it is important for
the longevity and optimal functioning of the system.
It is important to note that during the technique, the subjective and
physiological process is such that the quality of experience varies at
different times of the practice. While the majority of the research on
the Transcendental Meditation technique has focused primarily on
physiological changes averaged over the duration of the practice, some
studies have been able to identify profound changes occurring during
specific periods of the practice identified by the subjects as experiences
83
of pure consciousness. During such periods the physiological changes
were found to be an intensification of those found during the practice as
a whole, particularly respiratory changes and EEG coherence (Badawi
et al., 1984; Farrow and Hebert, 1982). Among these more distinct
effects were periods of spontaneous breath suspension for periods up
to 60 seconds. A sudden increase in EEG coherence also occurred at
these times, in contrast to controls holding their breath for comparable
periods (Badawi et al., 1984).
These and related studies indicate that the experience ofpure consciousness involves a mode of functioning of the mind and nervous
system that is distinctly different from other known states of consciousness. Even the term “experience” in connection with pure consciousness
has an entirely different meaning from that of ordinary waking consciousness, since the three essential components of waking experience
have become united in one unified structure of experience, in which
consciousness is itself the observer, the process of observation, and the
object of experience simultaneously (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1985).
The existence of this unified ground state of consciousness and the
availability of systematic experiential procedures to investigate this state
together with its unique physiological correlates has been described by
many researchers as a new empirical foundation for a unified psychological theory and the basis of a comprehensive science of consciousness
(Alexander, Davies et al., 1987; Dillbeck, 1983a, 1983b; Orme-Johnson, Dillbeck et al., in press; Wallace and Jevning, in press).
It is this unified state of consciousness — the state of pure, selfinteracting consciousness— which according to Maharishi Vedic Science corresponds to the direct experience of the Unified Field of all the
laws of nature (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1985).
II.3 Field Effects of Consciousness
The primary exponent of the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the Unified Field is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who formulated
this understanding in conjunction with a number of distinguished scientists based upon his experience teaching the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs throughout the world and upon the
Vedic tradition of knowledge which he represents. Here we present
some of the main arguments and evidence in support of this proposal
84
and address some of the scientific and philosophical issues that such a
proposal raises.
Our approach will be essentially empirical, emphasizing established
research findings on the physiological, psychological, and sociological
effects of pure consciousness, in addition to the direct experience of
subjects trained in the relevant experiential methods. The subjective
technologies considered in this study (the Transcendental Meditation
and TM-Sidhi programs) utilize highly specific procedures that produce reliable, verifiable, and repeatable results, with a high degree of
intersubjective consistency. Since a scientific fact is generally held to be
an observation that is repeatable and that can be independently confirmed by anyone possessing the requisite apparatus and training, these
subjective technologies should be considered scientific in the strictest
sense.
At present, the most concrete experimental evidence in support of a field theoretic description of consciousness, aside from
the subjective accounts of a large number of subjects trained in the
relevant experiential techniques, is the Super Radiance effect or
Maharishi Effect produced by the collective practice of the TM-Sidhi
program. These are consistent demonstrations of extended field effects
of consciousness that have withstood many consecutive replications on
a variety of scales. These studies employ standard sociological measures
to study the coherent influence of groups of experts collectively practicing the TM-Sidhi program on a surrounding population.
In 1960, Maharishi predicted that one percent of a population practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique would produce measurable improvements in the quality of life for the whole population.
The first study designed to test this prediction (Borland and Landrith,
1977) analyzed crime rate trends in 22 U.S. cities (population > 25,000)
in 1973. Crime rates decreased in the 11 cities with one percent of the
population practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique, while
crime rates in the matched control cities continued to rise. A more
extensive study (Dillbeck et al., 1981) analyzed crime rate trends in 48
U.S. cities (population > 10,000) over the 11-year period from 1967 to
1977. Crime rates decreased significantly in the 24 “one percent” cities compared with their own previous trends and compared with 24
matched control cities over the same period.
85
Subsequent replications have analyzed crime rate trends in 160 cities and 80 metropolitan areas in the United States using increasingly
powerful design and analysis techniques (Dillbeck, 1981), and have
further demonstrated Maharishi’s prediction that participation in the
Transcendental Meditation program would lead to a reduction in crime
rate trends.12
With the introduction of the more advanced TM-Sidhi programs
in 1976, Maharishi anticipated a more powerful influence of coherence in the collective consciousness of society and predicted that the
group practice of the TM-Sidhi programs by as few as the square root
of one percent of a population would have a demonstrable effect on
standard sociological measures.13 The relatively small numbers participating in the TM-Sidhi programs predicted to generate this effect of
societal coherence has made it possible for many direct experimental
studies to be performed, in which the necessary number of participants
come together on courses in various locations for periods of time ranging from one week to several months. Most of these studies, including
studies at the state, national, and international scales, have used timeseries intervention analysis to reliably estimate experimental effects
independent of cyclical trends in time-dependent data (e.g., Alexander,
Abou Nader et al., in press; Dillbeck, Foss and Zimmermann, in press;
Dillbeck, Larimore and Wallace, in press; Orme-Johnson, Alexander
et al., in press; Orme-Johnson, Cavanaugh et al., in press). The data
clearly indicate significant and positive changes across a wide range
of standard sociological indicators including decreased crime rate,
automobile fatalities, suicides, and infectious diseases, and increased
economic productivity. In fact, in several studies these parameters
have been compiled to form a single quality of life index that has been
observed to vary quadratically with the size of the coherence-creating
12 In an attempt to rule out unmeasured “third-cause” variables as alternative hypotheses,
studies of cities and metropolitan areas have used cross-lagged panel analysis, a variant of causal
modeling procedures (Dillbeck, Landrith et al., in press). Studies at the city level have also used
partial correlation or analysis of covariance methods to control for specific alternative hypotheses in terms of demographic variables related to the particular parameters studied (see, e.g.,
Dillbeck, Landrith et al., in press; Dillbeck, Landrith and Orme-Johnson, 1981).
13 This prediction is based on a field theoretic model utilizing a coherent superposition of amplitudes, in which the intensity of the effect generated is proportional to the square of the number of
participants.
86
group (Orme Johnson, Alexander et al., in press; Orme-Johnson and
Gelderloos, in press).
One especially critical experimental test of the hypothesis that the
group practice of the TM-Sidhi program by the square root of one percent of a population would positively affect sociological measures was
conducted in Israel in August and September of 1983 (Orme-Johnson,
Alexander et al., in press). Based on the results of previous experiments,
the research hypotheses and the specific measures to be used in the
study were lodged in advance of the experiment with an independent
review board of scientists in the United States and Israel.
Figure 8 shows the remarkable covariation between the size of the
group of TM-Sidhi participants (dotted line) and a composite index of
quality of life that was the arithmetic average of standardized scores for
crime rate, traffic accidents, fires, stock market, national mood, and the
number of war deaths as a measure of war intensity in Lebanon.
Time series analysis demonstrated the statistical significance of the
impact of the group on the quality of life measures and showed that the
effect could not be attributed to seasonality (such as weekend effects
or holidays) or to changes in temperature. The hypothesis that the
influence occurs on a fundamental and holistic level of nature is supported by the fact that the arithmetic average of the different measures
produced the clearest results and by the observation that the different
sociological measures tended to change independently of each other
when the group size was small, but all changed coherently in a positive
direction as the group size was increased.
A subsequent study (Figure 9) assessed the impact on the Lebanon
crisis of three successive assemblies in which large groups practiced the
TM-Sidhi program during the six-month period from November 13,
1983, to May 18, 1984 (Alexander, Abou Nader et al., in press). Greater
progress towards peaceful resolution of the Lebanon conflict was
observed during these three assemblies than would have been expected
based on the prior six-month history of the war (p < .00005). The measure of war intensity used was based on a conflict rating scale developed
by E.E. Azar (1980). The scoring was performed by representatives of
the different factions involved in the conflict, and inter-rater reliability
was high. War deaths were observed to decrease by over fifty percent
during the three experimental periods as compared to the nonexperi-
87
mental periods. The particularly large effect coincident with the Lebanon assembly held in the immediate vicinity of the conflict suggests the
importance of proximity in the generation of societal coherence.
Figure 8. This figure illustrates the covariation between the number of TMSidhi participants (dashes) and a composite index of quality of life in a study
conducted in Israel during August and September of 1983. The composite
index was the arithmetic average of standardized scores for crime rate, traffic accidents, fires, stock market, national mood, and the number of war
deaths as a measure of war intensity in Lebanon. The sociological parameters
employed in this study were lodged in advance of the experiment with an
independent review board of scientists in the United States and Israel. (Figure courtesy of D. Orme-Johnson.)
Although it would be more accurate to say that the Super Radiance data constitute evidence for an “action at a distance” with respect
to consciousness rather than “field effects” per se, physics has historically come to associate action at a distance with field phenomena. The
observed attenuation of the effect with distance would support such a
field theoretic interpretation. The quadratic dependence of the intensity of the effect upon the size of the coherence-creating group is also
characteristic of a field phenomenon in which the radiators are operating coherently. Specifically, the coherent superposition of amplitudes
required to produce such an intense constructive interference suggests
the behavior of a base field (e.g., electromagnetism, gravitation, or a
supersymmetric unified quantum field).
88
Figure 9. In the six-month period, from November 13, 1983, to May 18,
1984, a measure of war intensity in Lebanon was most positive during three
assemblies in which the number of TM-Sidhi participants exceeded the predicted thresholds required for an influence on the war. Time series analysis
indicates greater progress toward peaceful resolution of conflict during these
assemblies than would have been predicted from prior history of the Lebanon war (p < .00005). The large effect coincident with the Lebanon assembly
held in the vicinity of the conflict suggests the importance of proximity in
the generation of societal coherence. (Figure courtesy of C.N. Alexander.)
However, there are certain features of the Maharishi Effect that are
not easily understood on the basis of a conventional field. The main difficulty with a simple field theoretic model is in understanding the Super
Radiance data on the basis of any of the known fields. The only known
candidates for such long-range interactions are electromagnetism and
gravity. Any conventional gravitational interaction between individuals
is presumably orders of magnitude too weak.14 Moreover, it is generally
agreed that the electromagnetic interaction between individuals would
also be too weak to give rise to any significant effects. This conclusion
is probably reasonable despite new evidence that the physiology may
14 This also holds true for possible spin-1 forces that interact with gravitational strength, such
as a proposed “fifth force” (Fischbach, 1986) or the gauge bosons associated with the hidden
sector of a supergravity or superstring theory. (The latter would probably operate only at short
distances anyway due to confinement effects.) The same is presumably true of other weakly
interacting bosons that have escaped detection in particle physics experiments.
89
be sensitive to environmental AC electric fields six to seven orders of
magnitude weaker than had been previously considered possible (Adey,
1981). In fact, the brain appears to be particularly sensitive to EEGmodulated microwave radiation in the 0.5–10 gigahertz range, offering a potential mechanism for EEG communication and entrainment.
It has been shown by Tourenne (1985) that certain cellular structures
within the cortex that support the propagation of electromagnetic solitons could provide highly efficient radiators of microwave radiation,
which would presumably be modulated in the EEG band.
While we therefore feel it is essential to pursue possible electromagnetic mechanisms for the Super Radiance phenomenon, these mechanisms will probably be unable to account for the observed phenomenon.
For example, there was no evidence of attenuation in an instance where
the coherence-creating group was electromagnetically shielded by a
metallic enclosure (Orme-Johnson, Cavanaugh et al., in press).
If conventional mechanisms are unable to account for the Super
Radiance data, then an unconventional mechanism involving new
physics will be needed. As there are no alternative long-range forces of
electromagnetic or comparable strength, one is compelled to consider
alternative theoretical frameworks that might serve to overcome the
substantial distance factors involved. One such framework is suggested
by the structure of spacetime geometry at the scale of superunification—the proposed domain of pure consciousness.
Although we do not currently possess the calculation tools
needed to unfold the full dynamics of quantum gravity, there are
several indications that the local structure of spacetime geometry
observed below the Planck scale may provide a totally inappropriate
framework for physics at the scale of superunification. For example,
Hawking has shown that topological effects in quantum gravity can
lead to inherently nonlocal phenomena. Specifically, he has shown that
spacetime metrics with nontrivial topologies can cause initially pure
quantum states to evolve into mixed states (Hawking et al., 1979, 1980;
Hawking, 1982, 1984). Such effects cannot be accommodated within
a local framework, or even a framework that is local on scales much
larger than the Planck length, for such would necessarily lead to large
and phenomenological unacceptable violations of energy and momentum conservation (Banks et al., 1984).
90
Moreover, these nonlocal effects have been derived in a perturbative context in which the nonlocal effects of gravity are expected to be
relatively benign. The full, nonperturbative theory of quantum gravity can be expected to contain even more profoundly nonlocal effects.
Indeed, there are strong indications that the Planck scale is associated
with a fundamental phase transition in the dynamics of quantum gravity and/or the structure of spacetime geometry (e.g., a transition from
four dimensions to ten dimensions). Such a phase transition would be
expected to produce long-range correlations that could enhance the
nonlocal structure of the theory. Hence the local structure of a relativistic field theory may provide a totally inappropriate framework for
physics at the superunified scale. Therefore, one might expect that if the
domain of consciousness is fundamentally the superunified scale, then
phenomena of consciousness would include influences that are inherently nonlocal. The Super Radiance data could thereby be viewed as
evidence that individual consciousness can access the scale of superunification, consistent with the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the Unified Field.
A key issue from a physiological standpoint is how the nervous system could conceivably interface with the superunified scale in any significant way. Perhaps the first question to consider in this context is to
what extent the nervous system actively participates in the experience
and phenomena of pure consciousness. The dominant physiological
characteristic of the state of pure consciousness is the silencing of activity in the central nervous system and throughout the body, including a
suspension of ordinary thought and perception, a reduction of noise in
the nervous system, and respiratory suspension during periods of pure
consciousness (Farrow and Hebert, 1982; Badawi et al., 1984).
It has consequently been suggested that by closing the usual channels of activity and perception, the nervous system simply provides
pure consciousness with an opportunity to experience itself. From this
“passive” perspective, the nervous system participates less actively in
the experience of pure consciousness than in other experiences possessing specific and localized content which involve the usual channels of
thought and perception.
Even from this passive perspective, there would have to be some
interface between the nervous system and the Unified Field, since
91
many of the associated phenomena of pure consciousness (e.g., Super
Radiance and the TM-Sidhis) is at least initiated by individual nervous
systems. Moreover, if pure consciousness—the subject—is identified
with the Unified Field, then such an interface is needed even in waking
consciousness in order to connect the usual cognitive and perceptual
content of experience to the experiencer.
The physiological basis for such an interface is presently unclear, and
would probably require some as yet undiscovered quantum-mechanical
neurological mechanism. Maharishi has proposed that the DNA molecule itself is a central participant in the physiology of pure consciousness, and has suggested looking for cooperative phenomena among
DNA molecules located throughout the system. A similar quantum
field theoretic analysis of molecular excitations has recently been proposed to account for the collective dynamics of biological systems (Del
Guidice et al., 1985). A cooperative mechanism in the context of pure
consciousness could help to explain the periodic episodes of synchronous neural firing throughout the entire brain complex.
Further research is needed to establish the underlying physiological mechanisms that uphold the experience of pure consciousness, and
to consider what type of interface with the dynamics of fundamental
scales could be supported by these mechanisms. It must also be determined to what extent a dynamical interface is actually needed to support a subjective experience of the Unified Field and to account for the
Super Radiance data.
There exists an entirely different class of nonlocal effects in physics that does not explicitly involve the dynamics of the superunified
scale and which might be proposed as an alternative mechanism for the
Maharishi Effect. This is the reduction of the wave function in quantum
mechanics.
The time evolution of a quantum-mechanical system ordinarily
proceeds deterministically according to a Schroedinger equation (or
a quantum Liouville equation in the more general case of a density
matrix describing a mixed state). However, when a classical measurement is performed on the system, the wave function, which may represent a superposition or mixture of more than one value of the measured
observable, undergoes a sudden “collapse” or reduction to a wave function possessing a definite value of the measured observable. In this way,
92
a unique value of the measured observable is registered when a measurement is performed.
This reduction of the wave function or density matrix is thought
to occur simultaneously throughout the system, with the result that a
measurement in one region of an extended quantum-mechanical system
has a demonstrable effect upon the state of the system in a far-distant
region, which might even be space-like separated (Aspect, Grangier
and Roger, 1981, 1982; Aspect, Dalibard and Roger, 1982).
In this context, a “system” can comprise any number of objects or
subsystems that may have interacted sometime in the past and thereby
possess quantum-mechanical correlations. (Strictly speaking, this
characterization would not appear to exclude any objects within the
causal horizon of our universe. In fact, in an inflationary cosmological model, one might naturally expect significant quantum-mechanical
correlations among the extant macroscopic objects which comprise the
observable universe.15) It follows that the reduction of the wave func15 Consider the production of two spin-½ particles in an S-wave from the decay of a scalar
particle, as in the original EPR-type setup. In order to conserve angular momentum, the two
particles must be in a J=0 spin state, which is antisymmetric and can therefore be written:
Ψ (1, 2 ) = ↑1 ↓2 − ↑1 ↓2
(
)
2
where the arrows indicate JZ = ±1 and the subscripts label the particles. It follows from (1) that
neither particle possesses a definite spin value along the z-direction, nor in fact along any other
direction, for such would not constitute a J=0 state. Hence each particle is individually described
by a density matrix representing a mixture of spins and thus possessing nonzero quantummechanical entropy:
 1( 2 )

⎛
=⎜
⎜
⎜⎝
1
2
0
↑
⎞
⎟
⎟
1
2 ⎟⎠ ↓
0
where
s1( 2 ) = −Trlog (  ) = log ( 2 )

The entropy associated with the two particles is therefore 21og(2), whereas the total entropy of
the combined two-particle system must be zero since it is in a pure S-wave state. One is therefore led to define a “correlational entropy,” defined as the total entropy of the system (i.e., zero)
minus the sum of the entropies of its component parts:
Scorr = 0 - 21og(2).
The fact that Scorr is negative indicates that there is information stored in the quantum-mechanical correlations between the two particles.
Since the vacuum state of a quantum field has zero entropy, in any cosmological model in
which the universe emerges from the vacuum through a quantum-mechanical time evolution,
the universe would be expected to have total entropy zero. This would imply that the observed
entropy in the universe should be balanced by negative correlational entropy among the numerous objects or subsystems that comprise it. Such a universe would be characterized by strong
93
tion or density matrix associated with some apparently isolated subsystem might lead to significant changes in the quantum-mechanical
states of objects located throughout the universe.
Circumstances that can lead to the reduction of a wave function are
generally thought to be those associated with nonequilibrium thermodynamic processes, and may exist commonly throughout the macroscopic environment (Zurek, 1982, 1983). These circumstances are at
present known to include interactions between quantum-mechanical
systems and macroscopic measuring devices with quantum sensitivities, including the sense organs (Bialek, 1985; Bialek and Schweitzer,
1985; Bayler et al., 1979; Bayler et al., 1980). Hence, even the perception of objects in the environment has an inescapable influence upon
the microscopic state of the object, even if the macroscopic, observable
properties of the object are unaffected by these microscopic changes.
Once again, any resulting reduction of the wave function could be
expected to have nonlocal effects.
It has previously been suggested that the possibility of such longrange correlations might provide a mechanism for mental communication among individuals who are strongly correlated. Here one should
worry that the term “communication” overstates the nature of the
actual effect. It is easy to show that if the reduction of the wave function is fundamentally a random process as is generally believed (and is
not therefore subject to conscious control), then the reduction of the
wave function cannot be used to transmit information, in agreement
with relativistic causality. The effect of the reduction might be present
at far separated distances, but the “message” that is transmitted will be
purely random.
This essential limitation would appear to rule out the nonlocal reduction of the wave function as a possible mechanism for the communication of information and as a possible mechanism for the Maharishi
Effect. Although the Maharishi Effect may not appear to involve the
communication of any specific information, the fact that Super Radiance leads to certain predictable and observable consequences (e.g., a
reduction in crime rates) means that the presence or absence of a coherence-creating group could in principle be used to transmit a signal.
quantum-mechanical correlations among its various component parts (A. Hankey, private
communication).
94
On the other hand, it may be premature to rule out the seemingly
more radical hypothesis of a conscious or even intentional component
to the reduction of the wave function, with its nonlocal and hence
potentially acausal implications. To be fair, it is difficult to know what
is “radical” in the absence of a “conservative” model for the reduction
of the wave function. One such hypothesis, due to Wigner (1962), is
that consciousness is somehow responsible for the reduction of the
wave function during perception, possibly by the introduction of some
mathematically nonlinear effects. Wigner has also pointed out that this
assumption leads to serious problems (e.g., the paradox of Wigner’s
friend).
However, it has been pointed out by Stapp (1982) that if the reduction of the wave function is treated as an independent “event” in its own
right, a number of major philosophical problems might be overcome.
For example, it may be possible to unify quantum theory with special
relativity on a new and profound basis. In addition, Stapp has shown
that the assumption that consciousness selects the outcome of the reduction of the wave function on a metaphysical level, not in perception, but
in thought and action, provides a solution to the mind-body problem
which, because it can be used to model freedom of choice, is rather
attractive.
Such a framework is not unmotivated from a psychobiological
standpoint. The emergence of specific avenues of classical behavior
from certain underlying brain processes that are manifestly quantummechanical would seem to require the reduction of a wave function
which represents a superposition of several classical alternatives. The
associated subjective impression that the emergent behavior is not
purely stochastic but involves an exercise of will would support an
intentional component to this reduction (Stapp, 1982).
At the same time, it must be clearly stated that if the reduction of
the wave function is subject to conscious control or any other form of
manipulation, then the nonlocal character of the reduction of the wave
function could lead to long-range influences in apparent violation of
relativistic causality. However, the severe logical problems usually associated with such acausal influences may not apply if the agent responsible for the collapse (i.e., consciousness) is itself nonlocal and unique.
It follows that any physical model for the Maharishi Effect based on
95
the conscious reduction of the wave function may logically require the
existence of a Unified Field of consciousness. Indeed, it may be highly
significant that the nonlocal or “cosmic” component of consciousness
required (Stapp, 1982) in such a framework has become an empirical
component of human experience with the widespread experience of
pure consciousness.16
In this section, we have considered two possible frameworks for the
Super Radiance phenomenon which utilize nonlocal effects associated
respectively with the structure of spacetime geometry at the scale of
superunification and the reduction of the wave function in quantum
mechanics.17 Whether or not the conscious reduction of the wave function with its implied nonlocal communication provides a viable mechanism for the Maharishi Effect, in the following section we will show
that a full understanding of consciousness requires a more fundamental framework than the nonrelativistic quantum theory employed in
this approach to Super Radiance.18 For instance, we will show that
16 A stochastic formulation of quantum mechanics may provide a natural framework for incorporating a conscious component into quantum mechanics. In this type of approach, the reduction of the wave function only represents a discontinuous change in the observer’s knowledge
about the system that results when a measurement is made. The system itself undergoes a continuous, deterministic time evolution controlled by the random fluctuations of an underlying
background field—a process which has been compared to Brownian motion. Recent work has
shown that such a stochastic approach can be consistently formulated to give the same experimental predictions as quantum mechanics (Nelson, 1985; Zambrini, 1986). However, in order
to correctly reproduce the results of quantum mechanics (including EPR-type correlations and
Bell’s theorem), this fluctuating background field must itself be nonlocal in space (Nelson, 1985;
Zambrini, 1986) and possibly in time as well (Zambrini, 1986). Apart from this, stochastic
models say little about the nature of this underlying background field.
As a theoretical framework for modeling the effects of coherence in individual and collective
consciousness, one can identify this fluctuating background field with the field of consciousness.
Ordinary (incoherent) consciousness might be essentially stochastic, resulting in the usual statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. Coherence in individual or collective consciousness
could be represented by correlations within the background field which can be used to model the
Maharishi Effect and/or the TM-Sidhis (see Section II.5).
17 These two frameworks are not necessarily incompatible. The nonlocal reduction of the wave
function may ultimately result from the nonlocal structure of space and time associated with
the scale of superunification. We have already noted that topological fluctuations in quantum
gravity can lead to nonunitary time evolution in quantum-mechanical systems, and at present
there is no evidence for any alternative source of nonlocality in physics.
18 Included in the category of quantum-mechanical mechanisms is the possibility that the
nervous system may be far more sensitive to environmental influences than is generally assumed.
It is known, for example, that certain sense organs respond to stimuli at the extreme quantum limits of sensitivity (see Section II.4). This sensitivity of the nervous system to quantummechanical events might help to explain various subtle phenomena, including phenomena of
96
the widespread experience of a translationally invariant ground state
of consciousness already suggests a more fundamental, quantum field
theoretic framework, and that the more advanced experiences pertaining to the TM-Sidhi program, in which the universe is perceived as
the vibrational modes of consciousness, would favor a still more fundamental, Unified Field theoretic framework. We will also show that
the concrete demonstration of certain TM-Sidhis phenomena would
directly support the proposed identity between pure consciousness and
the Unified Field, as they would demonstrate the capacity for conscious
activity on or near the scale of superunification. At present, however,
the Super Radiance effect represents the central core of experimental
evidence in support of the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the Unified Field. It is therefore essential to design future
experiments with an improved capability to discriminate among plausible mechanisms. While the evidence for the Super Radiance effect is
in itself compelling, further research is needed to identify the underlying physical principles and/or to rule out all local mechanisms.
II.4 Pure Consciousness and the Unified Field
Since the foundation of psychology as an independent discipline over
a century ago, its theories of consciousness and human behavior have
been modeled entirely on classical concepts derived from physics of the
nineteenth century. Meanwhile, developments in the fields of molecular biology and neuroscience have demonstrated that relatively few processes involving the central nervous system can actually be understood
on the basis of classical models. Yet the emergence of more fundamental
theoretical frameworks within the discipline of physics has had almost
no impact on the field of psychology. This may be due to the fact that
few psychologists (and few lay physicists in general) have been educated
beyond the Newtonian era.
The quantized theory of fields is the most profound and successful
framework to emerge within the field of science. In addition to the
fact that the entire universe is believed to be fundamentally built out
of quantum fields, the same basic field theoretic framework has been
successfully applied to complex physical systems outside the domain of
elementary particle physics, as in statistical mechanics and condensed
collective consciousness, without recourse to nonlocal effects associated with the reduction of
the wave function. This possibility will be explored in a subsequent article.
97
matter physics. In light of the apparent failure of current ideas within
the field of psychology to account for consciousness in a satisfactory and
compelling way (Hilgard, 1980; Niesser, 1976; Natsoulas, 1978, 1983),
it makes sense to seek a more fundamental, field theoretic framework
for consciousness, particularly in light of evidence for field effects of
consciousness and the widespread experience of states of consciousness
that do not fit the current psychological paradigm.
The idea of a single, unified reality underlying both mental and
physical processes is not new. It was proposed, for example, by Benedict
Spinoza in the seventeenth century as a basis for bringing unity to the
mind-body duality introduced by Descartes in the sixteenth century.
There is a certain elegance and simplicity to this view, which if denied
leads straightway into a dualistic view of nature, according to which
body and mind are fundamentally different in kind and ultimately disconnected aspects of reality.
Here, however, it is on the basis of the widespread experience of
a Unified Field of consciousness and experimental evidence for field
effects of consciousness that we are led to consider a field theoretic
framework for consciousness. The subjective accounts of a Unified
Field of consciousness experienced through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs are highly consistent across subjects
and provide a principal ground for the proposed identity between pure
consciousness and the Unified Field. The following accounts are typical of experiences with the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi
programs, respectively (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1977; Orme-Johnson
and Haynes, 1981):
As I spontaneously become aware of more fundamental and abstract
levels of the object of attention during meditation, the rigid boundaries
of the object begin to fade. As the object becomes more and more unlocalized and the focus of attention continues to spread, comprehension
becomes more and more unbounded. When the faintest impulse of the
[object] dissolves and there is no localized content to experience, my
awareness is completely unbounded. I am left with the experience of a
pure, abstract, universal field of consciousness, unlocalized by specific
content or activity of the mind—just the Self wide awake within its own
unbounded nature.
98
During the TM-Sidhi performance, established in the state of pure,
unbounded consciousness, the most delicate and fundamental impulses
of activity within the field of consciousness are projected one by one.
These delicate modes of vibration of consciousness are themselves universal and unbounded. It is as though the Self is simply reverberating
within certain set patterns or frequencies, with the result that consciousness, which was previously abstract and self-contained, assumes
various “flavors.” These basic impulses of consciousness are seen as the
building blocks of the whole subjective and objective existence. Matter
itself appears to be a highly precipitated form of these vibrations.
What might a field theoretic framework for consciousness mean
in light of experiences similar to those reported above? Taken at face
value, these experiences suggest that consciousness behaves like a
field with translational invariance (i.e., “unboundedness”) and a spectrum of vibrational modes. This translational invariance at first seems
highly unusual: the vast majority of conscious experience, including
the mechanics of perception and memory, is ostensibly localized within
the confines of the nervous system. In a field theoretic framework,
the solution to this apparent paradox is potentially no different from
the emergence of localized excitations (e.g., particles and bulk matter)
from the Poincare-invariant dynamics of a quantum field. It is simple
to construct a localized wave packet as a superposition of unbounded
eigenstates. Indeed, such an interpretation is supported by the closely
related experience that impulses of thought constitute localized waves
of activity on an unbounded field of consciousness (Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi, 1977).
If consciousness indeed behaves like a field, there are biological reasons to expect that it may behave like a quantum field. Of the five sense
organs, at least three (smell, sight, and hearing) are known to respond
to stimuli at the quantum level of sensitivity (e.g., single molecules of
an olfactory stimulant and single photons in the case of sight) (Bialek
and Schweitzer, 1985; Bialek, 1985; Bayler et al., 1979; Bayler et al.,
1980; Bouman, 1961; DeVries and Stuiven, 1961). It therefore seems
plausible that with the extremely low noise and elevated state of alertness associated with the state of pure consciousness, the brain should be
able to discern individual quanta of conscious activity (Domash, 1977).
A quantum field theoretic model would also help to explain the sudden
99
transition to the state of pure consciousness from more active states of
the brain physiology. The observed transition is not unlike the spontaneous relaxation of an atom to its ground state.
The experiences pertaining to the advanced TM-Sidhi practice that
the “modes of consciousness...are the building blocks of the whole
subjective and objective existence” is more surprising from a biological standpoint and closer to the central issue: a literal interpretation
of these experiences would identify pure consciousness as the unified
foundation of both subjective and objective existence. There are a number of close structural parallels between the subjective accounts of the
Unified Field of consciousness experienced through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs and the unified field that is
emerging within the context of modern theoretical physics. Because
this close structural correspondence lends support to the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the unified field, we will develop a
few of these parallels here.
Of the numerous “modes” of consciousness which arise in the context of the TM-Sidhi program, five correspond to “objective” modes
said to be responsible for material existence. These are the so-called
“subtle elements” or tanmatras (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1969; Patanjali, 1978). These five are known (starting with the most fundamental)
as the akasha or “space” tanmatra (lit. “elementary space”), the vayu
or “air” tanmatra, the agni or “fire” tanmatra, the jala or “water” tanmatra, and the prithivi or “earth” tanmatra. (These tanmatras must be
distinguished from the five “gross elements” or mahabhutas, also called
akasha, vayu, agni, etc., which have previously been identified with classical spacetime and the four states of bulk matter, i.e., gaseous, plasma,
liquid, and solid, respectively [Hagelin, 1983].)
A very similar structure is observed within the framework of quantum field theory, where there are also five fundamental categories of
quantum field or “spin types” consistent with relativistic causality and
renormalizability, which are responsible for the entire material universe. These are the spin-2 graviton (responsible for spacetime curvature and the force of gravity), the spin-3/2 gravitino (appearing only in
the context of a supersymmetric field theory), spin-1 force fields, spin
-1/2 matter fields, and the spin-0 Higgs fields responsible for symmetry
breaking.
100
There appears to be a striking correspondence between the five tanmatras and these quantum-mechanical spin types: between the space
tanmatra and the gravitational field; between the air tanmatra, which
stands as a link between space and the other elements, and the gravitino field; between the fire tanmatra, responsible for chemical transformations and the sense of sight, and the spin-1 forces; and between
the water and earth tanmatras and the spin-% and spin-0 matter fields,
respectively. (These correspondences are discussed in more detail in
Hagelin, 1983.)
This correspondence is even more striking in the context of a supersymmetric theory, where there is a natural pairing of the five quantum-mechanical spins into three types of N=l superfields (see Figure
10). The spin-2 graviton and the spin-3/2 gravitino become unified in
the context of the gravity superfield, the spin-1 force fields and spin1/2, “gauginos” combine to form gauge superfields, and the spin-1/2 matter fields and their spin-0 supersymmetric partners give rise to matter
superfields. The same pairings are also fundamental in the context of
Vedic science (Caraka Samhita, 1981), where akasha and vayu appear
unified in the structure of vata prakriti, agni and jala become united
in the structure of pitta prakriti, and jala and prithivi are united in the
structure of kapha prakriti. Like the N = l superfields, the prakritis pertain to the structure of natural law at fundamental scales—at or near
the scale of superunification. They form the principal content of the
Upavedas, which are concerned with the structure of manifest existence in relation to the Unified Field (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1985).
They appear to constitute a profound point of contact between modern
science and Vedic science.19
If pure consciousness is identified with the unified field, and if
the five “subtle elements” or tanmatras indeed correspond to the five
spin types, it is interesting to consider what the additional, “subjective” modes of consciousness occurring in the TM-Sidhi program and
described by Vedic science might correspond to (Patanjali, 1978). These
subjective modes of experience have no obvious counterpart in a unified field theory based on extended supergravity, where any additional
spin states would lead to a nonrenormalizable theory. In this regard, the
19 Maintaining a proper balance among the three prakritis at the most fundamental level
of the physiology is described as the basis for a profound and comprehensive science of health
known as Ayurveda, one of the principal Upavedas.
101
more recent superstring theories provide a closer parallel to subjective
experiences during the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs and a closer correspondence to the structure of the Unified Field
according to Vedic science. In a superstring theory, the five quantummechanical spin types comprise only the massless modes of vibration
of the string, which survive at distances well below the Planck scale as
Figure 10. This figure illustrates the proposed correspondence between the
five “subtle elements” or tanmatras and the five quantum-mechanical spin
types, and the correspondence between the prakritis and the N = 1 superfields in a supersymmetric field theory.
102
the macroscopic, low-energy limit of the theory. There are many additional massive string modes which are operational only at the Planck
scale and which could naturally correspond to the additional “subjective” modes of experience if the domain of pure consciousness is taken
to be the scale of superunification.
There is another sense in which the superstring theory provides a
closer correspondence to subjective experiences through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs and thereby provides a
more natural framework for a unified understanding of both subjective
and objective reality. In a string theory, all the elementary particles
and forces arise as the vibrational states of an underlying string field.
For example, in the E8 Χ E8 heterotic string theory, the graviton and
gravitino correspond to “clockwise” modes of the string, the 496 force
fields associated with an E8 Χ E8 internal gauge symmetry correspond
to “counterclockwise” modes, and the matter fields correspond to massless vibrational modes of the compact Calabi-Yau manifold on which
the theory compactifies. This corresponds closely to subjective experiences during the TM-Sidhi program, in which the “building blocks
of the whole subjective and objective existence” are experienced as the
various “modes of consciousness.” There is no corresponding sense in
which the fundamental particles and forces arise as vibrational modes
of a single field in an extended supergravity theory.
One of the most obvious and basic structural similarities between
pure consciousness and a supersymmetric unified field (i.e., a superfield
or superstring field) is the “three-in-one” structure of pure consciousness, in which the observer, the observed, and the process of observation are unified (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1985). A parallel structure
is found within a super symmetric theory, in which bose fields (e.g.,
force fields) and fermi fields (e.g., matter fields) are united through the
agency of supersymmetry. Here, the bose fields can be compared to the
intelligence or “observer” aspect of the unified field, the fermi fields can
be compared to the material or “observed” aspect, and the “process of
observation” can be found in the dynamical principle of gauge supersymmetry, which connects and unifies the two. From this perspective,
the unified field or superfield itself corresponds to the samhita of Maharishi Vedic Science.
103
In this context it is interesting to note that a supersymmetric unified field or superfield, which represents the unification of boson, fermion and gauge supersymmetry, exhibits the statistical properties of
a bose field. This may be reflected in the fact that pure consciousness,
which represents the unification of the observer (i.e., consciousness),
the observed and the process of observation, retains consciousness as its
dominant characteristic.
Such comparisons are, of course, complicated by the wide disparity
in the associated languages. The subjective language naturally associated with a subjective technology contrasts with the highly analytical language which has evolved in the context of particle physics and
field theory. Indeed, the whole empirical approach of modern science
is carefully designed to remove the element of subjectivity as much as
possible from the field of investigation. This objective approach has
enjoyed considerable success within its domain of applicability, which
includes systems that can be meaningfully isolated from the observer
and the process of measurement—classical systems. However, it should
be noted that quantum mechanics, which was born of the objective approach, establishes the intrinsic limitations of this approach
by showing that a quantum-mechanical system cannot be meaningfully isolated from the observer. This limitation may especially apply
to the unified field, which cannot be isolated or observed and which
cannot therefore be considered to be an objective system. Indeed,
we have previously argued that the unified field is formally as much
a field of subjectivity as a field of objectivity. The use of a purely objective language in relation to the unified field might therefore appear
somewhat artificial, and to some extent can be viewed as an historical
artifact.
Indeed, one could argue that the objective approach of modern science, which is founded upon the separation of the observer from the
system under observation, is essentially unsuited to investigate the fundamentally indivisible structure of natural law at its unified foundation.
What seems to be required is a subjective approach to the investigation
of the unified field which would allow the individual awareness to identify with the unified field and thereby provide a systematic means of
investigating the structure and dynamics of the unified field on its own,
self-interacting level. One must not, therefore, preclude the possibility
104
of a subjective approach to the investigation of the unified field, nor
should one allow a difference in methodology or language to become
an insurmountable barrier. Maharishi has demonstrated in his formulation of Maharishi Vedic Science that it is possible to construct a
subjective methodology and language that is as precise and as rigorous
as the objective approach of modern science.20
If this subjective approach provides knowledge and experience of
the most fundamental dynamics of natural law, one would expect this
knowledge to result in competencies or other advantages that are in
some sense comparable to knowledge acquired through more conventional means. For example, bringing the awareness repeatedly to the
most abstract and fundamental levels of natural law might significantly
affect and improve physical intuition, abstract and synthetic reasoning,
creativity, and/or other forms of behavior that draw upon deeper levels
of the mind and personality.
In fact, Maharishi goes further to predict that a growing intimacy
with natural law at its most fundamental levels should result in greater
success in virtually all spheres of activity (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
1966). Instead of acting in relative ignorance of natural laws governing
the dynamics of behavior and environment, which leads to mistakes,
problems, ill health, and other forms of suffering, the individual would
take natural advantage of these laws. Such activity should spontaneously be more successful, and because it reflects a more comprehensive
level of natural law, should support the whole environment.
There are many indications that this is indeed the case. For example,
the Transcendental Meditation program does lead to increased creativity, as indicated by enhanced fluency, flexibility, and originality
in creative thought (Orme-Johnson and Haynes, 1981; Travis, 1979).
Longitudinal studies involving prisoners instructed in the Transcendental Meditation program showed significant gains on Loevinger’s
scale of self-development and decreased anxiety, aggression and recidivism (Abrams and Siegel, 1978; Alexander, 1982; Bleick and Abrams,
20 There are many detailed and compelling connections between modern science and Vedic
science which follow from a more comprehensive analysis of the Vedic literature. This literature
provides an extraordinarily detailed elaboration (in over 2000 volumes) of the spontaneous and
dynamical process of symmetry breaking through which the unified field sequentially gives rise
to the diverse laws of nature governing the dynamics of the entire universe. These comparisons
would require a more detailed analysis of the Vedic literature, which lies beyond the scope of
this work.
105
in press). A four-year longitudinal study on college students regularly
practicing the TM-Sidhi program found a statistically significant
increase in fluid intelligence at an age where intelligence is not supposed to change (Aron et al., 1981).
These studies would seem to indicate an increased fluency and competency at more abstract and fundamental levels of mental activity, in
accordance with Maharishi’s prediction. By engaging deeper levels of
the mind, it has been suggested (Alexander, Davies et al., 1987) that
these developmental technologies may be activating latent biological
structures and thereby providing a maturation foundation for further,
morphogenetic-type growth to higher stages of human development.
II.5 Higher States of Consciousness and the Sidhis
Any consideration of concrete evidence for the proposed identity
between pure consciousness and the unified field will necessarily
include at least a brief discussion of the sidhis or “supernormal” abilities traditionally associated with higher states of human development.
Although some of these abilities constitute natural extensions of qualities and abilities already developed in waking consciousness, others
appear to involve physics in a fundamental way.
From a purely developmental standpoint, it seems reasonable to
expect that new behavioral competencies would accompany higher
developmental stages. In the normal sequence of development from
childhood to adolescence, the individual passes through several distinct
stages of physiological and psychological development, each associated
with its own characteristic worldview and accompanied by a distinct set
of behavioral competencies (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). This sequence
of development typically ends at adolescence in a stage known as “formal operations.”
Recently, developmental psychologists have considered the possibility of continued growth to higher developmental stages beyond formal operations (Commons et al., 1984; Alexander, Langer and Oetzel,
1987). Indeed, there are four distinct states of consciousness beyond
waking, dreaming, and deep sleep that are described in Maharishi
Vedic Science (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1977; Alexander, Davies et
al., 1987; Dillbeck, 1983a, 1983b).These can be briefly summarized as:
106
1) Pure consciousness—the unified ground state of
consciousness in which consciousness is identified with
the unified field.
2) Cosmic consciousness—in which the experience of
pure consciousness is permanently established along
with waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states of
consciousness. In this state, consciousness maintains its
identification with the unified field while the mind and
emotions are fully engaged in activity.
3) Refined cosmic consciousness—similar to cosmic
consciousness except that the functioning of the mind
and senses has become further refined. Sense objects are
perceived in their most refined values and the emotions
are said to achieve their full development.
4) Unity consciousness—in which the object, as well as
the subject, is experienced as the Unified Field.
The higher developmental stages (2–4) are said to develop spontaneously on the basis of the regular alternation of pure consciousness with
activity, and result from an increasingly profound understanding and
experience of pure consciousness and its self-interacting dynamics
(Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1985).
This same understanding and experience is said to provide the basis
for the classical sidhis, which involve the ability to utilize the mind,
body, and environment in increasingly fundamental ways. Some of
these sidhis, if demonstrated under suitable conditions, would constitute striking evidence for the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the Unified Field.
Certain sidhis, for instance levitation, appear to violate the classical
laws of Newtonian gravity and general relativity, and at first sight would
seem highly implausible. However, neither Newtonian gravity nor general relativity represent consistent theories of gravity from a quantummechanical standpoint, and it might become necessary to reassess the
circumstances under which these classical theories can be expected to
107
apply (generally macroscopic circumstances). Physicists have been profoundly surprised on a number of prior occasions by the appearance
of striking quantum-mechanical behavior at macroscopic, observable
scales. Such phenomena of macroscopic quantum coherence, which
have been observed thus far under conditions of low temperature, present a striking contrast to classical intuition and experience, as in the
examples of superconductivity and superfluidity.
Most of the laws governing macroscopic behavior arise as the classical limit of deeper, quantum-mechanical laws. The transition from
quantum-mechanical to classical behavior generally requires a statistical averaging over quantum-mechanical fluctuations. It is therefore
conceivable, in the case of the sidhis, that a sustained influence of
coherence at the quantum-mechanical level might upset the balance of
statistical averaging that ordinarily gives rise to the familiar classical
laws. If the sidhis do constitute a departure from established classical
patterns of behavior, then a deeper, quantum-mechanical understanding will indeed be necessary.
In general, more fundamental spacetime scales offer natural mechanisms for transforming the environment in increasingly profound
ways. For example, transformations among electrons and neutrinos,
lepto-quark transformations, and bose-fermi transformations along
with modifications in the curvature of spacetime geometry are natural
phenomena at the electroweak, grand unified, and superunified scales,
respectively. More profound sidhis might therefore involve a progressive extension of the capacity for conscious activity to more fundamental spacetime scales.21
Indeed, the phenomenon of levitation, with its implied control over
the local curvature of spacetime geometry, would appear to require the
ability to function coherently at the scale of quantum gravity, which is
the assumed scale of superunification and the proposed domain of pure
consciousness. In this way some of the sidhis, if demonstrated under
laboratory conditions, would provide striking evidence for the proposed
identity between pure consciousness and the unified field.
21 The subjective accounts associated with the sidhis would support such an interpretation.
The individual in fully developed unity consciousness is said to experience all objects of perception as precipitated modes of consciousness. From this fundamentally unified perspective,
it is claimed that the transformations required to change one object into another are generally
obvious (i.e., molecular, nuclear, electroweak, etc.). Intention is said to accomplish the desired
changes (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, private communication).
108
II.6 Conclusion
We can summarize our phenomenological discussion as follows. It is
the experience of over six million individuals trained in the relevant
experiential techniques that there is a unified ground state of consciousness in which the observer, the process of observation, and the
observed are unified in a structure of “pure, self-interacting” consciousness. That this is a real experience and not something imagined is confirmed by approximately 600 studies indicating unique physiological
and psychological changes that accompany this subjective experience.
It is the further experience that this subjectively unbounded field is the
unified origin of what we ordinarily call subjective and objective existence. We have observed a striking correspondence between structural
aspects of this experience and the physical structure of natural law at
fundamental scales. The most straightforward interpretation of these
experiences, of the Super Radiance data, and of the sidhis phenomena
is that the unified field that has become the primary focus of modern
theoretical physics and the Unified Field of consciousness are identical.
Conversely, if one were to reject all such experiences and conclude
that there were no fundamental connection between the Unified Field
of consciousness and the unified field responsible for physical existence,
one would then be forced to provide an alternative explanation for the
Super Radiance phenomenon. This would probably require the introduction of nonlocal mechanisms outside the domain of physics and
hence more radical than those considered here.
We favor the simpler view in which there is only one unified field, for
we have emphasized previously that the reasons for favoring some other
more complicated interpretation are primarily historical and somewhat
unique to our time and culture.
We would also regard Maharishi’s strong support for this proposal
as significant. Maharishi’s clear scientific penetration into a tradition
that was previously dominated by obscure and conflicting metaphysical understandings has enabled him to evolve extremely powerful and
systematic procedures to experience pure consciousness, and to make
numerous specific predictions regarding the physiological, psychological, and even sociological effects and correlates of the pure consciousness state, which have since been verified by scientific means. It is on
the basis of his own, unified field theoretic understanding and explica-
109
tion of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs that
these experiential technologies, along with their group applications in
a sociological context, have been described as the “Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field.”
At present, most physical scientists are relatively unacquainted with
the scientific literature on the Super Radiance effect and tend to regard
such phenomena with skepticism. This attitude is easily understood, for
at first glance such phenomena may appear to require substantial modifications in the conceptual foundations of physics, and such changes
have never met with enthusiasm. Here, we have tried to show that the
Super Radiance effect and other phenomenological aspects of higher
states of consciousness do not require the modification of existing physical principles and are compatible with the framework of physical science as it currently stands.
What appears to be required is an expanded physical framework for
the understanding of consciousness, in which consciousness occupies a
fundamental position in nature. Indeed, the Super Radiance data may
require that consciousness is more fundamental than the classical spacetime framework generally associated with distances larger than the
Planck scale. In this context, the most parsimonious, precise, and hence
attractive framework for understanding the Super Radiance data and
the subjective accounts of a Unified Field of consciousness is the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the unified field. Such
a framework also presents a completely unified basis for understanding both subjective and objective experience, according to which the
most modern description of natural law available through the objective approach of modern science and the most ancient understanding of
natural law available through the predominantly subjective approach of
Vedic science are seen as complementary approaches to gaining knowledge of the most fundamental aspects of natural law.
As a foundational theory of consciousness, this integrated framework developed by Maharishi would supplant the very limited view
of consciousness based upon the analysis of waking experience, which
is poorly motivated from a theoretical standpoint and which is presently at odds with an expanding range of phenomenology. This new
framework includes, as an empirical component, systematic procedures
for the direct experience of the ground state of consciousness together
110
with the most elementary states of excitation of consciousness and their
associated physiological correlates. Such a framework, which combines
the most modern field theoretic principles with the understanding of
ancient Vedic science, could fulfill the significant promise that a fundamental science of consciousness should offer and that has not been fulfilled by contemporary psychology with its limited empirical methods
and models based on outmoded physical constructs. Indeed, the Maharishi Effect already provides a striking demonstration of the applied
technologies that can emerge from such a framework by demonstrating
the capacity to reduce crime rates, accidents, infectious diseases, etc.,
including violence and war deaths in regions where military and negotiated settlements have historically demonstrated their inability to do so.
The potential contribution of such a science to the development of
physics is not inconsequential. There is growing concern in the scientific community regarding the long-term empirical basis for fundamental particle physics resulting from severe financial and technological
constraints on future particle accelerators. Already theorists have had
to rely increasingly upon their analytic and intuitive abilities as the
principal focus of theoretical physics has shifted to the experimentally
inaccessible domains of grand unification and superunification.
If there were a subjective means of gaining knowledge that was reliable (i.e., verifiable and consistent among scientists), this could help
compensate for a lack of useful accelerator data pertaining to the physics of fundamental scales. For example, if the Maharishi Technology
of the Unified Field indeed provides the direct conscious experience
of more abstract and fundamental levels of intelligence pertaining to
deeper levels of natural law, then it could represent a means for developing physical intuition and even for gaining direct insights into the
most fundamental aspects of nature’s dynamics—e.g., the structure and
dynamics of the unified field and the mechanics of symmetry breaking.
The Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field thereby offers the possibility of a new research methodology based on a subjective technology
that could fulfill the ultimate goal of objective science to fully unfold its
unified foundation and to apply this knowledge for the holistic development of the individual and society.
It is also possible that the Super Radiance effect and/or sidhis
might in themselves provide a useful laboratory for the investiga-
111
tion of fundamental physical principles in the domains of quantum
theory, quantum field theory and/or unified quantum field theories.
If, for instance, conventional electromagnetic mechanisms do not provide an adequate framework for understanding the Super Radiance
effect, a fundamental new mechanism for long-range interactions will
be needed. We have seen that in the context of present theories, this
mechanism may involve nonlocal effects associated with the structure
of spacetime at the scale of superunification or long-range quantummechanical correlations. Future experiments should help to resolve
these fundamental issues, and a more complete understanding of the
physical basis of consciousness is likely to emerge.
Our motivation throughout this work has been primarily empirical.
We have attempted to understand certain fundamental phenomena for
which there exists strong empirical evidence and which seem to require
a deeper and expanded physical framework for the understanding of
consciousness.
The evolution of scientific knowledge often requires extending the
domain of scientific inquiry to include areas that were previously outside the range of scientific investigation. Many eminent physicists feel
that the final and most important scientific frontier is consciousness.
Now with the experiential technologies provided by Maharishi Vedic
Science, consciousness has entered the realm of systematic, scientific
investigation. The resulting science of consciousness already suggests
a profound and previously unsuspected unification of objective and
subjective realms of experience. Indeed, if the applied technologies of
Maharishi Vedic Science provide the direct experience of the structure
and dynamics of the Unified Field, this could lead to a revolution in the
field of scientific knowledge and methodology, and would constitute
one of the key discoveries of our age.
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge valuable contributions from many of
my colleagues, especially C. Alexander, K. Chandler, M. Dillbeck,
J. Fagan, G. Golner, A. Hankey, J. Kesterson, D. Orme-Johnson, R.
Parker, C. Pearson, R. K. Wallace, K. Walton, R. Weller, and G. Wells.
112
I would also like to thank P. Craig, K. Kleinschnitz, P. Morehead,
and N. Showalter for their assistance in the completion of this manuscript.
Finally, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi for patiently explaining numerous principles of Vedic
Science in relation to modern science.
References
Abrams, A.I. & Seigel, L.M. (1978). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 5,
3.
Adey, W.R. (1981). Physics Review, 61, 435.
Alexander, C.N. (1982). Ego development, personality and behavioral
changes in inmates practicing the Transcendental Meditation
technique or participating in other programs: A cross-sectional
and longitudinal study. (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 539.
Alexander, C.N., Abou Nader, T.M., Cavanaugh, K.L., Davies, J.L.,
Dillbeck, M.C., Kfoury, R.J., & Orme-Johnson, D.W. (in press).
In Chalmers, R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless,
M. (Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation and
TM-Sidhi program: Collected papers, Vol. 4. Vlodrop, Netherlands:
MIU Press.
Alexander, C.N., Cranson, R.W., Boyer, R.W., & Orme-Johnson,
D.W. (1986). In Gackenbach, J., (Ed.), Sourcebook on sleep and
dreams. New York: Garland Press.
Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Dillbeck, M.C., Dixon, C., Oetzel, R.,
Muehlman, M., & Orme- Johnson, D.W. (1987). In Alexander,
C.N., Langer, E., & Oetzel, R., (Eds.), Higher stages of human
development: Adult growth beyond formal operations. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C.N., Langer, E., Davies, J., Chandler, H., & Newman,
R. (in press). In Chalmers, R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H.,
& Weinless, M. (Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program: Collected papers, Vol. 3.
Vlodrop, Netherlands: MIU Press.
113
Alexander, C.N., Langer, E., & Oetzel, R. (1987). Higher stages of
human development: Adult growth beyond formal operations. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Appelle, S. & Oswald, B.A. (1974). Perception and Motor Skills, 38,
1263.
Aron, A., Orme-Johnson, D.W., & Brubaker, P. (1981). College Student Journal, 15, 140.
Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., & Roger, G. (1982). Phys. Rev. Lett., 49,
1804.
Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1981). Phys. Rev. Lett., 47, 460.
Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982). Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 91.
Azar, E. E. (1980). J. Conflict Resolution, 24, 143.
Badawi, K., Wallace, R.K., Orme-Johnson, D.W., & Rouzere, R.M.
(1984). Psychosomatic Medicine, 46, 267.
Bhagavad Gita, with the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya. (1975). (A.
M. Sastry, Trans.). Madras: Samata Books. (Original work published in 1897.)
Banks, T., Susskind, L., & Peskin, M.E. (1984). Nucl. Phys., B244,
125.
Banquet, J.P. (1973). Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 35, 143.
Baylor, D.A., Lamb, T.D., & Yau, K.W. (1979). J. Physiology, 288,
613.
Baylor, D.A., Matthews, G., & Yau, K.W. (1980). J. Physiology, 309,
591.
Bell, J.S. (1975). Helv. Phys. Acta, 48, 93.
Bialek, W. (1985). Quantum limits to quantum counting. (Preprint
NSF-ITP-85-25). Santa Barbara.
Bialek, W. & Schweitzer, A. (1985). Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, 725.
Bleick, C.R. & Abrams, A.I. (in press). J. Criminal Justice.
Borland, C. & Landrith, G. (1977). In Orme-Johnson, D.W., & Farrow, J.T., (Eds.). Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation program: Collected papers, Vol. 1. Livingston Manor, NY:
MIU Press.
Bouman, M.A. (1961). In Rosenbluth, W.A. (Ed.), Sensory communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bujatti, M. & Riederer, P. (1976). J. Neurotransmitters, 39, 257.
114
Campbell, B.A., Ellis, J., Enqvist, K., Hagelin, J.S., Nanopoulos, D.
V., & Olive, K.A. (1986). Phys. Lett., 173B, 270.
Candelas, P., Horowitz, G. T., Strominger, A., & Witten, E. (1985).
Nucl. Phys., B258, 46.
Caraka Samhita (pp. 7, 399). (1981). (P. V. Sarma, Trans.). Varanasi,
India: Chaukhambha Orientalia.
Chalmers, R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless, M. (in
press). Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation and TMSidhi program: Collected papers, Vol. 4. Vlodrop, Netherlands:
MIU Press.
Commons, M.L., Richards, F.A., & Armon, C. (1984). Beyond formal
operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. New
York: Praeger Press.
Cremmer, E. & Julia, B. (1979). Nucl. Phys., B159, 141.
Davies, P. (1984). Superforce. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Del Guidice, E., Doglia, S., Milani, M., & Vitiello, G. (1985). Nucl
Phys., B251, 375.
DeVries, H. & Stuiven, M. (1961). In Rosenbluth, W.A. (Ed.), Sensory communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
de Weid, D. & Gispen, W.H. (1980). In Gainer, H. (Ed.), Peptides in
neurobiology (p. 397). New York: Plenum Press.
de Wit, B. & Nicolai, H. (1984). Nucl. Phys., B243, 91.
Dillbeck, M.C. (1981). Social field effects and crime prevention.
Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Los
Angeles.
Dillbeck, M.C. (1983a). Psychologia, 26, 62.
Dillbeck, M.C. (1983b). Psychologia, 26, 232.
Dillbeck, M.C. & Bronson, E. C. (1981). Intl. J. Neuroscience, 14, 147.
Dillbeck, M.C., Foss, A., & Zimmerman, W.J. (in press). In Chalmers, R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless, M. (Eds.),
Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi
program: Collected papers, Vol. 4. Vlodrop, Netherlands: MIU
Press.
Dillbeck, M.C., Landrith, G., & Orme-Johnson, D.W. (1981). J.
Crime and Statistics, 4, 25.
Dillbeck, M.C., Landrith, G., Polanzi, C., & Baker, S.R. (in press).
In Chalmers, R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless,
115
M. (Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation and
TM-Sidhi program: Collected papers, Vol. 4. Vlodrop, Netherlands: MIU Press.
Dillbeck, M.C., Landrith, G., Polanzi, C., Cavanaugh, K.L., Glenn,
T., Orme-Johnson, D.W., & Mittlefeldt, V. (1986). Effects of the
Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program on quality of
life indicators: Consciousness as a field. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Dillbeck, M.C., Larimore, W.E., & Wallace, R.K. (in press). In
Chalmers, R., Clements, G.,Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless, M.
(Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation and
TM-Sidhi program: Collected papers, Vol. 4. Vlodrop, Netherlands: MIU Press.
Dine, M., Kaplunovsky, V., Mangano, M., Nappi, C., & Seiberg, N.
(1985). Nucl. Phys., B259, 519.
Domash, L. (1977). In Orme-Johnson, D.W. & Farrow, J.T. (Eds.),
Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation program: Collected papers, Vol. 1. Livingston Manor, NY: MIU Press.
Duff, M.J., Nilsson, B.E.W., & Pope, C.N. (1986). Phys. Rep., 130, 1.
Ellis, J. (1983). In Ellis, J. & Ferrara, S. (Eds.), Unification of the fundamental particle interactions, II. New York: Plenum Press.
Ellis, J., Enqvist, K., Nanopoulos, D.V., & Zwirner, F. (1985). CERN
preprint TH-4323/85.
Ellis, J., Enqvist, K., Nanopoulos, D.V., & Zwirner, F. (1986). Mod.
Phys. Lett., A1, 57.
Ellis, J., Hagelin, J.S., & Nanopoulos, D.V. (1985). Phys. Lett., 158B,
26.
Ellis, J., Hagelin, J.S., Nanopoulos, D.V., Olive, K., & Srednicki, M.
(1984). Nucl. Phys., B238, 453.
Eppley, K., Abrams, A., & Shear, J. (in press). In Chalmers, R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless, M. (Eds.), Scientific
research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program:
Collected papers, Vol. 4. Vlodrop, Netherlands: MIU Press.
Farrow, J.T. & Hebert, J.R. (1982). Psychosomatic Medicine, 44, 133.
Fayet, P. (1980). In Ferrara, S., Ellis, J., & van Nieuwenhuizen, P.
(Eds.), Unification of the fundamental particle interactions (p. 587).
New York: Plenum Press.
116
Ferguson, P.C. (1981). The integrated meta-analysis of psychological studies investigating the treatment outcomes of meditation
techniques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Colorado.
Fischbach, E. (1986). Phys. Rev. Lett., 56, 3.
Green, M.B. (1983). Surv. High Energy Phys., 3, 127.
Gross, D.J., Harvey, J.A., Martinec, E., & Rohm, R. (1985). Phys.
Rev. Lett., 54, 502; Nucl. Phys., B256, 253.
Guth, A.H. (1984). In Guth, A.H., Huang, K., & Jaffer, R.L. (Eds.),
Asymptotic realms of physics: A festschrift in honor of Francis Low.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hagelin, J.S. (1983). An introduction to unified field theories. Fairfield,
IA: MIU Press.
Hagelin, J.S., Olive, K.A., & Ng, K. -W. (in press). Phys. Lett. B.
Harrison, B.K., Thorne, K.S., Wakano, M., & Wheeler, J.S. (1965).
In Gravitational theory and gravitational collapse (p. 146). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hawking, S.W. (1982). Commun. Math. Phys., 87, 395.
Hawking, S.W. (1984). Nucl. Phys., B244, 135.
Hawking, S.W., Page, D.N., & Pope, C.N. (1979). Phys. Lett., 86B,
175.
Hawking, S.W., Page, D.N., & Pope, C.N. (1980). Nucl. Phys., B170,
283.
Haynes, C.T., Hebert, J.R., Reber, W., & Orme-Johnson, D.W.
(1977). In Orme-Johnson, D.W. & Farrow, J.T. (Eds.), Scientific
research on the Transcendental Meditation program: Collected papers,
Vol. 1. Livingston Manor, NY: MIU Press.
Hebert, R. & Lehmann, D. (1977). Electroencephalography and Clinical
Neurophysiology, 42, 397.
Herbert, N. (1985). Quantum reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Hepp, K. (1972). Helv. Phys. Acta, 45, 237.
Hilgard, E.R. (1980). Annu. Rev. Psych., 31, 1.
Jacobs, B.L. (1985). In Green, A.R. (Ed.), Neuropharmacology of serotonin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jevning, R., Wilson, A.F., & Davidson, J.M. (1978). Hormones and
Behavior, 10, 54.
117
Jevning, R., Wilson, A.F., Pirkle, H., Guich, W., & Walsh, R.N.
(1985). Physiol. Behav., 35, 679.
Jevning, R., Wilson, A.F., Pirkle, H., O’Halloran, J.P., & Walsh R.N.
(1983). Am. J. Physiol., 245, C457.
Jevning, R., Wilson, A.F., Smith, W.R., & Morton, M.E. (1978).
Am. J. Physiol., 235, R89.
Jevning, R., Wilson, A.F., & VanderLaan, E.F. (1978). Psychosomatic
Medicine, 40, 329.
Kesterson, J.B. (1986). Changes in respiratory patterns and control during
Transcendental Meditation. Dissertation Abstracts International,
(in press).
Knibbeler, F. (1985). The study of consciousness: A suggestion on how to
proceed.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levine, P.H. (1976). Proceedings of the San Diego Biomedical Symposium,
Vol. 15 (p. 237).
Linde, A.D. (1984). In Proceedings of the Intl. Conf. of High Energy
Physics. Leipzig.
Llewellyn Smith, C.H. (1981). In Mulvey, J.H. (Ed.), The nature of
matter (p. 51). Chicago: Oxford University Press.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1966). The science of being and art of living.
Livingston Manor, NY: MIU Press.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1969). On the Bhagavad-Gita. Baltimore:
Penguin Press.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1977). Creating an ideal society. Rheinweiler,
West Germany: MERU Press.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1985). In Maharishi Vedic University Inauguration. Livingston Manor, NY: Age of Enlightenment Press.
Miskiman, D.E. (1977). In Orme-Johnson, D. W. & Farrow, J.T.
(Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation program:
Collected papers, Vol. 1. Livingston Manor, NY: MIU Press.
Nataraj, P. & Radhamani, M.G. (in press). In Chalmers, R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless, M. (Eds.), Scientific
research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhiprogram:
Natsoulas, T. (1978). Am. Psychologist, 33, 906.
118
Natsoulas, T. (1983). J. Mind and Behavior, 4, 13.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman and
Co.
Nelson, E. (1985). Quantum fluctuations. Princeton University Press.
Neveu, A. & Schwartz, J. (1971). Nucl. Phys., B31, 86.
O’Halloran, J.P., Wilson, A.F., Skowsky, R., Walsh, R. N., & Alexander, C.N. (1985). Physiol. Behav., 35, 591.
Orme-Johnson, D.W. (1973). Psychosomatic Medicine, 35, 341.
Orme-Johnson, D.W, Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Chandler, H.
N., & Larimore, W.E. (in press). In Chalmers, R., Clements,
G., Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless, M. (Eds.), Scientific research on
the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program: Collected
papers, Vol. 4. Vlodrop, Netherlands: MIU Press.
Orme-Johnson, D.W., Cavanaugh, K.L., Alexander, C.N., Gelderloos, P., Dillbeck, M.C., Lanford, A.G., & Abou Nader, T.M.
(in press). In Chalmers, R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H., &
Weinless, M. (Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program: Collected papers, Vol. 4. Vlodrop,
Netherlands: MIU Press.
Orme-Johnson, D.W., Dillbeck, M.C., Alexander, C.N., & Van Denberg V. (in press). In Chalmers,R., Clements, G., Schenkluhn,
H., & Weinless, M. (Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program: Collected papers, Vol. 4.
Vlodrop, Netherlands: MIU Press.
Orme-Johnson, D.W. & Farrow, J.T. (1977). Scientific research on the
Transcendental Meditation program: Collected papers, Vol. 1. Livingston Manor, NY: MIU Press.
Orme-Johnson, D.W. & Gelderloos, P. (in press). In Chalmers, R.,
Clements, G., Schenkluhn, H., & Weinless, M. (Eds.), Scientific
research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program:
Orme-Johnson, D.W. & Haynes, C.T. (1981). Intl. J. Neuroscience, 13,
211.
Pagels, H. (1982). The cosmic code: Quantum theory as the language of
nature. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Patanjali (1978). Yoga Sutras. (R. Prasada, Trans.). New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp. (Original work published 1912)
119
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York:
Basic Books.
Primack, J. (1984). Dark matter, galaxies and large scale structure in the
universe. (Preprint 3387). SLAC.
Principal Upanishads. (S. Radhakrishnan, Trans.). New York:
Humanities Press.
Ramond, P. (1971). Phys. Rev., D3, 2415.
Sankaracharya (1977). Brahma-Sutra Bhasya. (S. Gambhirananda,
Trans.). Calcutta: Sun Lithography Co.
Schwartz, J.H. (1982). Phys. Rep., 89, 223.
Silk, J., Olive, K.A., & Srednicki, M. (1985). Phys. Rev. Lett., 55, 257.
Stapp, H.P. (1982). Found. Phys., 12, 363.
Tourenne, C. (1985). Theoretical Biology, 116, 495.
Travis, F. (1979). J. Creative Behavior, 13, 169.
Van Nieuwenhuizen, P. (1981). Phys. Rep., 68, 189.
Vroon, P. (1975). Bewustzijn, hersenen andgedrag. Ambo Barn.
Wallace, R.K. (1970). Science, 167, 1251.
Wallace, R.K. (1986). The Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field: The
Neurophysiology of Enlightenment. Fairfield, IA: MIU Neuroscience Press.
Wallace, R.K., Benson, H., & Wilson, A.F. (1971). Am. J. Physiology,
221, 795
Wallace, R.K., Dillbeck, M.C., Jacobe, E., & Harrington, B. (1982).
Intl. J. Neuroscience, 16, 53.
Wallace, R.K. & Jevning, R. (in press). Physiol. Rev.
Wallace, R.K., Mills, P.J., Orme-Johnson, D.W., Dillbeck, M.C., &
Jacobe, E. (1983). Experimental Neurology, 79, 11.
Walton, K.G., McCorkle, T., Hauser, T., MacLean, C., Wallace,
R. K., Leni, J., & Meyerson, L.R. (in press). Molecular mechanisms of neuronal responsiveness. A volume of Ehrlich, Y.H., et al.
(Eds.), Advances in experimental medicine and biology. New York:
Plenum Press.
Werner, O.R., Wallace, R.K., Charles, B., Janssen, G., Stryker, T. &
Chalmers, R.A. (1986). Psychosomatic Medicine, 48, 59.
Wess, J. & Zumino, B. (1974). Nucl. Phys., B70, 39; Phys. Lett., 493,
52.
120
Wigner, E. (1962). In Good, I.J. (Ed.), The scientist speculates. London:
Heinemann.
Witten, E. (1985). Nucl. Phys., B258, 75.
Wolkove, N., Kreisman, H., Darragh, D., Cohen, C., & Frank, H.
(1984). J. Applied Physiology: Respiratory, Environmental and
Exercise Physiology, 56, 607.
Zambrini, J.C. (1986). Phys. Rev., A33, 1532.
Zel’dovich, Ya. B. (1976). Phys. Lett., 59A, 254.
Zurek, W.H. (1982). Phys. Rev., D26, 1862.
Zurek, W.H. (1983). In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (p.181). Tokyo.
____________________________________
This article, “Is Consciousness the Unified Field? A Field Theorist’s
Perspective,” by John S. Hagelin, Ph.D., here revised/updated, was
originally published in Modern Science and Vedic Science, Vol. 1, no. 1,
1987, pp. 29–87.
121
122
qua n t u m m e a su r e m en t a n d t h e progr a m f or t h e u n i t y of sci ence
Quantum Measurement and the Program
for the Unity of Science
■
David C. Scharf, Ph.D.
123
about the author
David Scharf, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Physics at Maharishi
University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa. He received his Ph.D. in
1986 from Johns Hopkins University in the philosophy of physics. The
title of his dissertation was “Quantum Mechanics and the Program for
the Unity of Science.” His broad work experience ranges from extensive
industrial computational engineering to university teaching in physics,
mathematics, computer science, and philosophy. Dr. Scharf ’s current
areas of focus include Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Neuroscience,
Computational Physics, History and Philosophy of Physics, and Philosophy of Mind.
124
abstr act
It is quite extraordinary, philosophically speaking, that according to the
orthodox interpretation:
(a) quantum mechanics is a complete and comprehensive theory of microphysics, and yet
(b) the role of measurement, in quantum mechanics, cannot be analyzed in
terms of the collective effects of the microphysical particles making up the apparatus.
It follows that, if the orthodox interpretation is correct, the measurement
apparatus and its quantum physical effects cannot be accounted for microreductively. This is significant because it is widely believed that the relation
between physical wholes and parts is microreductive. Indeed, many philosophers are persuaded of the inevitability of universal microreduction to the
basic elements of microphysics. This is the viewpoint embodied in the program
for the unity of science, espoused in recent years, most notably by Robert Causey (1977).
A
Introduction
long and important philosophical tradition has held that the
unification of science should be conceived as an ontological
reduction to the entities and properties of microphysics. The
basic idea is that the ultimate entities of microphysics are all that exist
in the world, and a complete description of all phenomena can, in principle, be given in language referring solely to microphysics. This is an
extreme view of the unity of science, but one that, nevertheless, has
many adherents in both philosophy and science. It is attractive in its
simplicity.
Paul Oppenheim and Hilary Putnam, in their classic 1958 article,
“The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis,” outlined a program
for the reduction of the laws and descriptive vocabulary of science to
that of a fundamental level of theoretical explanation. This program
envisions a succession of microreductions of one level of explanation to
another, more basic level. In a rough, preliminary fashion, Oppenheim
and Putnam blocked out a hierarchical series of six levels of families of
theories, with elementary particle physics constituting the lowest, and
most basic, level. The subsequent levels in their hierarchy are atoms,
125
molecules, cells, (multicellular) living things, and social groups, in that
order.
A microreduction is a reductive explanation of the properties of
wholes in terms of the properties of the parts. A whole is explained by
being shown to be nothing but the parts, interrelated in a certain manner. The most careful and thoroughgoing discussion of microreduction,
so far available, is to be found in Robert Causey’s Unity of Science (1977).
My thesis is that contemporary microphysical theory is incompatible
with this program for the unity of science. The reason is this: microreduction requires that compound elements (objects composed of parts)
and their properties be explainable in terms of the parts and their
interrelations. Furthermore, it is necessary for microreduction that
the descriptive vocabulary referring to compound elements and their
properties be definable (and hence eliminable) in terms referring to the
parts. But a measurement apparatus, together with the physical effects
associated with quantum measurement, is in principle unanalyzable in
terms of the elementary particles of which it is composed. Accordingly,
measurement is a primitive notion for quantum theory, not definable in
terms referring to elementary particles.
The role of measurement in quantum physics is given a formal
representation in the projection postulate. The projection postulate
is regarded, in the orthodox view, as a fundamental law-sentence of
quantum theory. However, the projection postulate contains an essential reference to measurement, and measurement involves the intervention of a measurement apparatus, which is a macroscopic object and a
compound element composed of numerous elementary particles. But
it is microreductively unacceptable for a fundamental law-sentence,
of the basic theory, to refer to compound elements; the fundamental
law-sentences should be about the basic elements exclusively. This indicates that unless contemporary microphysical theory is inadequate, the
reductionist conception of the unity of science is mistaken.
126
Why Orthodox Quantum Physics Represents
the Projection Postulate as a Distinct Axiom
The standard axiomatic presentations of quantum theory represent the
projection postulate as a distinct axiom.1 According to orthodox theory,
a complete description of a microphysical system is given by a state vector, ψ , in Hilbert space. The change of state of the system over time
can occur in either of two distinct ways.
First, in the absence of a measurement interaction, the state of a
quantum mechanical system will evolve in a perfectly deterministic
manner. The mathematical description of this temporal progression is
given by Schrödinger’s equation:
where
( )
H ψ ( r;t ) = i ∂ ∂t ψ ( r;t )

H = −h 2 2m ∇ 2 + V ( r;t )
(
)
Thus, in the absence of a measurement disturbance, the formalism
of quantum mechanics provides for the prediction of the state of the
system at time t 2, provided that the state of the system at t 1 is given.
This may be summarized in the form of a postulate as follows: In the
absence of a measurement disturbance, the time evolution of the state
of a system is described by Schrödinger’s equation.
The second way that a change of state can occur is in the context
of measurement. If a measurement is made on a quantum mechanical system, then an uncontrollable and indeterministic change of state
can occur. It is the fact that measurement involves a radically different
mode of state transition that two distinct axioms are required, in orthodox theory, to describe the changes of state of a quantum mechanical
system.2
It is the projection postulate that describes the behavior of a quantum mechanical system in the context of measurement, and this will be
1 See, for example, Cohen-Tannoudji et al. (1977, pp. 214ff).
2 The widely discussed problem of measurement (for example, Fine 1970; Putnam
1979; Shimony 1963; Wigner 1963) centers around the impossibility, within orthodox
theory, of providing a unitary treatment of quantum state transitions. For recent discussions, which are critical of the orthodox interpretation of the projection postulate,
see Teller (1983 and 1984).
127
my primary focus in the present article. The projection postulate may
be stated as follows:
Provided that a quantum mechanical system is not in an eigenstate of
 , prior to a given measurement of A , the measurement
an observable A
produces an indeterministic alteration in the state of the system by pro.
jecting it into one of the eigenstates of A
In general, an observable is any measurable physical property, such as
position, momentum, spin, etc. (For the sake of simplicity, though, I
frame my discussion in terms of an observable A , having a discrete, nondegenerate eigenvalue spectrum.) An eigenstate of an observable is one
of the base states, corresponding to a measurable value of the observable.
(As a result of measurement, the system will be in an eigenstate of the
observable measured.)
For example, a spin ½ particle has two eigenstates, + and − , corresponding to the two measurable spin values, spin up and spin down. A
distinguishing feature of quantum mechanical systems is that the state
ψ can be a superposition of eigenstates; this is understood to mean
that the system is in both states simultaneously. A quantum mechanical
superposition is represented mathematically by the linear combination
ψ = c+ + + c− − ,where c+ and c−are numbers indicating probability
amplitudes.
If a system is in an eigenstate, then an appropriate measurement is
certain to find the system with the corresponding value. In this case,
the measurement will not alter the state of the system, and the result of
the measurement will be predictable with certainty. It will not, however, be the case in general that the system is in an eigenstate of A
prior to measurement. If not, the measurement interaction will project
the state into one of the eigenstates of A . This projection will constitute a change in state, and a change in state that is not deterministic. It
can neither be predicted (except probabilistically) nor controlled.
Considering Schrödinger evolution and the projection postulate
together, there are, then, two ways in which physical systems change
with time. In the absence of measurement interference, the system
evolves in a completely deterministic and predictable manner, in accordance with Schrödinger’s equation. But, as a consequence of measurement, the system may be projected into an eigenstate in a manner that
is indeterministic and unpredictable.
128
A measurement consists in a physical procedure resulting in the
quantitative evaluation of a physical property with respect to a standard
of comparison. Measurement involves the physical interaction of the
system being measured with the apparatus used in making and recording the results of measurement. Classical physics, of course, recognized
that measurement involved a physical interaction between the measuring instrument and the system under observation. But it was supposed
that the measurement interaction could be accounted for in the same
way that any other physical interaction could be accounted for. Thus,
the forces exerted on a system during a measurement procedure can
be accounted for, in classical mechanics, in terms of the energy of the
system.
But the concept of measurement required by quantum theory
includes a factor that has no classical analogue. The projection into an
eigenstate, of a system that was not previously in that eigenstate, cannot
be accounted for in the same way that quantum mechanics accounts for
other physical processes. The interaction of the measurement apparatus
with the object system being measured is of a radically different sort
than the interaction between two ordinary quantum mechanical systems. The latter type of interaction may be described by Schrödinger’s
equation, whereas the former cannot. Hence the projection postulate
must be incorporated into quantum theory as a distinct law-sentence,
in order to account for measurement phenomena.
For the purposes of this article I will assume that a measurement
occurs as a result of the interaction of a quantum mechanical system
and an apparatus (whether artificial or natural) of macroscopic proportions. “Measurement apparatus” should be broadly construed as denoting any macroscopic object capable of responding (by a change in some
macroscopic property) to an interaction with the quantum mechanical
microsystem.
While measurement involves an epistemological aspect, I shall
assume, conservatively, that it is not this aspect that projects an object
system into an eigenstate. Our realist intuitions strongly suggest that
photosynthesis in the leaf of a plant, for example, or the darkening of
a spot on a photographic plate occur regardless of whether a conscious
observer is aware of it. In any case, even if it were the epistemological
aspect of measurement that projects a quantum mechanical system into
129
an eigenstate, this would not help the microreductionist. The microreductionist would then be confronted with an irreducible projection
capability of human minds or brains.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics gives the theory its physical content (without an interpretation a scientific theory is simply a
mathematical formalism), and the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is accepted by the contemporary mainstream physics community, is the orthodox, or Copenhagen, interpretation. There are good
scientific reasons for this acceptance, in my view, but space does not
permit me to go into these here.
In order to help focus my subsequent discussion, I summarize the foregoing exposition of the orthodox interpretation by means of these two
brief and nontechnical principles.
First, the state vector, ψ , represents complete information about
an individual quantum mechanical system. The significant point here
is that ψ gives probabilistic information about the results of possible
measurements. If this information is also complete, then these quantum mechanical probabilities are not subjective, that is, they are not
due to our ignorance of some more determinate, “hidden” variables or
sub-ensembles.
Second, there are two distinct ways in which a quantum mechanical
system can evolve in time. In the absence of measurement, the temporal
evolution is deterministic and is governed by Schrödinger’s equation.
But in the context of measurement a system, which is in a superposition
of eigenstates, may be projected indeterministically into one or another
of the eigenstates associated with the observable being measured. It is
this projection capability of the measurement apparatus that poses the
problem for microreduction.
The program for the unity of science is an empirical project and, as
such, it must take seriously the judgment of physicists regarding the
interpretation of quantum theory. Some forms of hidden variables theories would conform to the requirements of microreduction, but hidden
variables do not now have the endorsement of the physics community.
The fact, which I claim to demonstrate in the present article, that the
orthodox interpretation of quantum theory runs counter to the microreductionist view of things should, therefore, be a cause of concern to
the microreductionist.
130
The Reference to Measurement in the Projection Postulate
is Indicative of the Emergence of Measurement Phenomena
Microreduction is a form of deductive-nomological (D-N) explanation
in which the phenomena to be explained are structured wholes and
the properties and behavior of structured wholes. Causey distinguishes
two subsets of elements in Dom (the domain of the theory T): basic elements which, from the perspective of T, have no parts, and compound
elements, which are composed of basic elements interrelated according
to a structural relation Φ (Causey 1977, pp. 48–49). A compound element that is microreductively above board (that is, it has no emergent
properties or behavior) is referred to by Causey as a “structured whole.”
An emergent compound element, on the other hand, is not a structured whole. All facts about structured wholes can be microreductively
accounted for within the scope of the basic theory by being analyzed in
terms of facts about the basic elements of that theory.
In practical circumstances, we identify or distinguish kinds of compound elements by means of functional considerations. Thus, for example, the distinguishing characteristic of a magnet is that it can function,
in appropriate circumstances, to attract iron or steel, etc. Now it may be
that the functional properties of the compound element are due entirely
to the structural makeup of the whole, and its functioning in various
environments can be accounted for in terms of the concerted effects of
its parts. If so, the compound element can be legitimately subjected to
a microreductive analysis.
Generally speaking, a structure is an arrangement of or a relationship between the parts of a whole. In the present context, the term
“structure” refers to the system of interrelations as abstracted from any
particular set of parts. Thus a blueprint describes a structure which can
be given any number of concrete representations. To cite another example, physicists speak of the structure of the hydrogen atom without having any particular hydrogen atom in mind. A structure, therefore, is an
abstract system of interrelations which can be satisfied equally well by
equivalent sets of basic elements.
It should be possible to formulate structural relation-predicates in
terms of the theory-specific vocabulary L in which a given structure is
to be described. These structural relation-predicates (or simply “structure predicates”) refer to kinds of structures of compound elements.
131
According to Causey, “in order to describe a kind of structure, one
must specify a finite set of two or more basic elements and also specify some structural relationship which holds between these elements”
(1977, p. 59).
The central idea of the program for the unity of science is that the
basic elements of microphysics and their attributes are all that exist
in the world, and that a complete description of all phenomena can
in principle be given in language referring solely to the basic microphysical particles. Causey distinguishes two kinds of predicates, thingpredicates and attribute-predicates, in the language L of a given theory
T. The thing predicates name the various kinds of things in the domain
of T. Some examples of thing-predicates (from various theories) are
“water,” “gold,” “oak tree,” “electron,” “hydrogen atom,” and “benzene
molecule.” An attribute-predicate names an attribute (that is, a property, relation, disposition, quantity, etc.) which, in general, some elements of a given domain will possess and others will not. “Boils at
100°C at sea level,” “green,” “decaying,” “soluble in water,” and “longer
than” are examples of attribute-predicates.
The language L, of theory T, is assumed to have nonlogical predicates for describing the things and attributes of both Bas (the subset of
basic elements of Dom) and Comp (the subset of compound elements).
Thus L is assumed to have basic thing-predicates, which refer to basic
kinds of things, basic attribute predicates referring to basic attributes,
and compound thing- and attribute-predicates referring to compound
kinds and attributes, respectively.
Causey outlines the general features required of the descriptive
vocabulary of L necessary to reflect the reductive relationship of structured whole to interrelated constituent parts. Some of the descriptive
predicates of L will be primitive and the rest will be definable in terms
of these. The primitive nonlogical predicates must refer exclusively to
basic kinds and attributes. Hence there cannot be any primitive (that is,
undefined in L) compound thing- or attribute-predicates.
Regarding compound things, Causey writes that “it is assumed that
each kind of structured whole in [Comp] is denoted by some thingpredicate which is defined in [L] in terms of basic thing-predicates
together with appropriate attribute-predicates” (1977, p. 56). Thus, the
thing-predicates which denote structured wholes are not primitive.
132
Compound elements (if they are indeed microreducible) are structured
wholes and consequently nothing but their interrelated constituent
parts. A description of the parts, their properties and interrelations,
therefore, can serve to identify or name the compound element. Moreover, this “structural description” can serve to define (at least extensionally) any other predicates which refer to the structured whole.
Causey defines a compound attribute as an attribute which is possessed in at least one of its components only by compound elements
(1977, p. 56). Quantum theoretical measurement provides an example
of a compound attribute; measurement in quantum theory involves
interaction with a measurement apparatus of macroscopic proportions.
Accordingly, a relational predicate can be defined as follows: Mxy =df ,
“a measurement is made on system x by apparatus y.” The x component
can refer to a basic element or to a compound element, depending on
whether x is a one-particle system or a system consisting of two or more
structurally interrelated particles. But the y component applies only to
macroscopic systems, composed of many structurally interrelated particles.
If an attribute is possessed in all of its components by basic elements,
then it is a basic attribute-predicate. Regarding compound attributepredicates Causey writes, “Any attribute which is not basic, in particular
any compound attribute, is denoted by some attribute-predicate which
is defined in [L] in terms of basic attribute-predicates possibly together
with appropriate basic thing-predicates” (1977, p. 56). If it were possible for L to contain a primitive compound attribute-predicate, Causey
concedes, “It could then be charged that such a predicate denotes an
‘emergent property’ not completely reducible to the basic elements and
their attributes” (1977, p. 65).
A primitive compound attribute-predicate cannot be defined in
terms of basic predicates. Since it cannot be eliminated in favor of an
equivalent set of basic predicates, its reference to the compound attribute is an essential reference. Moreover, the compound attribute itself
is an emergent property, and the compound things to which the attribute predicate applies must, consequently, also be emergent. Thus, the
apparently ineliminable reference to measurement in a fundamental
law-sentence (the projection postulate) in quantum theory is indicative
of the emergence of measurement phenomena.
133
Now, the program for the unity of science is a program for universal microreduction; its success depends upon the proposition that every
compound element is a structured whole. The primary ontological feature of microreduction is that a structured whole exists as nothing but
its constituent parts, b1, . . ., bn, interrelated in accordance with the
structural description Φ . The structure, Φ , of a structured whole is
just one of the various possible arrangements of the group of basic elements, bl . . ., bn, of which it is composed. The structural description,
therefore, defines the particular boundary conditions which distinguish
the structured whole from other, arbitrary arrangements of the bi. The
structural description represents the boundary conditions which enable
the D-N derivation of law-sentences about the structured whole from
law sentences about the parts.
The fundamental law-sentences of T, which provide the basis for
a given microreductive derivation, must refer exclusively to basic elements, and describe their properties and behavior. The reference of any
term which designates a structured whole is simply the basic elements,
bl . . ., bn, as interrelated by Φ . Any law-sentence ascribing properties
and behavior to structured wholes must be derivable from law-sentences
exclusively about basic elements. If a law-sentence about compound elements is not so derivable, it will represent a fundamental law in the
theory; and if compound elements in Dom are directly governed by a
fundamental law in T, then the law is microreductively emergent, in T,
and the compound element described is also emergent.
The microreductive difficulty with the projection postulate, as a fundamental law sentence of quantum mechanics, is that it makes essential
reference to measurement, and measurement is understood to involve
intervention by a macroscopic apparatus. If the apparatus can correctly
be regarded as quantum mechanical at all, it is a compound element in
the domain of quantum theory. If the measurement apparatus were a
structured whole, microreductively analyzable in terms of its constituent particles, then the projection postulate should be derivable from
law-sentences referring only to the constituent particles. That is, if the
worldview presupposed by the unity of science program of Causey and
others is true, it should be possible, at least in principle, to replace the
projection postulate by law-sentences which refer exclusively to the
basic elements of quantum physics.
134
Unfortunately, there is no interesting sense in which a microreductive derivation (or any sort of microreductive analysis) can be given of
the projection postulate, within the framework of orthodox quantum
mechanics. Therefore, if the orthodox view of quantum measurement is
correct, it follows that the program for the unity of science, of Causey
and others, is unrealizable. In other words, if orthodox quantum theory
is true, the program for the unity of science is false.
To Be Microreductively Acceptable,
a Law-Sentence that Describes the Behavior
of Compound Elements Must Be Derivative
The derivative laws of a theory T are explainable in terms of the fundamental laws of T (Causey 1977, p. 27). The fundamental laws, on the
other hand, cannot be explained by T, although they might be explainable in terms of the laws of some deeper theory (1977, pp. 45, 114).
Causey notes that in order for T to satisfy the conditions of microreduction, T “must be fundamentally a theory about [the basic elements
of Dom] and only derivatively a theory about [the compound elements
of Dom]” (1977, p. 66). In particular, it is necessary for microreduction
that the laws governing the behavior of the compound elements of Dom
be derivative laws in T. All of T ’s law-sentences, Causey says, “should
be explainable from a set of fundamental law-sentences which, in some
sense, apply directly only to [the basic elements of Dom]” (1977, p. 67).
It will be a matter of some concern, in the present article, to specify in
exactly what sense the fundamental laws are supposed to apply to the
basic elements.
Causey does not attempt a general characterization of acceptable
fundamental law-sentences, although he suggests the following as a
paradigmatic type: “a free basic element of a certain kind possesses a
certain attribute under certain environmental conditions” (1977, p. 67).
The following two principles from electrostatics are of this type:
(1) A point particle having acharge Q sets up an electric field of inten2
sity E = 1 4πε 0 Q r r where r is the distance from the particle

in the direction f, and (2) a point particle with a charge Q in an electric
field E is subject to a force F = QE. (Lorrain and Corson, 1970, p. 42)
(
)(
)
135
The resultant electrical field, produced by two or more charges, is
simply the vector sum of the individual electric fields. This principle
of electrostatic superposition allows the straightforward derivation of
the electric field intensity for compound elements composed of two or
more particles. An example is the electric dipole, which is composed
of two equal but opposite charges spaced close together. The important
attribute of dipoles that the field intensity falls off in proportion to l/r3
is derivative; it follows from the electrical properties of the individual
charges plus the electrostatic superposition principle.
It is my contention that the projection postulate of quantum mechanics is a law sentence describing the behavior of compound elements
which is not derivative. Note that there are two parts to this contention. The first is that the projection postulate describes the behavior
of compound elements (namely, measuring instruments). The second
is that the projection postulate cannot be derived from any law-sentences exclusively about basic elements. These claims will be defended
at length.
The projection postulate applies to the interaction between a quantum mechanical system and a suitable measuring instrument; it (the
projection postulate) describes the change of state of the system S in
the context of measurement. The measuring instrument is a macroscopic physical object and is regarded by mainstream physics, in the
application of the projection postulate, as an unanalyzed system. It is
unanalyzed in the sense that measurement is regarded as a capability of
the apparatus as a whole, and physicists have not been able to provide
a microreductive explanation for why an apparatus projects an object
system into an eigenstate, when it does. Feynman et al., for example,
write in this connection, “No one will give you any deeper representation of the situation. We have no ideas about a more basic mechanism
from which these results can be deduced” (1965, p. 1–10).
The measurement apparatus can be regarded as one of the environmental conditions influencing the system measured, but it cannot
retain this unexplained status if quantum mechanics is to do service as
the microreductive base for the unity of science program. The measurement apparatus cannot remain unanalyzed from the point of view of
the basic theory because, as Causey notes, if the relevant aspects of the
environment “include objects, then they would normally be considered
136
elements of [Dom]” (1977, p. 66). Consequently, these objects must be
microreductively accounted for, just like any other compound elements
in Dom.
If the measurement apparatus is to be microreduced, then it,
together with its measurement capacities, must be explainable exclusively in terms of its constituent elementary particles. Given that the
projection postulate describes the behavior of compound elements, it
is not suitable—from a microreductive point of view—as a fundamental law-sentence in the basic theory. However, the projection postulate is fundamental in quantum mechanics, according to the orthodox
view. Hence, the projection postulate is an emergent law-sentence and,
assuming the correctness of quantum theory, the measurement phenomena it describes are also emergent.
Causey does not provide an exhaustive account of emergent laws,
but he does give two schemas for law-sentences which, from a microreductive point of view, should not be fundamental law-sentences. The
first of these is (1977, p. 67)
Cc → Pc
(1)
where C is a compound thing-predicate, c is any compound element,
P is a compound attribute predicate, and → stands for the sentential
connective “if---------, then---------.”
Now (1) should not be fundamental because it is about compound
elements and their attributes. Thus (1) might describe a feature of electric dipoles, for example, that their electric field intensities fall off as
1 r 3 . But (1) could also represent a description of some irreducible
characteristics of a certain type of measuring instrument, for example,
that a certain kind of modified Stern-Gerlach arrangement has the
capacity to project a superposition of spin eigenstates into a particular
eigenstate. Law-sentences about electric dipoles can be derived from
law-sentences about individual charged particles, but law sentences
describing the projection properties of a measurement apparatus cannot be so derived.
The second schema is (1977, p. 67)
Φb1 ,...,bn → Ψb1, ,...,bn
137
(2)
where Φ is a structural description defined in L, Ψ is a compound
attribute predicate defined in L, and b1, ..., bn are basic elements in Dom.
Also, Causey stipulates that Φ is analytically equivalent to C ( Φ is
a definition of C) and that Ψ is analytically equivalent to P. Hence
schema (2) is analytically equivalent to schema (1).
Law-sentences satisfying (2), like those satisfying (1), are not acceptable from a microreductive point of view as fundamental law-sentences
in a theory T. The reason, according to Causey, is that “we want to
understand the behavior of the wholes (compound elements) in terms
of the behavior of their parts (basic elements)” (1977, p. 67).
Law-sentences having the form of (2), like those having the form of
(1), describe attributes and behavior of compound elements. The only
difference is that the type of compound element C and the compound
attribute P are denoted respectively by the structural description Φ
and the defined attribute predicate Ψ .
The attributes and behavior of structurally interrelated aggregates
of basic elements should be derivable, because structurally interrelated
aggregates of basic elements are compound elements. Hence the fundamental laws of T should either describe the attributes and behavior
of the basic elements taken as individual, separately existing items, or
else they should describe “nonstructural relations holding between free
basic elements” (Causey 1977, p. 67).
My previous example of a derived law-sentence referred to the fact
that electric dipoles have electric field intensities which fall off as 1/r 3.
This can be restated as follows in the form of a law-sentence satisfying
(1):
If c is a compound element which is an electric dipole, then the electric
field intensity of c decreases as 1/r 3.
(3)
The compound thing-predicate “electric dipole” can be replaced by
the structural description “two equal but opposite charges spaced close
together.” Similarly, the compound attribute-predicate, “the electric
decreases as 1/r 3,” can be replaced by “the
field intensity of
and
decrease as
combined electric field intensities of
3
1/r .” Then, by substituting bl, b2 for c, a law-sentence satisfying schema
(2) results, namely:
138
If b1 and b2 are two equal but opposite charges spaced close together,
then the combined electric field intensities of b1 and b 2 decrease as 1/
r 3.
(4)
Law-sentence (4) is analytically equivalent to (3) and is unacceptable
as a fundamental law-sentence of T for the same reason (3) was unacceptable, namely, it describes the behavior of compound elements in
Dom. Law-sentences like (3) and (4) should be (and are) explainable in
terms of law-sentences describing the behavior of individual charged
particles.
It is true that, although equivalent to (3), sentence (4) is worded so
as to refer to the basic elements b1 and b2 . Nevertheless (4) describes
their behavior as a compound. Any compound element has parts and
can be described in terms referring to those parts. Similarly, any compound attribute-predicate can be expressed as a description of the combined effects of the parts. Hence any compound law-sentence can be
rephrased in terms of an analytically equivalent law-sentence in which
no compound predicates appear. But this semantical flexibility is not
microreduction, and a compound law sentence rephrased in this way is
not thereby micro-reductively explained.
The Measurement Apparatus is a Compound Element
in the Domain of Quantum Theory
It is important to emphasize that the problem with the measurement
apparatus is not merely an issue of semantics. We would not make the
measurement apparatus microreductively acceptable by merely taking care to refer to it as the set of structurally interrelated particles
which make it up. Thus “ Φ b1, .... bn” in schema (2) actually refers to a
compound element. If the compound element c is indeed a structured
whole, then Φ is a structural relation which corresponds to the type C
such that: if the basic elements b1, .... bn, which are of certain specified
types, satisfy Φ , then the structured whole c, of type C, is formed.
The difficulty with (2), above, is the same as the difficulty with (1): it
represents a law-sentence which refers to a type of compound element.
In (2), the compound element is structurally described, but it is a compound element nonetheless. “ Φ b1, .... bn” refers to the basic elements as
structurally interrelated by Φ ; and a group of structurally interrelated
basic elements is a compound element. Consequently, neither (1) nor
139
(2) should represent law-sentences that are fundamental, if the requirements of microreduction are to be satisfied.
It would not be sufficient to derive a problematic law-sentence about
compound elements c of type C from an equivalent law-sentence framed
in terms of Φ b1, .... bn. If this were to count as a microreduction, then
the thesis of universal microreduction would have no interest, since it
could be trivially satisifed for any prima facie emergent law. Hence,
the projection postulate does not become acceptably fundamental, if we
merely stipulate that the references to measurement are to be understood, from now on, as referring to the structurally interrelated particles constituting the apparatus.
Fundamental laws, if they are to be microreductively acceptable,
must be about basic elements exclusively. Since a group of structurally
interrelated basic elements is a compound element, the fundamental
laws of T should not be about groups of structurally interrelated basic
elements, any more than they should be about compound elements,
explicitly so designated. Note that it does not follow, from this, that the
(microreductively legitimate) fundamental law-sentences must be about
individual basic elements exclusively. The fundamental law-sentences of
T should either be about individual basic elements or, if they are about
the behavior of groups of basic elements, these should be groups of
basic elements which are not structurally interrelated.
Now, it should be noted that, while the distinction between structural and nonstructural interrelations is important for the microreductionist characterization of fundamental law-sentences, this distinction
is not very clearly defined by Causey. It would be tempting to simply
collapse the distinction, given the difficulty of generally characterizing
it; but some form of structural/nonstructural distinction is essential to a
nontrivial conception of microreduction, and Causey was clearly aware
of this.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we were to collapse the distinction between a structurally interrelated group of basic elements and
a nonstructurally interrelated group. But any given basic elements will
be interrelated in some way or other. So, then, either any arbitrary group
of basic elements is structurally interrelated, or none is. It is not very
difficult to see, however, that neither of these alternatives will permit a
satisfactory analysis of microreduction. Either alternative would make
140
universal microreduction a trivial thesis, either trivially false or trivially
true. But universal microreduction is anything but a trivial thesis. It is
intuitively interesting because it has considerable prima facie plausibility and, if true, it would provide an explanatory framework of enormous
scope.
Consider the first alternative. If all interrelationships are structural, and the elements of any group are interrelated in some way or
other, then any group of basic elements will be a structured whole and,
hence, a compound element. Therefore, since compound elements are
not a microreductively suitable subject matter for fundamental lawsentences, the fundamental law-sentences must be restricted to lawsentences about individual basic elements. If there were a fundamental
law-sentence, describing the behavior of more than a single basic element, it would have to be considered microreductively emergent.
This is too restrictive, however, to provide a satisfactory analysis of
microreduction. There are cases from classical physics, for example,
Newton’s third law of motion, of fundamental laws that apply to two
or more interacting or interrelated particles. Naturally, the microreductionist will not want to be committed to Newton’s third law being
emergent, and, in general, microreduction should be distinguished
from the stronger, and less plausible, thesis of nominalism. Hence, the
first alternative (that any group of basic elements is a structured whole)
will not permit a satisfactory analysis of microreduction. This alternative commits the microreductionist to the nominalistic restriction of
fundamental law-sentences to law-sentences about individual basic elements, and this restriction will be unacceptable to the microreductionist because it makes microreduction trivially false.
Now consider the second alternative: suppose all interrelations are
nonstructural. Then there would be no structured wholes, and no compound elements. Thus any aggregate of basic elements would be a fit
subject matter for a fundamental law-sentence. In this case, however,
microreduction would become too easy. One would not have to explain
the laws of the special sciences (chemistry, biology, psychology, etc.), in
order to carry out the program for the unity of science. The microreductionist could simply, by stipulation, incorporate into microphysics,
as a special fundamental law, any law about any apparently compound
elements whatever. But given that universal microreduction is an inter-
141
esting thesis, one must avoid an extreme analysis of microreduction,
which makes universal microreduction trivially false or trivially true.
It is evident, therefore, that some form of structural/nonstructural
distinction will be presupposed by an adequate analysis of microreduction, and so it is not surprising that the notion of a structured whole
plays such an important role in Causey’s account. A compound element
which is microreductively well behaved is, according to Causey, a structured whole; that is, it is a group of basic elements which are structurally interrelated. In this usage, it is not correct to refer to a group of
basic elements which are not structurally interrelated as a compound
element. There is a distinction, which is to be emphasized, between a
compound element and an unstructured aggregate of interacting, or
otherwise interrelated, basic elements. This distinction allows Causey to stipulate that fundamental laws, about groups of basic elements
which are not structurally interrelated, are microreductively legitimate,
as well as fundamental laws about individual basic elements. And this
flexibility regarding the fundamental laws is, as I have argued above,
necessary for an adequate analysis of microreduction.
Now it must be admitted that Causey’s notions of “structure” and
“structured whole” are not very precisely defined. Causey himself
explicitly acknowledges the difficulty of providing a precise and general
characterization of “structure.” Thus, he writes:
In this discussion the concept of structure will intentionally be left
rather broad. Since there can be a multitude of different kinds of structures in different theories, this broadness is necessary in order to obtain
a very general characterization of theories with structured wholes.
(Causey 1977, pp. 58–59)
Causey hints at an intuitively plausible suggestion for distinguishing
structural from nonstructural relationships; the suggestion has to do
with the stability of the relationship. Unfortunately, however, Causey
leaves the suggestion too vague to be of much real use in deciding, for a
given type of relationship, whether or not it is structural. He continues
the above cited passage as follows:
In the first place, in order to describe a kind of structure, one must
specify a finite set of two or more basic elements and also specify some
structural relationship which holds between these elements. It will normally be required that this structure be reasonably stable under some
142
specifiable conditions. The criterion for “reasonable stability” will naturally depend on the theory at hand. (Causey 1977, p. 59)
I do not, myself, see how to provide a sharp, general definition of
the notion of “reasonable stability,” or of the notion of structure, and I
am doubtful that a precise and general characterization of “structure”
can be given. It may be that the vagueness in Causey’s characterization
of “structure,” is indicative of a deep-rooted incoherence in the concept
of microreduction itself. Whether or not this is the case, it is not my
purpose, in this paper to criticize the microreductionist’s program on
a priori grounds. Rather, I am assuming that the program for universal microreduction is an interesting and plausible project. Moreover, I
wish to take Causey’s account—which is the most detailed and rigorous
account currently available—as representative of the microreductionist
program. My intention is to show that orthodox quantum theory is
incompatible with that program.
Let us grant, therefore, the distinction between structural and nonstructural interrelations, in spite of the difficulty of generally characterizing it. Such a distinction is presupposed, not only in Causey’s
account, but, as I have argued above, in any account of microreduction
which is adequate to capture the nontrivial, intuitive interest of the
program for the unity of science. Given this distinction, fundamental
laws about groups of basic elements which are not structurally interrelated will be allowable, together with fundamental laws about individual basic elements. There should not, however, be fundamental laws
which are about groups of structurally interrelated basic elements, since
such groups constitute compound elements, and compound elements
are not a suitable microreductive subject matter for the fundamental
laws of a theory.
The considerations raised in the preceding discussion motivate the
following condition, which is sufficient, I believe, for a law’s being an
emergent law:
(E) If a law-sentence “L”, in a theory T, involves essential reference
(either explicit or implicit) to a kind of compound element in Dom, then
if L is a fundamental law according to T, L is an emergent law according to T.
143
While the quantum mechanics projection postulate does not explicitly refer to compound elements, it does refer to measurement, and
measurement is implicitly understood, in orthodox theory, to involve
intervention by an apparatus which is composed of numerous elementary particles. The measurement apparatus must be regarded as a compound element, and not as an unstructured aggregate of elementary
particles. Thus, the apparatus is composed of atoms and molecules,
usually in a rigid, orderly array.
Intuitively, the elementary particles which comprise an atom are
structurally interrelated. An atom is not an arbitrary or disorganized
grouping of particles; it has a recognizable structure. Similarly, a molecule is a structured array of atoms. Atoms and molecules are compound elements, with structures that are stable over time. They can,
thus, serve as well-defined elements for study, in the context of the
theories appropriate to their respective levels of organization. Similar
remarks apply to crystals, cells, organisms, and social groups; they are
all compound elements at their respective levels of organization.
These intuitions will not be disputed by any serious proponent of the
program for the unity of science. That program is important precisely
because it suggests that these elements, at the higher levels of organization, can be explained in terms of the elements of which they are
composed. Thus, it is essential to the program for the unity of science
that there should be theories in which law-sentences about atoms, molecules, etc., are derivative and not fundamental. The program for the
unity of science, as articulated by Causey, does not deny that atoms and
molecules are compound elements, rather than unstructured, disorganized groups of particles. On the contrary, Causey insists that atoms
and molecules are structured wholes, and that law-sentences describing
them can be derived.
Since the measurement apparatus is composed of atoms and molecules, it cannot be regarded as an aggregate of nonstructurally interrelated elementary particles. Hence, no law-sentence which describes the
behavior of the apparatus should be fundamental in the basic theory of
microphysics. Moreover, many, if not all, measuring instruments used
in quantum physics are composed of structured arrays of atoms or molecules, for example, the crystals used in diffraction experiments. Thus,
the measurement apparatus is a compound element or, at the very least,
144
is composed of compound elements. Hence, the projection postulate,
which is implicitly about the behavior of measuring instruments, cannot be a fundamental law-sentence in our basic theory of microphysics
(quantum mechanics), if universal microreduction is to hold.
In considering the application of condition (E) to the projection postulate, it cannot reasonably be disputed that the projection postulate
involves (implicit) reference to a kind (or kinds) of compound elements.
Moreover, the reference to measurement (and hence to the measurement apparatus), in the projection postulate, is an essential reference.
Reference to a kind of compound element should be considered an
essential reference in a law-sentence, if the law-sentence cannot be
rephrased so as to eliminate the reference, while still preserving nomological equivalence (with the original law-sentence). To substitute “ Φ
b1, .... bn” for “Cc” (where Φ is a structural relation which corresponds
to the type C) in a law-sentence does not eliminate the reference to
the compound element. Thus, it is not an acceptable strategy to try
to resolve the tension between the projection postulate and universal
microreduction simply by taking the reference to measurement, in the
projection postulate, to refer directly to the constituent particles of the
measurement apparatus, as structurally interrelated so as to constitute
the apparatus. Since structurally interrelated aggregates are compoundelements, and fundamental law-sentences about compound elements
are microreductively unacceptable, it follows that, if the projection
postulate is a fundamental law-sentence in quantum theory, quantum
theory is incompatible with the program for the unity of science.
Why Philosophical Finesse Fails to
Make the Projection Postulate Derivative
Measurement, in quantum physics, is understood to involve intervention by an apparatus, which is a macroscopic physical object, external
to the system being measured. The apparatus is regarded as setting up
a special kind of environment for the quantum mechanical system S
under observation such that when S interacts with this environment in
the right sort of way, S’s behavior is governed by the projection postulate.
The microreductionist, naturally, cannot rest content with the
understanding of the measurement apparatus, M, as an unanalyzed,
145
environmental circumstance of the quantum mechanical object system,
S. The universal microreductionist will maintain that the measurement apparatus—like every other macroscopic physical object—is to
be understood, in a microreductively acceptable fashion, in terms of the
microphysical particles which make it up.3 Now, quantum mechanics, in the mainstream view, is considered to be the complete theory
of microphysics. So it ought to be possible to explain all of the physical properties of M—and in particular its projection capacity quantum
mechanically—as a result of the concerted effect of the particles constituting M.
As discussed in the previous section, the measurement apparatus is
a compound element (or at least is composed of atoms and molecules,
which are compound elements). Hence, it will not be microreductively
acceptable to regard the projection postulate, or any law-sentence which
is equivalent to it, as a fundamental law-sentence in quantum theory.
The microreductionist must attempt to account for measurement phenomena by deriving the projection postulate from, or eliminating it in
favor of, law-sentences which are suitably fundamental. In evaluating
the question of whether or not the projection postulate can be derived
from or eliminated in favor of law-sentences which are more fundamental, we ought to consider the prospects of one form or other of hidden
variables theory. The microreductionist could forthrightly eliminate the
3 The following is an example of a microreductively acceptable account of an environment created by an apparatus which is a compound element.
Consider the behavior of a charged test particle, S, in an electric field created by the
two oppositely charged plates of a parallel plate capacitor. The electric field is set up by
the capacitor, which is an apparatus, in a relationship to S which is analogous to the
relationship of the measurement apparatus to a quantum mechanical object system.
The electrical field can be analyzed in terms of the electrical effects of individual
charged particles in the capacitor plates. Each of these charged particles produces

an electric field, E = 1 4πε
Q r 2 r, in accordance with Coulomb’s law. The
0
 on a test particle,
effect of the capacitor
S, is a microreductive consequence of the independent electrical effects of the particles constituting the capacitor. The laws describing the capacitor’s effects should, at least in principle, be derivable from a complete
description of the Coulomb effects of the charged particles in the capacitor plates.
In contrast, orthodox quantum theory does not recognize any law-sentences, about
the constituent particles of the measurement apparatus, from which the projection
postulate can be derived.
(
)(
)
146
projection postulate (perhaps together with a considerable portion of
the rest of quantum theory) in favor of a hidden variables theory. However, hidden variables theories have not gained widespread acceptance
from the physics community, and I will not pursue them in this paper.
A question of more immediate philosophical concern is whether the
microreductionist will be able to defend the thesis of universal microreduction no matter what physicists say about the unanalyzable character of measurement. In other words, why can’t the microreductionist
simply assume the existence of whatever basic attributes—call them
“Q” for “ad hoc”—he or she needs to effect a microreductive account of
measurement?
Intuitively, we can imagine such a “microreduction” being presented
in a more subtle form of the following argument:
“We know that the measurement apparatus is composed of microphysical particles,” argues the determined microreductionist. “And we know
further that, when these particles are gathered together so as to form a
measuring instrument, they inexplicably develop the capability of projecting an object system into an eigenstate. But why accept the judgment
that here is a case of emergence? We can simply insist that the projection
capability of the whole must be a function of the constituent particles.
Each of the constituent particles has the property of contributing to the
projection capability of the whole. Call this property ‘Q’ (or anything
else you like), and there we have the basis for a microreduction, right?”
What exactly is wrong with the strategy the argument suggests? In
the following discussion, I propose to demonstrate that the indicated
Q-properties cannot provide an adequate basis for microreduction
unless they have some theoretical significance other than facilitating
the microreduction in question. In the case of quantum mechanics,
endowing the hidden variables (Q-properties) with a wider theoretical significance would bring them into the realm of empirical science.
But then the microreductionist is confronted by the judgment of mainstream, contemporary physics, according to which the evidence does
not support hidden variables theories.
Consider, then, the following general schema for a “microreduction.”
For any compound element c, of type C, the microreductionist can suppose that there is a structural description Φ , which is a defined classifying attribute predicate for the type C. Lest it be objected that we
147
cannot assume that there exists a correlation between the type C and a
unique structural relation Φ , the determined microreductionist might
respond that Φ can represent a disjunction, Φ1 ∨ Φ 2 ∨ ... , which is,
perhaps, infinite. (Thus, anything would be a compound element of
type C iff its parts satisfy one of the structural descriptions Φi .) The
microreductionist can suppose, therefore, that any compound element
c, of type C, will be a structured whole, composed of basic elements b1,
. . ., bn satisfying Φ .
Now suppose that the determined microreductionist argues in the
proceeding manner: Any property P, of compound elements, and any
law-sentence, Cc → Pc , ascribing P to compound elements of a certain
type, can be easily microreduced as follows. First, replace Cc → Pc by
Φb1 ,...,bn → Ψb1 ,...,bn , where Φb1 ,...,bn indicates the formation of
the structured whole c of type C, and Ψb1 ,...,bn indicates that the
basic elements b1, . . ., bn have the concerted effect of generating the
property P. As already noted, Φb1 ,...,bn → Ψb1 ,...,bn is not suitable
as a fundamental law-sentence in T, because it describes a structured
whole (indicated by Φb1 ,...,bn ), which is a compound element in Dom.
However, Φb1 ,...,bn → Ψb1 ,...,bn can always be microreduced by
postulating fundamental law-sentences, about the bi, from which it can
be derived. Just suppose that each of the bi, i = 1, . . ., n, possesses a
property Q, which is characterized in the following way: Consider the
basic elements b1, . . ., bn which, under appropriate conditions, combine
in accordance with the structural relation Φ , where Φ corresponds to
the type C, as indicated. Then there exists a property Q such that: (I)
Qbi, is true of each of the bi, i= 1,..., n; and (II) if Qbi& . . . &Qbn and
Φb1 ,...,bn , then Ψb1 ,...,bn .
Hence, the fact that (I) Qbi is true of each of the bi, together with
the fact that Q is characterized by (II), make it possible to D-N
explain the law, Φb1 ,...,bn → Ψb1 ,...,bn , which may be alternatively
expressed as Cc → Pc . (Note that (I) and (II), together, imply that
Φb1 ,...,bn → Ψb1 ,...,bn .) Thus argues the determined microreductionist.
The application of the formula described above to the projection postulate is straightforward. Thus:
(A)
Let C =df “is a measurement apparatus.”
148
Let P = df “has the capacity to project an object system S into an eigenstate, in accordance with the principles of quantum mechanics.”
Let b1, . . ., bn be the particles composing the apparatus.
Let Φb1 ,...,bn be true exactly when the parts b1, . . ., bn are structurally interrelated in such a way as to form a measurement apparatus c, of
type C.
Let Ψb1 ,...,bn be true exactly when the parts b1, . . ., bn have the concerted effect of generating P.
Then “ Cc → Pc ” is a statement of the projection postulate, and
“ Φb1 ,..., bn → Ψb1 ,..., bn ” is a nomologically equivalent statement.
Now, the most obvious, and most obviously objectionable, interpretation for Q is the following:
(B) Let Q =df “is a part of a measurement apparatus, having the projection capacity P.”
Given this interpretation, (I) is true, that is, each of the fundamental
law-sentences “Qbi ” is true. From (I), given definition (B) of Q, (II)
follows as a logical consequence, and so does the projection postulate.
But clearly this will not serve as a satisfactory microreductive derivation
of the projection postulate. The “explanation” of the projection postulate is literally circular, since the law-sentences in (I) all refer to the
measurement phenomena they are supposed to be explaining. A genuine microreduction, of the projection postulate, would have to invoke
Q-properties that are more substantial than those defined in (B).
A circularity problem, which is only slightly less obvious and just as
unsatisfactory, will arise if the Q-properties, while not explicitly defined
in terms of measurement, nevertheless have no theoretical significance
except for their role in enabling the derivation of the projection postulate.
Thus, (1) and (II), together, would provide the complete characterization of Q, where “ Φ ” and “ Ψ ” are interpreted as in (A), above. So Q is a
latent property, with no physical effects until the bi come together under
the relation Φ .
But, since Q has no physical characteristics except those expressed
in (I) and (II), and since (II) cannot be derived from (I), the microreductionist is forced to regard (II) as a fundamental law-sentence. There
149
is no additional information about Q that would enable the derivation
of (II).
But the microreductionist cannot allow (II) to be a fundamental
law-sentence, in T, since (II) refers to Φb1 ,...,bn , which is a type of
compound element. Thus, the weight of emergence would be merely
shifted, from Φb1 ,...,bn → Ψb1 ,...,bn to (II), and the cause of microreduction would not have been furthered.4
In order to avoid the circularity problems inherent in the phony
microreductions outlined above, the microreductionist will have to suppose that the Q-properties have a wider theoretical significance. They
would have to have some physical effects, which could be characterized
without explicitly or implicitly referring to measurement phenomena,
or to any kind of compound elements or attributes. This further information would allow the formulation of microreductively legitimate,
fundamental law-sentences, from which (II) could, perhaps, be derived.
The microreductionist can, of course, suppose that the Q-properties
have the requisite wider theoretical significance. Thus, perhaps there
are physical effects of the Q-properties that could in principle be discovered, although science has not yet discovered them. This, it seems to
me, is essentially the strategy motivating the hidden variables theories.
4 Contrast this phony microreduction with the microreductive account of electric
dipoles discussed in section 4. There I emphasized that the law-sentence describing the attribute of dipoles (which are compound elements), that the field intensity
falls off in proportion to 1/r 3, is a derivative law-sentence. It can be derived from (i)
law-sentences about the electrical properties of individual charges (basic elements),
together with (ii) the electrostatic superposition principle, according to which the
combined electrical field produced by two or more charges is the vector sum of the
individual electrical fields.
Now, the electrical fields of the individual charges correspond to the Q-properties
in the phony microreduction, except, of course, that the electrical fields are not ad
hoc, and they have physical effects in other than dipole contexts. But the superposition principle does not correspond to (II), since the superposition principle describes
the combined effect of two or more nonstructurally interrelated charges, whereas (II)
describes the combined effect of the bi only when they are structurally interrelated by
Φ . The superposition principle allows the derivation of something analogous to (II),
namely, that when individual electrical charges combine so as to form a dipole, they
produce the characteristic field, which falls off as 1/r 3. The latter law-sentence and
the superposition principle are both microreductively above board, in contrast to the
phony microreduction, according to which (II) is fundamental.
150
But, in granting the Q-properties this wider theoretical significance,
the microreductionist has brought the theory into the realm of empirical science; the proposed hidden variables can then be evaluated by the
scientific community, in accordance with accepted standards of scientific method.
With respect to quantum measurement phenomena, the consensus
of the mainstream physics community is that the weight of evidence is
not in support of hidden variables theories. Quantum mechanics does
not countenance hidden variables, and, on the orthodox interpretation,
quantum mechanics is a complete theory of microphysics, which will
not be superceded by a deeper-level hidden variables theory. Hence, the
irreducibility of the projection postulate is extremely problematic for
the advocate of universal microreduction; indeed, given the completeness claim of orthodox theory, and given the fundamental status of
the projection postulate, quantum mechanics is inconsistent with the
program for the unity of science.
References
Causey, R. (1977). Unity of science. Boston: D. Reidel.
Cohen-Tannoudji, C,. Diu, B,; and Laloe, F. (1977). Quantum
Mechanics, Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Feynman, R., Leighton, R., and Matthew, S. (1965). The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Fine, A. (1970). Insolubility of the measurement problem. Physical
Review 2D, 2783-2787.
Lorrain, P., and Corson, D. (1970). Electromagnetic fields and waves.
San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Oppenheim, P., and Putnam, H. (1958). The unity of science as a
working hypothesis. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, and G. Maxwell
(Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.
Putnam, H. (1979). A philosopher looks at quantum mechanics. In H.
Putnam, Mathematics, Matter and Method, 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–158.
Shimony, A. (1963). Role of the observer in quantum theory. American
Journal of Physics, 31, 155–113.
151
Teller, P. (1983). The projection postulate as a fortuitous approximation. Philosophy of Science, 50, 413–431.
--------. (1984). The projection postulate: A new perspective. Philosophy of Science, 51, 369–395.
Wigner, E. (1963). The problem of measurement. American Journal of
Physics, 31, 6–15.
This article, “Quantum Measurement and the Program for the Unity of
Science,” by David Scharf, Ph.D., here revised/updated, was originally
published in the Philosophy of Science: Official Journal of the Philosophy of
Science Association, 56(4), December, 1989.
152
c o n s c i o u s n e s s : f r o m r e d u c t i v e p h y s i c a l i s m t o u lt i m at e h o l i s m
Consciousness:
From Reductive Physicalism to Ultimate Holism
■
153
consciou n ess-ba sed educat ion a n d ph y sics
about the author
Robert W. Boyer received his Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology from
the University of Oklahoma in 1984 and has been a practicing clinical
psychologist for 17 years. He is currently adjunct professor at Maharishi University of Management, was a full-time university professor
for seven years, and in 2008 was Professor Doctor at Girne American University in North Cyprus, where he developed curricula for the
undergraduate/graduate psychology programs. He has authored over
30 articles and given 25 conference presentations in the fields of physics, psychology, cognition, neuroscience, and consciousness. His most
recent book is Bridge to Unity: Consciousness-Based Science & Spirituality.
154
abstr act
In the reductive physicalist paradigm in mainstream modern science, consciousness emerges from random bits of energy/matter that bind together from
lower-order parts into unitary biological organisms which somehow develop
higher-order conscious control over the parts. How the closed causal chain
unlinks and inserts a causally efficacious conscious mind is utterly mysterious.
Consciousness must be epiphenomenal or nonexistent, and thus a fundamental misperception. This paper summarizes a logically consistent alternative
that incorporates progress over the past century in quantum, quantum gravity, and unified field theories extending into theorized subtle underlying
nonlocal space and further into the ultimate holism of the unified field. Added
to the reductionism and physicalism are real, nonlocal, nonphysical levels of
nature. These cutting-edge developments—which have profound implications for addressing long-standing dilemmas in modern science such as the
mind-body problem—are matching up with the consciousness-mind-matter
ontology in the oldest continuous knowledge tradition of Vedic science.
Keywords: Consciousness-mind-matter ontology, unified field, big
condensation, Vedic science
T
Consciousness in Reductive Physicalism:
The Parts Create the Whole
he reductive physicalist paradigm attempts to describe a clockwork-type causally closed physical universe (Hawking, 2001),
in which mind and consciousness have no actual ontological
existence or causal role. In this bottom up matter-mind-consciousness
ontology, lower-order quantized wave-particles somehow gain protoconscious mentality and cohere into neural systems from which emerge
higher-order conscious mind. From a functional emphasis within this
paradigm, randomly fluctuating bits of energy/matter bind into highly
ordered neural networks to generate consciousness when the parts are
sufficiently complex. Accordingly, robots become conscious with finegrained interactive referential networks, regardless of the construction
materials. From a structural emphasis, even simple neuronal structures
are inherently proto-conscious, becoming higher-order consciousness
with increasingly complex referential networks. In the functional iden-
155
tity hypothesis, structure and function are identical in neurons and
there is no objective-subjective gap—apparently where there are functioning neurons, there is some degree of consciousness. How this reconciles with the notions that some physical matter particles and cells
appear to become proto-conscious while others don’t, with extensive
findings that most psychological processes appear to be unconscious
in the normal functioning brain, and with the closed physical chain of
cause and effect having no gap in which to insert an efficacious conscious mind are major concerns.
These theories are associated with a meaning of consciousness drawn
from experience in the ordinary waking state, in which consciousness
is present in waking and absent in deep sleep, coma, or anesthesia.
Practically the entire enterprise of modern science is based epistemologically on logical reasoning and gross sensory experience shared by
scientists in the ordinary waking state of consciousness; and there is
virtually no recognition of this state-dependent limitation. The ordinary waking state is commonly defined in terms of the experience of
being conscious of some outer object of experience. This is an objectified,
representational, reflective mode of knowing in which there is a separate object of experience, process of experiencing, and experiencer. It
directly relates to the pretheoretical assumption of the independence of
observed and observer, objectivity and subjectivity, fundamental to the
objective approach and its predominantly third-person perspective. In
the past century, the new physics progressed beyond this pretheoretical
assumption.
For example, a fundamental implication of quantum theory is that
objectivity is not independent of subjectivity. According to orthodox
interpretations of quantum theory, the conscious observer somehow
effects the transition from quantum uncertainty to classical discreteness via instantaneous collapse of the quantum wave function upon
observation (e.g., Herbert, 1985). However, theoretical and empirical
research in quantum theory now concerns subtler, entangled, nonlocal
fields of nature and their relationship to mind and consciousness that
reflect fundamental advances over orthodox interpretations of quantum
theory. There is clear progress toward an ontologically real nonlocal
level of nature underlying the physical.
156
Progress Beyond Orthodox Quantum Theory:
Local Matter to Nonlocal Mind
Interpretations of quantum theory have gone beyond the original orthodox interpretation mentioned above that there is no quantum reality
but rather only classical reality with a quantum description of it. Recent
interpretations posit that quantum wave collapse is an objective reduction
(Hameroff & Penrose, 2000; Penrose, 2005). The quantum wave function is now theorized to ollapse via interaction with the classical environment (quantum decoherence), which can occur independent of a
conscious observer (Greene, 1999, 2004; Smolin, 2001; Penrose, 2005).
This implies that both quantum and classical objects relate to real levels of existence, and moreover that they causally interact. Recent “no
collapse” interpretations of quantum theory also can be understood to
imply that mind and consciousness do not emerge at the classical level
of neural functioning, but at even more fundamental theorized levels.
In the “many worlds” version, a new mind-world is created instantaneously for every possible outcome of an observation; but the observer
doesn’t cause them, and can only observe one of them (Everett, 1957).
However, this interpretation is perhaps best understood as a heuristic
that otherwise violates the laws of conservation. In proposing instantaneous unmediated change, neither the orthodox interpretation nor the
“many worlds” interpretation offer even the possibility of any causal
mechanics for wave-function collapse upon observation or for the creation of mind-worlds.
These interpretations of quantum theory are artifacts of subjective
mathematical models imposed upon the objective world. However,
more recent interpretations go beyond even the notion of wave function collapse. Wave function “collapse” is starting to be viewed as a
change of the inner knowledge state of the observer due to an observation with little if any causal influence on the objects being observed
(Fuchs, 2001). Importantly, the mathematical wave function model is
becoming conceptually disembedded from the theorized real particle
and wave levels of nature. According to these views, matter and mind
interact at even deeper levels. To exemplify using the Schrödinger’s Cat
paradox, it is not that the cat is in a superposed alive–not alive state
until observed, but rather that the observer’s knowledge of the cat’s
state is probabilistic and uncertain until it is observed. The theorized
157
quantum wave function “collapse” is not causal of the quantum “object”
becoming a classical physical object due to observation by an individual
conscious observer. Even further, it is proposed that there is neither a
subjective nor objective instantaneous “collapse” from quantum to classical reality. In these views, there is the classical particle level of nature
and the quantum wave-field level of nature, both of which are real and
differ from the even subtler subjective knowledge state of the observer.
To resolve the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox, recognition is needed of
these different ontologically real levels of nature, related to emerging
theories of levels of space (Greene, 1999, 2004; Smolin, 2001; Boyer,
2008).
Progress toward subtler, ontologically real, nonlocal levels of space
that are deeper than physical existence is evident in theories of quantum
gravity. For example, string theories propose six or seven higher dimensions, in which strings vibrate. Although these higher dimensions are
additional mathematical degrees of freedom proposed to explain string
motion, they also are conceptualized as higher spatial dimensions
(Greene, 1999; Randall, 2005). Geometric “objects” such as strings
and branes in compactified higher-dimensional space are theorized to
be the source of physical objects in ordinary space (Greene, 1999). This
implies causal interactions between material objects in physical space
and geometric “objects” in conceptual, mathematical space. Superstring
M-theory also posits zero-branes that imply a real field underlying
matter. Further, precise mathematical formulations in loop quantum
gravity theory and black hole thermodynamics posit a pure geometry of
quantized information space as the source of physical spacetime (Smolin,
2001). These theories propose an ontologically real information space
that underlies and generates ordinary spacetime.
The neorealist interpretation of quantum theory based on Bohmian
mechanics goes even deeper into nature, proposing a sub-quantum reality. This interpretation is consistent with Einstein’s notion of “hidden
variables” associated with his belief in the incompleteness of orthodox quantum theory (Bohm & Hiley, 1993; Talbot, 1991). It offers a
deterministic mathematical model of elementary particles as ordinary
classical objects with intrinsic dynamic properties (not occurring as a
result of observation or measurement) that match the probabilistic predictions of quantum theory. This is accomplished via the addition of
158
an underlying, ontologically real, nonlocal wave field—the quantum
potential or psi wave (Bohm, 1980; Goldstein, 1998). In this theory
the indeterminacy of dynamic properties of quantum phenomena is not
due to an inherent uncertainty—the Heisenberg uncertainty principle—but rather to unfathomable complexity, as in classical uncertainty.
Importantly, determinism, causal efficacy, and objectivity independent
of conscious observers are all extended beyond the quantum level of
nature. It proposes that a subtle, underlying, nonlocal, nonmaterial
pilot wave causally guides the motion of real local particles. Elaborations of this interpretation associate this proposed subtler wave field
with a causally efficacious level of nonlocal mind, called the implicate
order (Bohm, 1980; Bohm & Hiley, 1993). In distinguishing a grosser
classical explicate order and a subtler nonclassical implicate order, however, both are understood as aspects of an ultimate holism, what might
be called a superimplicate order akin to unified field theory (Bohm,
1980; Bohm & Hiley, 1993).
These cutting-edge interpretations of quantum theory are moving
toward defining a causal connection between the real, local field of
matter and an underlying real, quantized information space (Smolin,
2001), and further a nonlocal, nonquantized field of mind or abstract
mental energy wave field (Bohm, 1980; Bohm & Hiley, 1993). In the
transition from matter to mind, reductive physicalist theories in which
mind and consciousness are products only of neural functioning at the
much grosser macroscopic classical level of the brain are giving way to
more comprehensive theories of subtler levels of nature that are ontologically real. The belief that brain and mind are just in the head is no
longer tenable, because minds, brains, and all material objects can no
longer be understood or described as just the localized matter of our
ordinary physical world.
Nonconventional Spacetime underneath the Planck Scale
Some quantum field theories posit that nature is unified at the level
where the fundamental forces merge into a single field at the Planck
scale (10-33 cm)—the hypothesized level of superunification (Greene,
1999, 2004; Hagelin, 1987, 1989). In this view there is either motion
within the speed of light and the light cone (relativity theory) or unmediated quantum mechanical tunneling that instantaneously ports
159
objects between relativistically undefined regions of spacetime outside
the light cone (quantum theory) without traveling in between (Greene,
1999). On the other hand, in Bohmian mechanics, for example, the
subtle psi wave field mediates nonlocal effects (Bohm & Hiley, 1993).
In this theorized nonlocal wave field, motion is faster than light-speed
but not instantaneous (Greene, 2004; Bohm & Hiley, 1993), and not
via the particle interaction model of causality. A distinguishing feature
of this theorized subtler underlying and permeating field would not be
its dimensionality in ordinary conventional physical space but rather its
nonlocality, entanglement or interconnectedness, in a more fundamental field of “nonconventional” space.
Nonconventional space would be both smaller and bigger than any
aspect of physical existence. It would be hidden with respect to conventional space, not due to being higher-order compactified dimensions
as in string theories but rather because it permeates and encompasses
ordinary space and all matter in it. It would not be compactified but
rather unfurled and much more extensive than relativistic, quantized,
conventional space. The notion of space is starting to be conceptually disembedded from Einstein locality and gravity, light-speed and
the light cone, Planck scale quantization, and the particle interaction
model of causality. In this more abstract and expanded view, space and
time can be conceived as the infinite eternal unified field, with levels,
ethers, membranes, or mediums within it characterized by different
degrees of limitation—analogous to air being subtler than water and
earth, and space being subtler but permeating all of them. Mind would
have nonlocal “extension” in this subtler, more abstract nonconventional space, in which real but nonmaterial “objects” exist. These subtle
phenomenal “objects” can be understood to interact causally in the
form of nonlocal, nonquantized waves of information/energy. In this
perspective, light-speed (relativity theory) and Planck-scale quantization (quantum theory) both relate to textural qualities of the ether or
medium of conventional space only. Subtler levels would not be characterized by these particular conditional limitations. This more abstract
conception of spacetime is consistent with the contemporary model of
space as flat, in the sense of extending in all three directions without
being curved. Theoretical physicist and string theorist Brian Greene
(2004, pp. 249–250) states:
160
Normally, we imagine the universe began as a dot … in which there
is no exterior space or time. Then, from some kind of eruption, space
and time unfurled.… But if the universe is spatially infinite, there was
already an infinite spatial expanse at the moment of the big bang. ... In this
setting, the big bang did not take place at one point; instead, the big
bang eruption took place everywhere on the infinite expanse. Comparing this to the conventional single-dot beginning, it is as though there
were many big bangs, one at each point on the infinite spatial expanse.
After the big bang, space swelled, but its overall size didn’t increase
since something already infinite can’t get any bigger. … [T]his example
of infinite flat space is far more than academic. ...
[T]here is mounting evidence that the overall shape of space is not
curved. … [T]he flat, infinitely large spatial shape is the front-running
contender for the large-scale structure of spacetime.
The Unified Field as the Lowest Entropy,
Supersymmetric State of Perfect Order
In quantum field theory, space is not empty nothing; it at least contains vacuum fluctuations. With the advent of unified field theory, the
universe is more appropriately viewed as manifesting from something
—even from the source of everything. A key component of supersymmetric unified field theory is that the four fundamental force fields
emerged through spontaneous sequential symmetry breaking as temperature dropped and the universe expanded (Greene, 1999). This can
be likened to phase transitions of H 2O condensing from steam to water
to ice as temperature drops; at each stage, symmetry is reduced. In this
view, the fundamental forces potentially pre-existed in the perfectly
symmetric superunified state. But also, as the source of continuously
occurring quantum vacuum fluctuations, random jitters, zero point
motion or inherent dynamism, the unified field continues along with
the sequential symmetry breaking. If it continues even after the fundamental forces differentiated, then it is more than the unification of
these forces. The underlying unity and perfect symmetry does not vanish when the diversity of symmetry breaking occurs.
In addition, the quantum mechanical principle of the unbounded
quantum wave as a coherent state that decoheres through interaction
with the classical environment is suggestive that fundamental quan161
tum fields are associated with increased symmetry, coherence, and
order (Greene, 2004). Further, the notions that the unified field is the
source of everything, the basis of all the laws of nature, and the origin
of universal order throughout nature are consistent with the understanding that it is a field of highest or even perfect order. As well, the
understanding that time is unidirectional (past to present to future, the
“arrow of time”), and the second law of thermodynamics which states
that change is from orderly states of low entropy to less orderly states of
higher entropy, suggest that the origin and source of change in nature
is a state of lowest entropy (Penrose, 2005; Greene, 2004). These points
are crucial for understanding the source of order expressed in the laws
of nature. In this view, order emerges from the perfectly symmetric
lowest entropy unified field, not from fundamental randomness. If the
universe were fundamentally random, any outcome would have equal
possibility at any moment, making any consistency or patterns —and
any science—incredibly unlikely (Smolin, 2001). But “when” the theorized big bang “began,” an orderly temporal sequence also began. At
least in the natural world as we understand it through science, an event
manifests in an orderly manner from the previous event, consistent
with the second law of thermodynamics, decoherence, and the arrow of
time (Penrose, 2005), all of which imply that the source of the universe
is a state of lowest entropy.
Unified Field, Higgs Field, and Cosmological Theories
To explain symmetry breaking of the unified field and condensation
into particles with mass, the theory of Higgs fields developed in recent
decades. This theory is considered to be one of the most important
concepts proposed in the past century in theoretical physics (Greene,
2004). It posits that in the third phase of symmetry breaking into the
weak and electromagnetic forces, a Higgs field condensed to a nonzero value when the temperature of the universe dropped to about 1015
degrees, creating a Higgs ocean—analogous to steam condensing into
water. The Higgs ocean can be described as a kind of viscosity (ether
or medium) throughout space that resists change in motion, giving
the property of mass to particles. Another Higgs field—grand unified
Higgs—was proposed to explain the earlier second phase of symmetry
breaking of the strong and weak nuclear forces. A third Higgs field was
162
proposed to explain the first phase of symmetry breaking when gravity emerged. This first Higgs field relates to inflationary big bang theory
(Greene, 2004).
According to this theory, for an extremely brief time period of 10-35
seconds at the outset of the big bang, gravity became a repulsive force
that drove the emerging universe into a colossal expansion (Guth
1997). This inflationary event functioned as a Higgs field – the inflation
field – contributing a uniform negative pressure to space that produced
a repulsive force so strong that the universe expanded by a factor as
much as 1090. This is much faster than light-speed but is thought not
to be inconsistent with it, because light-speed applies to motion through
ordinary space whereas inflationary expansion refers to the inflation
of ordinary space (Greene, 2004). It also can be understood to imply a
level of space involving motion faster than light-speed but not instantaneous, similar to the theorized level of the implicate order and psi
wave field.
Inflationary big bang theory postulates a total amount of matter and
energy in the universe that is considerably more than the tally of visible
objects, which contribute about five percent of the total. Astronomical
research suggested that additional matter is needed to hold galaxies
together, which led to the theory of dark matter, estimated to account
for an additional 25 percent. Observations that the universe is expanding based on measurements of the recession rates of supernovae led to
a revival of Einstein’s discarded notion of the cosmological constant,
this time associated with dark energy. It was estimated that the rate of
expansion requires a cosmological constant associated with an amount
of dark energy that contributes about 70 percent of the total, which fits
the remaining amount in inflationary theory (5% + 25% + 70%). Dark
energy is associated with supersymmetry, for which there is yet to be
empirical evidence in our familiar natural world.
But what triggered inflationary expansion? How did literally nothing blast out? An elaboration of inflationary theory proposes that the
big bang emerged from a preinflationary period, in which the gravitational and Higgs fields were bumpy, chaotic, and highly disordered;
and eventually a random fluctuation produced the values needed for
inflationary expansion. But this certainly does not sound like every-
163
thing came from nothing. Astronomer David Darling (1996, p. 49)
states the point clearly:
What is a big deal is how you got something out of nothing. Don’t
let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a
clue either.… “In the beginning,” they will say, “there was nothing —
no time, space, matter, or energy. Then there was a quantum flutter
from which.…” Whoa! Stop right there.… First there was nothing,
then there was something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two
with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all… and
before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of
their quantum hats.… You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, no pre-geometric
dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can
effect change from nothingness to somethingness, or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.
How inflationary cosmology reconciles with theories of the unified
field is of concern. If the unified field is the state of lowest entropy,
then the theory of the pre-inflationary period, namely, that low entropy
came from inflationary expansion suggests the inconsistency that
something existed prior to the unified field. Also of concern is how
the pre-inflationary period reconciles with quantum gravity theories
that posit information space or some form of higher-dimensional space
generating physical space. Information space is not characterized as just
a bumpy, chaotic, randomly fluctuating field. It at least suggests order,
in the sense that it is theorized to generate the functional structure of
physical spacetime and all matter in it.
A more integrated way of looking at these issues is to consider preinflationary theory as another angle in the attempt to understand the
subtle, nonlocal, nonmaterial domain of nonconventional space underlying the Planck scale. This subtle level as a pre-inflationary period or
“pre-conventional” level would include the order in nature that forms
the gravitational field, Higgs field, and inherent dynamism. Cosmological and field theories attempting to account for these fundamental fields and dynamics, taken together, can be viewed as progressing
toward three ontological domains of nature: 1) local, physical, conventional spacetime characterized by Einstein locality and Planck-scale
quantization associated with the explicate order; 2) subtler, nonma-
164
terial, nonlocal, nonconventional field space associated with nonlocal
mind and the implicate order; and 3) the lowest-entropy, supersymmetric, infinitely self-interacting, all-encompassing unified field of nature
(Boyer, 2006, 2007, 2008).
Spacetime as the Infinite Eternal Unified Field
May Not “Blast Out”
In holistic unified field theory, nature condenses via spontaneous
sequential symmetry breaking into increasing localization, discreteness, and mass. In the framework of levels of spacetime introduced
above, gross conventional and subtle nonconventional levels of space are
phenomenal limitations of the underlying unified field that is already
present everywhere. Space does not begin at a point and expand out in
all directions from an inert Planck-size quantum, an almost infinitely
dense singularity, or literally nothing blasting out in a big bang (Greene,
1999). Rather, infinite space and eternal time phenomenally condense
many “points” simultaneously (everywhere). Consistent with this holistic view, there might be individual big bangs with respect to specific
black holes in conventional spacetime. But with respect to the entirety
of cosmological existence, the ‘Big Bang’ would not be an explosion
but an implosion or condensation, because everything resulting from
it remains inside the unified field. It would not create spacetime, but
rather be a limitation of the infinite eternal unified field—perhaps a
“Big Condensation,” but certainly not a “Big Bang” inexplicably emerging from literally nothing (Boyer, 2007).
Consciousness, the Veda, and the Unified Field:
The Whole Creates the Parts
The trinity of ontological domains of nature described above is consistent with the consciousness-mind-matter ontology of holistic Vedic science (Boyer, 2006, 2008). The word Veda is associated with the totality
of nature—total knowledge. Vedic science begins with ultimate unity
or wholeness; the whole creates the parts, and the parts remain within
the whole. The ultimate whole is simultaneously smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest (Katha Upanishad, 1.2.20; Nader, 2000),
beyond ultimate reductionism and holism.
165
In distinct contrast to the bottom up matter-mind-consciousness
ontology of reductive physicalism, in Vedic science as systematically
unfolded in Rik Veda, phenomenal nature condenses within the unified field or universal Being—from higher-order holism to lower-order
inert parts. It is consistent with sequential symmetry breaking, quantum decoherence, the “arrow of time,” and the second law of thermodynamics that imply the universe emerged from the lowest-entropy,
supersymmetric ground state of the all-encompassing unified field, the
source of everything.
This top down consciousness-mind-matter ontology has the task
of explaining how the parts emerge from the whole. It also needs to
explain how a considerable portion of phenomenal nature appears not
to be conscious, if everything is ultimately the unified field of conscious
universal Being. This is opposite of the impossible task in reductive
physicalism to explain how inert randomly fluctuating particle-forces
emerging from nothing create conscious beings with unitary causal
control over their parts in an unbroken deterministic causal chain that
existed long before conscious minds came into existence.
In the completely holistic view of Vedic science, the transcendent,
indescribable unified field can be described as inherently conscious,
orderly, and dynamic – extending from the totality of Being to the phenomenal appearance of no consciousness, no intelligence, and no life at
the grossest level of inert matter such as rocks and earth. Remaining
nothing other than ultimate unity or wholeness at every level of nature,
its phenomenal expression is perceived in terms of levels from the most
to least reflection of the ultimate unity. Infinity is the basis of space,
eternity is the basis of time, and immortality is the basis of mortality.
The contrasting reductive physicalist view in modern science and the
completely holistic view in Vedic science are reconciled in the natural
development of higher states of consciousness. Systematic technologies
in the Vedic science of Yoga are said to be natural means to develop
higher states of consciousness for direct empirical validation of the
ultimate holism or unity of nature and the consciousness-mind-matter
ontology.
166
Practical Applications:
the Vedic Developmental Technology of Yoga
For many centuries Vedic science remained in obscurity and was largely
considered irrelevant to daily life. It was classified as mythological,
pre-scientific, and only of historical significance. This was the result
of investigators not conducting sufficient empirical research to validate
Vedic knowledge in the inner laboratory of their own minds using the
systematic subjective technologies it contains. While the philosophical
depth and influence of ancient Vedic science were noted, its practical
developmental technologies were not applied or even properly understood. In recent years the work of foremost Vedic scientist and educator
His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has been invaluable for reestablishing the completely unified value of ancient Vedic science and
reviving its practical applications in the language of modern science, as
Maharishi Vedic Science and Technology.
This approach applies systematic, replicable, subjective means of
gaining knowledge to develop the mind directly – first-person direct
empirical experience, in addition to the indirect third-person objective
approach within ordinary developmental limitations that has characterized objectified modern science. It emphasizes the fundamental principle that “knowledge is different in different states of consciousness”
(Maharishi, 1972). Our state of consciousness determines our view of
the world. The type of separation of objectivity and subjectivity in the
objective approach of modern science is identified as a defining feature
of the ordinary waking state of consciousness, in which knowledge and
experience of nature are fragmented, partial, ungrounded, and lacking
fundamental unity—even essentially random and existentially meaningless.
In the reductive perspective, space is conceptualized in terms of the
measurement of distance and time in terms of duration. This is associated with the ordinary function of intellect that delineates, analyzes,
and enumerates the phenomenal parts of nature—sometimes called
Buddhi in Vedic science. When the phenomenal parts of nature are
experienced as primary, the essential wholeness, unity, or totality is
lost—called Pragya-aparadh, the mistake of the intellect. Development of
higher states of consciousness is said to reestablish wholeness, oneness,
167
or ultimate unity as the natural primary experience of being (Alexander
et al., 1987; Nader, 2000; Boyer, 2008).
Transcendental Consciousness: Direct Experience of Unity
The objective means of gaining knowledge is described as a rigorous
focus on outer tangible observables. In the past century, however, modern science has progressed far beyond tangible, directly observable sensory phenomena, and has been relying more on indirect investigations
as well as mathematical principles such as symmetry. This places more
emphasis on logical reasoning, as in mathematical modeling, in formulating consistent scientific theories (Smolin, 2001; Penrose, 2005;
Boyer, 2007). However, as with sensory observations, reasoning processes still involve active mentation. Thinking—whether concrete or
abstract, whether of matter, energy, nothing, the unified field, or God,
as well as introspection, self-reflection, or being mindful of some object
of experience—tends to keep the thinker in the mental activity of ordinary waking experience. Within this active mental state, the inner
silence of transcendental consciousness, the ground state of the mind, is
rarely attained or understood (Maharishi, 1963, 1967).
A reliable technology drawn from Vedic science for effortlessly settling down and transcending all mental activity to experience directly
its underlying universal ground state, transcendental consciousness, has
been taught by Maharishi since the 1950s. This systematic procedure,
known as the Transcendental Meditation technique, is said to be an
effective means through which the gap of empirical experience leading to these divergent reductive and holistic views of consciousness is
naturally bridged. A large body of research on the psychophysiological,
physiological, and behavioral correlates of Transcendental Consciousness has accumulated in refereed scientific journals (Scientific Research
on Maharishi Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program: Collected Papers, Vols. 1–5, 1977–1990). This research corroborates ancient
Vedic references on the transcendent state as a fourth state of consciousness
distinct from the ordinary three states of waking, dreaming, and deep
sleep—described as the active ingredient in naturally fostering human
development to higher states of consciousness (Boyer, 2008).
The hard problem of consciousness is due to lack of the application
of systematic reliable means to isolate consciousness from the mental
168
activity of ordinary waking experience. Without direct experience of
consciousness itself, it is habitually embedded in individual active mentation and is thought to be a conceptual construction in some yet to
be identified brain function—rather than the brain as a gross material
transducer of nonlocal consciousness (Boyer, 2008). In holistic Vedic
science the physical brain and body do not produce consciousness, but
rather just the opposite: consciousness creates mind and body—the
consciousness-mind-body ontology. Mind and body localize consciousness into a state of consciousness in the individual. Both the universal,
unbounded, noncontextual and the individual, bounded, contextual
levels of experience need to be incorporated into an inclusive definition
of consciousness, such as in this direction (Boyer, 2008):
Consciousness is wakefulness, alertness, or awareness itself; in its
simplest self-referral state it is the unbounded, universal, transcendental essence of phenomenal nature, and in the ordinary waking state it
is the bounded, individual, object-referral awareness of some object of
experience in nature.
Conclusion:
Validating the Consciousness-Mind-Matter Ontology
The paradigm shift from the reductive physicalist matter-mind-consciousness ontology to the holistic consciousness-mind-matter ontology
has profound implications for understanding the foundations of reality
and making progress on long-standing dilemmas in modern science,
the most significant of which directly concern the relationship of matter to mind and consciousness. It promotes a rational understanding of
systematic technologies drawn from ancient Vedic science that naturally
settle down the mind to its ground state in transcendental consciousness, direct experience of the unified field of consciousness – like a wave
settling back into the ocean. It is said to offer reliable systematic means
for direct empirical validation of the consciousness-mind-matter ontology, and for integrating reductive physicalism into ultimate holism.
References
Alexander, C.N., Boyer, R., & Alexander, V. 1987. Higher States of
Consciousness in the Vedic Psychology of Maharishi Mahesh
169
Yogi: A Theoretical Introduction and Research Review. Modern
Science and Vedic Science, 1(1), 89-126.
Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London
Bohm, D. & Hiley, B. J. 1993. The undivided universe. Routledge.
London
Boyer, R.W. 2006. The whole creates the parts: Debunking modern
science of reductive materialism. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the World Association for Vedic Studies, July
8-10, Houston, Texas, USA.
Boyer, R.W. 2007. The big condensation—not the big bang. Quantum
Mind 2007: Conference Abstracts. July, pp. 34, Salzburg, Austria.
Boyer, R.W. 2008. Bridge to unity: unified field-based science & spirituality. Unpublished manuscript.
Darling, D. 1996. On creating something out of nothing? New Scientist, Vol. 151, No. 2047, 14, p. 49.
Everett, H. 1957. Review of Modern Physics, 29, 454-462.
Folger, T. 2001. Quantum schmantum. Discover, September, 2001, p.
42.
Goldstein, S. 1998. Quantum theory without observers. Physics Today,
March 98, 42-46; April 98, 38-42.
Greene, B. 1999. The elegant universe: Superstrings, hidden dimensions,
and the quest for the ultimate theory. Vintage Books, New York
Greene, B. 2004. The fabric of the cosmos: Space, time, and the texture of
reality. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Guth, A.H. 1997. The inflationary universe: the quest for a new theory of
cosmic origins. Perseus Books Group, Cambridge, MA.
Hagelin, J. 1987. Is consciousness the unified field? A field theorist’s
perspective. Modern Science and Vedic Science, 1(1), 29-87.
Hagelin, J.S. 1989. Restructuring physics from its foundation in light
of Maharishi’s Vedic Science. Modern Science and Vedic Science,
3(1), 3-72.
Hameroff, S.R. & Penrose, R. 2000. Conscious events as orchestrated
spacetime selections. In Shear, J. (Ed.) Explaining consciousness—
The hard problem. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 177-195.
Hawking, S. 2001. The universe in a nutshell. Bantam Books, New
York.
170
Herbert, N. 1985. Quantum reality: beyond the new physics. Anchor
Books, New York.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. 1963. Science of being and art of living. Age of
Enlightenment Press, Washington, DC.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. 1967. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad-Gita: A new translation and commentary, chapters 1 to 6.
Penguin Books, London.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. 1972. Science of Creative Intelligence: Knowledge and experience. Syllabus of videotaped course. MIU Press,
Los Angeles.
Nader, T. 2000. Human physiology: Expression of Veda and the Vedic
Literature, 4th Edition. Vlodrop, The Netherlands: Maharishi
Vedic University.
Penrose, R. 2005. The road to reality: A complete guide to the laws of the
universe. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Randall, L. 2005. Warped passages: unraveling the mysteries of the universe’s hidden dimensions. London: Penguin Books.
Scientific research on Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation and TMSidhi programme—Collected papers, Vols. 1–5 (1977–90) (various
Eds.). Maharishi University of Management Press, Fairfield, IA.
Smolin, L. 2001. Three roads to quantum gravity. Basic Books, New
York.
Talbot, M. 1991. The holographic universe. Harper Collins Publishers,
Inc., New York.
171
172
ph ysics in the light of m a h ar ishi v edic science
Part II:
B
Physics in the Light of
Maharishi Vedic Science
173
174
RESTRUCTURIN G P HYSICS F RO M ITS F OUNDATION
Restructuring Physics from Its Foundation
in Light of Maharishi Vedic Science
■
175
CONSCIOUSNESS - BASED EDUCATION AND P HYSICS
about the author
expert.
176
abstr act
In this article, we present a new understanding and language of physics based
directly on the unified field. This understanding is made possible through the
latest developments in our understanding of the unified field provided by
the superstring and the understanding and experience of the unified field
provided by Maharishi Vedic Science and its experiential technologies. Our
discussion begins with a consideration of the unified field itself viewed from
its own level and in terms of its own intrinsic properties and behavior. We
subsequently extend this analysis to include a systematic investigation of its
fundamental modes—the elementary particles and forces of nature, in which
we explicitly identify all known particles with specific vibrational states of
the field. We propose a new language and terminology of physics in which the
elementary particles are named for the specific vibrational states of the field
they correspond to. The special significance of the Vedic terminology in this
context is explained and discussed. We conclude with a consideration of the
implications for society of a fully developed science and technology of the unified field made possible through the subjective approach of Maharishi Vedic
science and its applied, experiential technologies.
I
I. Introduction
t was Einstein’s deep conviction that the laws of nature had a simple, geometric, unified foundation, and that this unification could
be understood by the human intellect. Within the past two decades,
a number of important breakthroughs in this area have led to a progressively more unified understanding of the laws of nature, culminating in
the recent discovery of completely unified field theories. These theories afford, for the first time, a self-consistent and completely unified
description of the elementary particles and forces in terms of a single,
self-interacting field. The heterotic superstring with an internal E8 × E8,
gauge symmetry, in particular, unifies all known forces in a consistent
quantum theory of gravity. Recent formulations of the heterotic string,
including manifold compactifications [1], orbifold compactifications
[2], and especially string formulations directly in four dimensions [3],
have produced impressive derivations of the observed low-energy SU(3)
× SU(2) × U(l) gauge group and all known matter fields directly from
the underlying, unified superstring field.
177
These achievements mark the beginning of a new era in physics—one
in which the unified source and foundation of the entire discipline is
fully in view. This unprecedented situation calls for a new understanding and language of physics—one in which the elementary particles
and forces, and indeed the entire discipline, are clearly understood and
expressed in relation to their unified source in the unified field. Until
now, the understanding and associated terminology of physics has been
dominated by historical and/or random influences. An example of the
former is the term “lepton” (meaning “light”) which is used today to
denote the electron, muon, and tauon and their associated neutrinos.
In fact, the tau lepton is actually heavier than most baryons—a term
that means “heavy.” The term “quark,” which is used to denote the elementary sub-constituents of baryons and mesons, is a prime example
of the randomness of the nomenclature. Originally taken from Joyce’s
Finnegan’s Wake, the term commonly refers to a breakfast cheese found
in Germany and Switzerland.
The term “lepto-quark” is used in physics to denote the proposed
unification of leptons and quarks at the level of grand unification. It
illustrates the historical tendency to base the understanding and interpretation of deeper, more unified levels of nature’s dynamics (i.e., grand
unification) in terms of more superficial, incomplete and fragmented
levels (i.e., electroweak unification). It also illustrates the proliferation
of terminology that was already inappropriate (i.e., historical, as in lepton, or random, as in quark) to increasingly fundamental scales.
A more illuminating perspective would be one in which the more
superficial and diversified levels of the discipline were based upon
more fundamental levels, and where these more fundamental levels were in turn connected to their unified source in the unified field.
All aspects of the discipline would then be seen in terms of their
sequential unfoldment from the unified field, providing a natural
logic and organization to the entire discipline. Provided the terms
were chosen accordingly, each aspect of the discipline would indicate its position and purpose with respect to the whole. The vision of
the whole would, in turn, give significance to each part.
This foundational approach to knowledge has been applied at Maharishi University of Management (previously Maharishi University of
Management, 1971–1995) by faculty from numerous different disci-
178
plines through their development of “Unified Field Charts.” These
charts provide a conceptual map of an entire discipline. They illustrate
the interrelation of all the different parts of the discipline, from the
most abstract foundational levels to the most superficial and applied
levels, and show how the whole discipline sequentially emerges from a
unified source (e.g., the universe of sets in mathematics, the transition
state in chemistry, or the superstring in physics). By relating the parts of
knowledge to the wholeness of knowledge, these charts bestow knowledge at a glance. They also provide a powerful research perspective: any
gaps in the current understanding of the discipline tend to be starkly
exposed as areas requiring further study.
Some shift towards this new, unified field-based perspective is
already occurring in the context of the string. The low-energy effective field theory governing physics at observable scales (i.e., the known
particles and forces) are now being described as the “massless modes”
of the string. These massless string modes, and thus the elementary
particles and forces they represent, can be classified according to their
purely stringy characteristics—their periodicity conditions on the
string world sheet. For example, the graviton, the dilaton, and the twoindex antisymmetric tensor belong to the Neveu-Schwarz (antiperiodic) sector of the string, and so forth. However, the choice of language
(e.g., “Neveu-Schwarz” sector) is more historical than descriptive, and
remains the exclusive province of string theorists.
Many students and lay physicists with a sincere desire to understand
the most fundamental knowledge of natural law now available through
modern science have expressed frustration at the inappropriate and
often confusing language of fundamental particle physics. In the following sections, we will begin to develop a new perspective and terminology of physics based directly on the unified field, and not primarily
upon historically prior levels of physics. We will begin this analysis
with a consideration of the unified field itself, viewed from its own level
and in terms of its own intrinsic properties and behavior.
In this analysis, in addition to the latest developments in our
understanding of the unified field provided by the superstring, we make
use of the very complete description of the unified field and its selfinteracting dynamics provided by Vedic Science as recently formulated
by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi [4]. Maharishi Vedic Science is based upon
179
the ancient Vedic tradition of gaining knowledge through the exploration of consciousness. Many thousands of years ago, the seers of the
Himalayas discovered, through the exploration of the silent levels of
their own awareness, a unified field where all the laws of nature are
found together in a state of wholeness. This unity of nature was directly
experienced to be a self-interacting field of consciousness which is
unbounded, all-pervading, unchanging, and the self-sufficient source
of all existing things. They experienced and gave expression to the
self-interacting dynamics through which this unified field sequentially
gives rise to the diversity of all the laws of nature. The expression of this
knowledge, and the techniques by which it is gained, has been passed
on over thousands of years in what is now the oldest continuous tradition of knowledge in existence [5]. In the past three decades, Maharishi
has reformulated this knowledge in a scientific framework that is both
accessible and empirically testable, placing the Vedic knowledge in the
intellectual mainstream of the West and reviving it in the East as well.
This revival of the Vedic knowledge has given rise to a new, quantitative science of consciousness with practical applications and proven
technologies in every major area of human concern, including health,
education, rehabilitation, and world peace [4–7].
Vedic Science, like modern science, seeks to identify and explore
the most fundamental and universal principles of intelligence at the
basis of nature’s functioning. In addition, Vedic Science (unlike modern science) provides systematic experiential technologies which
allow the direct exploration of these most fundamental and universal
principles of intelligence in consciousness [8–10]. These subjective
technologies allow the mind to experience deeper, more fundamental
and unified states of awareness. These fundamental states of awareness
have been found to possess a close structural correspondence to the
physical structure of natural law at fundamental scales [11]. This deep
parallel between the structure of human intelligence and the intelligence of nature is well known to physicists. Wigner referred to this
connection as “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the
physical sciences,” i.e., the subtle structures of human intelligence codified in mathematical formulas correspond precisely to the subtle structures of intelligence displayed in nature. For Einstein, this connection
between human intelligence and the intelligence of nature also had
180
deep significance. For him “the eternal mystery of the universe [was]
its comprehensibility” by the human mind. This deep parallel between
human intelligence and the intelligence of nature makes it possible to
gain profound physical insight into the mechanics of nature through
the understanding and experience of the most fundamental mechanics
of human intelligence.
This important realization fulfills a principal need of modern physics. It is commonly stated that there is no commonsense basis for the
understanding and teaching of modern physics. The understanding of
advanced concepts in physics has historically been based on the classical intuitions gained from the experience of simple mechanical systems
and wave tanks encountered in more elementary courses. However,
these concrete classical concepts no longer provide an adequate basis for
understanding physics at the quantum-mechanical or quantum fieldtheoretic levels, and are often more confusing than illuminating. If one’s
outer, sensory experience fails to provide a viable commonsense basis
for physics, then the only obvious alternative is the inner experience
of the dynamics of consciousness itself. From the arguments presented
above, it is already clear that such an approach can indeed provide an
effective intuitive foundation for physics which extends to the dynamics of fundamental scales. (As our analysis proceeds, this point will
become increasingly clear.) Using this consciousness-based approach,
the Maharishi University of Management faculty have developed a
twenty-lesson introduction to the conceptual foundations of unified
field theories which is taken by all first-year students, in which we have
found that even the most abstract principles of the discipline are easily
grasped by students with no prior scientific background.
The experiential technologies of Maharishi Vedic Science—which
include the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs—
have revealed a single, unified field of intelligence at the foundation
of conscious experience. In this fundamental state of awareness, the
knower, the known, and the process of knowing are united in a state of
pure, self-interacting consciousness, in which consciousness knows
itself alone. This inner subjective experience is marked by the onset of a
unique constellation of physiological [12], neurophysiological [13], and
biochemical changes [14], consistent with the proposal [15] that the
experience of pure consciousness corresponds to a fourth major state
181
of consciousness distinct from waking, dreaming and deep sleep states
of consciousness. From this experience, we conclude that human consciousness, like material creation, has at its basis a unified field of intelligence. The most parsimonious explanation, provided by Maharishi
Vedic Science [4], is that these two fundamental fields of intelligence
are not independent, but one and the same, providing a profound and
previously unexpected unification of subjective and objective realms
of experience. Indeed, such a framework appears to be required [11]
to account for experimentally observed field effects of consciousness1
and other phenomenological aspects of higher states of consciousness.
It also explains the otherwise “unreasonable” parallel between human
intelligence and the intelligence of nature.
When first proposed, such a framework seemed to require a radical rethinking of physics and/or the relationship of consciousness to
the physical world. In retrospect, it seems rather natural that the most
fundamental level of human experience—the unified field of pure selfinteracting consciousness—would be the same unified field found at
the basis of all other forms and phenomena in nature. According to this
perspective, the unified field is the unified source of both subjective and
objective realms of existence. As such, the unified field is fundamentally as much a field of subjectivity as it is a field of objectivity. From
this perspective, the use of a subjective approach to knowledge appears
both justified and natural.
Indeed, one might worry that the purely objective approach of modern science would fail to apply at the level of superunification, both
in principle and in practice. In principle, since by assumption there
is only one dynamical degree of freedom at the scale of superunification (the unified field), a subject-object relationship might be difficult
to sustain. In practice, the time and distance scales characteristic of
superunification are far beyond the range of any conceivable accelerator technology. As the principal focus of theoretical physics has shifted
to the experimentally inaccessible domains of grand unification and
superunification, already theorists have had to rely increasingly on their
analytic and intuitive abilities—subjective competencies of their own
consciousness. Thus the development and application of a subjective
approach seems not only natural, but increasingly necessary.
1See Appendix A on field effects of consciousness.
182
The viability of the subjective approach is amply demonstrated by
the precision and depth of insight into the most fundamental mechanics of nature’s intelligence—the structure and dynamics of the unified
field and the mechanics of symmetry breaking—which are available in
the Vedic texts. In the following sections, we will therefore incorporate
insights from both the objective approach of modern theoretical physics
and the predominantly subjective approach of Maharishi Vedic Science
to unfold a more complete and appropriate understanding and terminology of physics based upon the unified field.
II. The Essential Characteristics of the Unified Field
We will begin our analysis of the discipline of physics with a consideration of the unified field itself. In the interest of generality, we will
resist the temptation to place undue emphasis on the model-dependent
features of the E8 × E8, heterotic string. Instead, we will focus on universal properties which are characteristic of any unified quantum field.
Such an analysis, in principle, is rather difficult to contain: a complete
description of the unified field would probably entail a full analysis of
the entire, diversified structure of manifest creation, since the totality of
natural law is ultimately contained within the structure and dynamics
of the unified field. The discriminating intellect will therefore discern,
within the structure of the unified field, the potential for the entire
universe, as a tree is contained within the seed. (Indeed, we will argue
in a later section that the process of creation can be viewed as nothing
more than a sequentially more elaborated commentary on the structure
of the unified field itself.) We will, nonetheless, attempt to limit our
discussion to the most basic and fundamental properties of the field
and reserve, until a later section, the subsequent unfoldment of further
details concerning the structure of the universe.
We will begin our discussion with a concise review of the essential
characteristics of the unified field as described by Maharishi Vedic Science, which will provide a useful direction and framework for our subsequent physical analysis. According to Maharishi Vedic Science, the
unified field is fundamentally a field of consciousness [4]. The field is
known as atman, meaning “pure consciousness,” or “self,” since the unified field constitutes the deepest reality and hence the true identity of
everything in nature. The term “consciousness” is clearly distinguished
183
from the highly individualized and anthropocentric sense of the term
common to everyday experience: it is used to denote a completely universal field of “pure, self-interacting” consciousness—consciousness
aware of itself alone, devoid of any individualizing influence or external
objects of experience [4,5]. Due to its essential nature as consciousness,
Maharishi explains, the unified field has the dual characteristics of existence and intelligence [6,16]. Consciousness exists—all forms and phenomena in the universe, which constitute its various expressions, can be
said to exist by virtue of its existence. The existence of consciousness is
an empirical reality which is self-evident in higher states of consciousness [10], if not necessarily in the waking state, in which consciousness,
being outwardly directed, is never the object of experience. The intelligence property of consciousness is associated with its self-interacting
nature: due to its essential nature as consciousness, consciousness is
aware of its own existence—i.e., consciousness “witnesses” itself [6,9].
This highly nonlinear property of awareness sets up within the field of
consciousness a three-in-one structure of knower, known, and process
of knowing: consciousness (the knower) is aware of consciousness (the
known) through the agency of consciousness (the process of knowing).
This self-interacting dynamics of consciousness knowing itself and
its associated three-in-one structure of knower, known, and process
of knowing is called the Veda [4]. This self-interacting dynamics is
responsible for the spontaneous and sequential emergence of the diversified structure of the laws of nature from the field of pure consciousness: one (consciousness) becomes three (knower, known, and process
of knowing), and these in turn become many through a precise and
spontaneous sequence of expression described in Maharishi Vedic Science and open to direct experience through its applied, experiential
technologies, the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs.
This inherent capacity for consciousness to know itself, or “witnessing”
property of the field, is known as buddhi (meaning “intelligence” or
“intellect”) in the language of Maharishi Vedic Science [9]. It refers
to the highly dynamic, discriminative (consciousness discriminates
between itself as knower, known, and process of knowing) and creative
(it creates three from the state of unity) property of the field responsible for the spontaneous and sequential emergence of the diversified
structure of the laws of nature. A more complete discussion of this self-
184
interacting dynamics and its associated three-in-one structure will be
presented in the following section. For the moment, we will focus on
the two essential characteristics of existence and intelligence, and their
seemingly fundamental role in the unified quantum field theories of
modern theoretical physics.
In any unified quantum field theory, the most obvious and essential
property of the unified field is that it exists. As in Maharishi Vedic
Science, everything else may be said to exist by virtue of its existence.
For this existence to be substantial, it must be permanent, i.e., the field
should exist eternally. This property is expressed in physics as the timetranslational invariance of the Lagrangian density—an essential characteristic of any realistic unified field theory.
The second major property of the unified field which one is led to
expect on the basis of our previous analysis is intelligence. By assumption, the unified field is the unified source of all the laws of nature
governing physics at every scale. These laws of nature formally express
the order and intelligence inherent in natural phenomena. If there were
no laws of nature, there would be no consistent patterns of natural
behavior, and nature would be unintelligible. If, as particle physicists
believe, all the laws of nature have their dynamical origin in the unified
field, then the unified field must itself embody the total intelligence of
nature’s functioning.
To some extent, we can trace this property of intelligence to the
fact that the unified field, beyond its mere existence, has a very precise
and definite mathematical structure. This structure is typically defined
in terms of symmetries of the field—invariance with respect to a set
of internal and external transformations, such as Lorentz invariance,
supersymmetry, modular invariance and gauge invariance. External
symmetries, such as Lorentz invariance, describe the behavior of the
field under transformations of space and time—translations, rotations and boosts. Internal symmetries, such as gauge invariance, refer
to transformations among the various internal degrees of freedom of
the unified field—bosonic and/or fermionic. The precise mathematical structure of the unified field serves as an unmanifest blueprint for
the entire creation: all the laws of nature governing physics at every
scale are just partial reflections or derivatives of this basic mathematical
structure. However, this view of intelligence in terms of the classical
185
symmetries of the unified field is a rather passive and inert one. The
term “intelligence” achieves its full significance only at the quantummechanical level of description, in which the field acquires a degree
of dynamism, discrimination and creativity not present at the classical
level.
The transition from the classical to the quantum-mechanical description formally begins with the imposition of the canonical commutation
relation
[Φ, ∏] = i
(1)
between the field Φ and its canonically conjugate momentum ∏.
(In the simplest cases, the canonical momentum ∏ is equal to the
time derivative or rate-of-change of the field, which we will denote
by Φ.) The constant  = 10-27 erg-sec appearing in Equation (1)
is known as Planck’s constant (also called the quantum of action), and
sets the scale for all quantum-mechanical phenomena. The canonical commutation relation (1) introduces an element of discrimination
not present at the classical level: the field (Φ) is clearly distinguished
from its own motion (Φ). The latter is given an entirely separate symbol
(∏), and the two (Φ and ∏) acquire the status of incompatible operators in Hilbert space. (This clear distinction between the field Φ and
its activity ∏ also supports the concept of a “witnessing” quality of the
field found in our previous discussion of Maharishi Vedic Science.)
The discrimination between the field Φ and its conjugate momentum ∏ imposed by the canonical commutation relation (1) applies to
their sequence as well: the commutator or “Lie bracket” (1) is antisymmetric in Φ and ∏. The two operators (Φ and ∏) become the generators of an infinite-dimensional Lie algebra of operators composed
of all polynomials in Φ and ∏. This algebra of operators includes the
Hamiltonian in addition to all other quantum-mechanical observables.
The fundamental importance of sequence in this quantum-mechanical
algebra again reveals a degree of discrimination not present in the classical description, in which the field Φ and its conjugate momentum ∏
commute. The noncommuting nature of this algebra is fundamental to
the dynamical structure of the quantum theory, in which the evolution
of all observables is given by their commutator with the Hamiltonian.
If the commutator (1) were to vanish, e.g., in the classical limit as  →
186
0, all dynamical evolution would cease. Thus the entire dynamics of the
quantum theory has its ultimate origin in the dynamical relationship
between Φ and ∏ imposed by the relation (1).
The dynamical relation (1) between Φ and ∏ has more than algebraic
significance; it has deep physical significance as well. It leads directly to
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
δΦ δ∏ ≥  /2
(2)
which states that the field Φ and its conjugate momentum ∏ cannot be simultaneously specified with arbitrary precision. Any classically well-determined state of the field ∏(x) necessarily implies a large
indeterminacy in the rate-of-change of the field Φ(x), or a state of
dynamic motion. Any classically well-determined state of motion of
the field ∏(x) implies a large uncertainty in the amplitude of the field
Φ(x), implying large displacements from the origin and hence a large
potential energy V(Φ). Either situation implies a state of high energy—
kinetic and/or potential. Thus the canonical commutation relation (1),
and the resulting uncertainty principle (2), imply a level of dynamism
not found at the classical level. This introduces a new form of quantummechanical activity which extends even to the state of least excitation
or “ground state” of any quantum-mechanical system. This irremovable
level of activity present in the ground state of a system is known as
“zero-point motion,” and has no classical analogue. It has immediate
implications for the ground state of the unified field.
Classically, the state of least excitation of a field is a state in which
the field is zero everywhere, and thus a state of complete classical inertia. However, the uncertainty principle (2) implies that such a state of
precisely determined field amplitude (Φ = δΦ = 0) corresponds to a
completely indefinite rate-of-change of the field (δ∏ = �) and hence
a state of infinite energy density. Such a state cannot possibly correspond to the ground state of the system. The ground state of a field
(also called the “vacuum state” since it represents the absence of physical particles and forces) cannot correspond to any definite field shape.
It must therefore correspond to a quantum-mechanical coexistence of
many shapes. Direct calculations confirm this general argument: the
vacuum state of a field is a quantum-mechanical “superposition,” or
simultaneous coexistence, of all possible shapes (see Appendix B on
187
the vacuum wave functional). This result has profound implications for
quantum cosmology. It implies that the vacuum state of the unified
field contains, within its unmanifest structure, the potential for the
entire universe—and indeed for all possible universes. This all-possibilities nature of the vacuum will be further explored in a subsequent
section on quantum cosmology.
The dynamism (2) implied by the quantum principle increases at
more fundamental spacetime scales. This accounts for the fact that
nuclear transformations at distance scales ≈ 10-13 cm are far more powerful than chemical transformations occurring at ≈ 10-8 cm. At scales
characteristic of the unified field, the Planck scale of 10-33 cm or 10-43
sec, the intrinsic dynamism of the field is nearly infinite—on the order
of 10100 ergs per cubic centimeter—much greater than the mass-energy
of the known universe.2 Thus it is clear that the quantum principle adds
tremendous dynamism to the rather abstract and inert characteristic of
intelligence available in the classical description.
Besides adding a degree of discrimination and dynamism to the
abstract property of intelligence available at the classical level, the quantum principle also endows the field with a creative capacity which is far
beyond that of any classical field theory. For example, the dynamical
self-interaction of the gluon field induced by quantum effects leads to
strong coupling and hence to the highly nonlinear process of color confinement. Thus the entire spectrum of bound-state hadrons results from
the quantum-induced self-interaction of the gluon field. The dynamical breaking of supersymmetry and the resulting masses for sparticles
and Higgs bosons probably results from a similar, quantum-induced
strong coupling phase in the hidden sector gauge group. The spontaneous breaking of gauge symmetries like the electroweak symmetry is
also due to a quantum-mechanical mechanism. In this case, radiative
2Here one must draw a distinction between energy and dynamism. Since gravity couples to
the energy momentum tensor, any energy of the vacuum significantly different from zero would
lead to a strong gravitational self-attraction, placing the universe into a deSitter phase of exponential expansion or contraction. The experimental constraints on the vacuum energy are thus
very stringent: somehow, the energy density associated with such vacuum fluctuations must be
canceled. A partial solution to this problem is afforded by supersymmetry. In the limit of exact
supersymmetry, the positive vacuum energy contributed by the vacuum fluctuations of bose
fields is canceled by the negative energy associated with the vacuum fluctuations of Fermi fields.
Since supersymmetry is necessarily broken at some level, this cancellation cannot be exact, and
some additional cancellation mechanism is needed. There is some evidence to suggest that this
mechanism could be provided by wormhole interactions.
188
corrections to the Higgs mass at renormalization-group scales Mw <<
Mp trigger spontaneous symmetry breaking, giving masses to quarks
and leptons and to the intermediate vector bosons. More generally,
the emergence of discrete quanta from the continuous dynamics of a
field is impossible in the context of classical field theory [17]. Quantum
mechanics is needed to generate quanta (i.e., particles) from the field,
and thus to create the material universe as we know it.
Thus we conclude that the quantum principle introduces qualitatively new behavior which is not found at the level of classical field
theory. In particular, it introduces a degree of discrimination, dynamism,
and creativity not present at the classical level. These characteristics
make the rather abstract and inert quality of intelligence present in the
classical description dynamic, discriminative, and creative, which corresponds precisely to the dynamic, discriminative, and creative quality of
intelligence, or buddhi, found in our previous discussion of Maharishi
Vedic Science. For this reason, we will associate the quantum principle
with the intelligence (or buddhi) characteristic of the unified field—that
property of the unified field which, combined with its classical symmetries and structure, is responsible for the creative dynamics of nature—
the spontaneous and sequential emergence of the diversified structure
of the laws of nature governing life on all levels of the physical universe.
In this section, we have identified two essential properties of the
unified field—existence and intelligence. Concerning existence, very little can be, or need be, said. Its reality can be inferred from the existence
of the universe. The intelligence property is abundantly displayed in the
innumerable laws of nature governing natural phenomena at every scale
of the physical universe. We have traced this property of intelligence
to the unified field itself—to its classical symmetries and structure,
and especially to the quantum principle, which endows the field with a
degree of intelligence—of discrimination, dynamism and creativity—
not present at the classical level.
It is interesting to note that in Maharishi Vedic Science, because the
unified field is fundamentally a field of consciousness, it automatically
incorporates both characteristics of existence and intelligence [6,16]. In
the unified field theories of modern theoretical physics, the quantum
principle is always introduced as an extra, ad hoc assumption. There
is no understanding in physics concerning the origin of the quantum
189
principle, and there is little hope that quantum mechanics will be derivable from string theory. One can therefore appreciate the elegance and
economy of Vedic Science, in which one fundamental postulate (consciousness) automatically incorporates both characteristics of existence
and intelligence —both the field and the quantum principle.
In the language of Vedic Science, these two are known as atman
and buddhi (see Figure 1). The term Samhita, meaning “collectedness”
or “unity,” is also used to describe the unified field [4]. Whereas atman
brings out the essential nature of the unified field as consciousness,
Samhita emphasizes its fundamentally unified nature. The special significance of these Vedic terms will be discussed in Section IV.
In this section, we have identified the essential characteristics
of the unified field based on an elementary analysis of the algebraic
form of the canonical commutation relation (1). In the next section,
we will present a more complete, geometric formulation of quantum mechanics in Hilbert space. We will find that the Hilbert space
formulation provides a far more explicit and comprehensive view of
the self-interacting dynamics of nature’s intelligence governing the
mechanics of creation from the unified field. It thereby also affords
a more complete and satisfactory framework for making precise,
quantitative connections between the unified quantum field theories
of modern theoretical physics and the Vedic Science of Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi.
III. The Hilbert Space Formulation of Quantum Mechanics
and the Three-in-One Dynamics of Intelligence
In the previous section, we traced the dynamical origin of nature’s
intelligence to the structure and dynamics of the unified field. At the
classical level of description, this intelligence is contained in the precise
mathematical form of the unified field—its classical symmetries and
structure—which provides the unmanifest “blueprint” of the laws of
nature governing physics at every scale. With the introduction of the
quantum principle, this passive, classical view of intelligence acquires
a level of dynamism, discrimination and creativity not present at the
classical level. This dynamic and creative view of intelligence afforded
by the quantum principle is sufficient to explain the spontaneous and
sequential emergence of the entire, diversified structure of the laws of
190
nature from the unified field, as has been explicitly demonstrated by
the latest unified quantum field theories, particularly the superstring.
191
We have also noticed that the clear discrimination between the field
Φ and its canonically conjugate momentum Π introduced by the quantum principle (1) suggests a witnessing quality of the field, in which
the field stands clearly divorced from its own activity. The term “witnessing” tends to imply a degree of alertness not generally ascribed
to a classical field theory, but it is precisely this quality of dynamic
intelligence that the quantum principle provides. This dynamism has
its roots in the algebraic form of the canonical commutation relation
(1) and in the resulting infinite-dimensional Lie algebra of quantummechanical observables, and achieves its full physical significance
in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (2), which endows the field
with tremendous dynamism at fundamental spacetime scales.
In the fundamental approach of Maharishi Vedic Science, this
highly dynamic and alert quality of the field is present ab initio—the
unified field is defined as a field of dynamic intelligence, or consciousness [4]. Here, as we have previously noted, the term “consciousness” is clearly distinguished from the highly individualized and
anthropocentric sense of the term common to everyday experience. It
is used to denote a completely universal field of “pure, self-interacting” consciousness—consciousness aware of itself alone, devoid of
any individualizing influence or external objects of experience [4,5].
This, however, does not imply that this most fundamental and universal
value of consciousness is beyond the range of human experience. The
experiential technologies of Vedic Science are precisely formulated to
bring this fundamental state of awareness within the realm of human
experience [4].
In this most fundamental and universal structure of experience,
known as “transcendental consciousness” or “pure consciousness,” consciousness is isolated in its pure form, devoid of thought or any concrete
object of experience. However, due to its intrinsic nature as consciousness, consciousness is aware of its own existence—i.e., consciousness
“witnesses” itself [6,9]. This highly nonlinear, self-interacting property
of awareness sets up within the field of consciousness a three-in-one
structure of knower, known, and process of knowing: consciousness
(the knower) is aware of consciousness (the known) through the agency
of consciousness (the process of knowing). This self-interacting dynamics of consciousness, or witnessing quality of the field, is termed the
192
intelligence aspect of the unified field, or buddhi in the language of
Vedic Science [4,9]. It is dynamic, discriminative (consciousness discriminates between itself as knower, known, and process of knowing)
and creative (it creates three from a state of unity), and corresponds
precisely to the dynamic, discriminative, and creative quality of intelligence found in our earlier discussion of the quantum principle.
This highly nonlinear, self-interacting quality of consciousness is
a familiar property of any unified non-Abelian gauge field. A nonAbelian (i.e., nonlinear) field possesses a degree of self-interaction not
present in an Abelian field, such as electromagnetism. Because the
electromagnetic field equations are linear in the field strength, two
beams of light pass through each other with no interaction and hence
no awareness of each other’s presence. A non-Abelian field, such as
the gluon field of quantum chromodynamics, the unified electroweak
field, or a superunified gauge field, possesses the nonlinear property of
self-interaction which is lacking in an Abelian field. As a consequence
of its own self-coupling, a non-Abelian field responds dynamically to
its own presence—the field interacts with the field through the agency
of the field. It is this highly nonlinear, self-interacting or “self-referral”
property of the field, which achieves its full significance in the presence
of the quantum principle, that makes the unified field a field of consciousness, according to Maharishi Vedic Science.3
This self-interacting dynamics of the unified field described by Vedic
Science, with its three-in-one structure of knower, known, and process
of knowing, is most clearly reflected in the full, geometric formulation
of quantum mechanics in Hilbert space. The Hilbert space formulation
of quantum mechanics and its interpretation in the light of Maharishi
Vedic Science will form the principal subject of this section.
Quantum mechanics emerged in the beginning of the twentieth
century as a totally new framework and language of nature appropriate to the physics of fundamental scales. Quantum mechanics studies the dynamics of fundamental physical systems like atoms in the
case of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the fundamental particles
and forces of nature in the relativistic formulation of quantum field
theory, or the universe as a whole in the context of quantum cosmology
3 In fact, it is essential for this argument that the field be purely self-interacting, as in the case
of a unified quantum field, and thus the self-sufficient source of all created things. —Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi, private communication.
193
(see Section V). All of these radically different systems share the same
formal structure of knowledge within the framework provided by the
quantum principle.
Quantum mechanics treats the state of the system as a vector in a
linear space. That is, the state of the system is represented by a single
point in an infinite space of points representing all possible states of the
system.4 The evolution of a quantum-mechanical system corresponds
to a motion within this space of states—a movement or transformation
from one point to the next. The mathematical equation controlling this
motion (and thus the evolution of the quantum-mechanical system) is
called the time-dependent Schrodinger equation:
H|Ψ〉= i  |Ψ〉
(3)
The motion or rate-of-change (V) of the quantum-mechanical state |Ψ〉
is obtained by acting on the state with the Hamiltonian H.
This abstract, quantum-mechanical space of all possibilities is
called a Hilbert space. A Hilbert space has specific, geometric properties, which are ultimately responsible for most of the characteristic
features of the quantum theory. Firstly, it is a linear space or vector
space. This means that points in space (“vectors”) can be meaningfully
added and subtracted. This property of Hilbert space leads to one of
the most remarkable features of the quantum theory—the principle of
superposition. It means that a system can be in a state which is a linear combination, or vector sum, of two or more physically inequivalent
states. This implies, for example, that a quantum mechanical system
can display a simultaneous coexistence of classically incompatible properties (e.g., both alive and dead in the case of Schrodinger’s quantummechanical cat).
Hilbert space is an infinite dimensional, complex vector space, comprised of all linear combinations of an infinite set of orthonormal basis
vectors with complex coefficients. The infinite size of the space stems
from the fact that all physically interesting systems can occupy an infinite number of physically inequivalent states. The fundamental role
played by complex numbers in quantum mechanics is more surpris4 In fact, the state of the system is usually represented by a “ray”—a vector with unit norm.
This is because the length of the vector is associated with the total probability that the system
exists, which is assumed to be one in most quantum-mechanical applications. This distinction is
not relevant to the present discussion.
194
ing; it has no obvious classical analog. It is a striking example of the
need to introduce more abstract and holistic numerical and conceptual
frameworks in order to adequately describe more abstract, holistic and
fundamental levels of nature’ s functioning.
The structure of Hilbert space also includes an inner product, which
introduces the concept of length. The inner product measures the size
of any vector in Hilbert space as well as the magnitude of all its components along any orthonormal set of basis vectors.5 Herein lies the seat of
all quantum-mechanical knowledge: by allowing the decomposition of
any quantum-mechanical state vector |Ψ〉 in terms of a set of physically
meaningful basis vectors, the inner product determines all the physical
properties of a quantum-mechanical system—its energy, its momentum, its angular momentum, etc.
The geometric properties of Hilbert space, i.e., the properties of
additive closure, completeness, the inner product, etc., give the space
a wholeness which is far greater than the infinite collection of points
it represents. That is, the space of all quantum-mechanical possibilities has an existence and integrity of its own that transcends and
exceeds the individual points that comprise it. For example, one can
rearrange all of the points in Hilbert space while preserving the
structure of the space itself. In other words, one can define a set of
transformations of the space onto itself which leave the structure
of the space unchanged.6 These transformations map points in Hilbert space onto other points, “transforming” one point into another, in
such a way that the space itself remains invariant. Despite this dynamic
transformation of all its component parts, that wholeness which we call
the Hilbert space is completely unchanged.
Among these transformations there exists a class of transformations
of special geometric and physical significance. These transformations,
known as unitary transformations, map points onto points in such a
way that all geometric relationships among the initial set of points are
preserved by the transformation. Such transformations are generated by
the exponentiation (ei0) of self-adjoint operators (0), which are associated with quantum-mechanical observables such as energy, momentum,
angular momentum, etc. The time-dependent Schrodinger equation (3)
5 See footnote on previous page.
6 Or possibly some subset of that structure, depending on whether the transformation is differentiable, linear, or unitary.
195
governing the time evolution of the quantum-mechanical system is an
example of such a transformation. It takes a quantum-mechanical system, which is represented by a specific vector |Ψ〉 in Hilbert space, and
transforms this state into a new state
|Ψ´〉 =|Ψ〉 + dt |Ψ 〉 = (1 - idt/ H)|Ψ 〉
(4)
The integrated effect of the continuous action of the Hamiltonian on
the system (4) is a unitary transformation
|Ψ(t´)〉 = U{tˊ,t) |Ψ(t)〉; U(tˊ,t) = e-iH(tˊ-1)/
(5)
Because the evolution (5) is unitary, it is invertible and hence information preserving. This contrasts with the most common form of macroscopic, thermodynamic evolution, in which entropy is produced,
information destroyed, and which is therefore irreversible.
So far our discussion of Hilbert space and its properties has been
rather formal and abstract. We will now adopt a more concrete perspective by placing this formal discussion of Hilbert space in the specific physical context of a unified quantum field. We will see what new
physical insights into the unified field and its self-interacting dynamics
are afforded by the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics,
and examine these insights in the light of the fundamental description of the self-interacting dynamics of nature’s intelligence provided
by Maharishi Vedic Science and its applied, experiential technologies.
From a physical standpoint, the Hilbert space of states represents all
possible states of a quantum-mechanical system. Since at any time a
quantum-mechanical system is represented by a single vector |Ψ〉 within
this infinite dimensional space of states, the Hilbert space is essentially
unmanifest—an unmanifest field of all possibilities for the quantummechanical system. Since the evolution of a quantum-mechanical system is described by a motion (5) of the state vector |Ψ〉 within this space
of states, the Hilbert space also provides the abstract arena in which
quantum mechanics unfolds. And because the space itself is completely
unchanged by the unitary transformation (5) which controls the evolution of the system, the Hilbert space can be described as a silent,
unmanifest “witness” to the entire dynamics of quantum-mechanical
evolution. Here again, the term “witness” tends to suggest a degree of
alertness not necessarily implied by the aforementioned properties of
196
unmanifest, unboundedness (or infinity), silence and nonchange. This
property of alertness is supplied by the inner product defined on the
space. At every moment in the evolution of the quantum-mechanical
system, this geometric property of the space determines, through a
comparative process, every characteristic of the physical system. This
lively, discriminative but unmanifest basis of knowledge provided by
the Hilbert space corresponds to what we have previously termed the
“knower” or Rishi (meaning “knower,” “seer,” or “silent witness”) quality of the unified field in our discussion of Maharishi Vedic Science
[4]. In the structure of knowledge, Rishi is the knower—the lively, discriminative but unmanifest basis of knowledge, which stands as a witness to the known and the process of knowing.7
There is another attribute of Rishi described by Maharishi Vedic
Science which is also clearly reflected in the structure of a Hilbert
space. Specifically, there are not one but many different possible
varieties of Rishi or perspectives within the unified field. These different qualities of Rishi provide different, but complementary, viewpoints about the unified field and its self-interacting dynamics. This
plurality of perspectives is seen in the structure of the Hilbert space
as the freedom to choose among various possible basis vectors. For
every quantum-mechanical observable, there exists a complete set of
orthogonal basis vectors. These are given by the eigenvectors (states
possessing definite classical values) of the associated observable.8 Any
complete set of orthonormal basis vectors spans the Hilbert space and
thereby provides a complete characterization of quantum-mechanical
knowledge. Although each, in itself, is entirely self-sufficient, the
availability of several different bases presents a variety of distinct but
complementary perspectives. For example, in one basis, energy serves
as the defining characteristic of the system; in a second, its position in
space, and so on. This “complementarity” of different viewpoints is one
of the more striking characteristics of the quantum theory, and has its
7
The need to consider states of infinite norm in quantum mechanics introduces a farther
degree of liveliness not present in the classical structure or a Hilbert space. It changes the structure or the space to what is called a “rigged” Hilbert space, which involves a highly dynamic
interplay between several different function spaces. For a detailed discussion, see ref [18].
8 A more detailed discussion ofthe quantum measurement process will be presented in Section
V.
197
clear correspondence in the different qualities of the knower or Rishi in
Maharishi Vedic Science.
If the property of “knower” in the structure of quantum-mechanical
knowledge is provided by the Hilbert space of states, then the “process of knowing” is provided by the quantum-mechanical observables.
These quantum-mechanical observables represent all the properties
of a quantum-mechanical system that can be known — its energy,
momentum, angular momentum, etc., depending on the details of
the quantum-mechanical system. These quantum-mechanical observables correspond to operators in Hilbert space and can therefore be
viewed as infinite-dimensional matrices. These operators, it must be
emphasized, are distinct from the classical quantities they represent.
The latter depend intimately upon the state of the system, whereas the
quantum-mechanical observables do not. They have a more universal
status and are associated with the process of gaining knowledge, i.e.,
of extracting information about the quantum-mechanical system. The
value of some classical observable (represented by a lower-case o) in a
quantum-mechanical system is computed by taking the inner product
of the state vector |W) with the state vector acted upon by the corresponding quantum-mechanical observable (represented by a capital O):
〈o〉 = 〈Ψ | O | Ψ 〉
(6)
The value of the quantity (o) is well defined only if the system is in an
eigenstate of the corresponding observable (O); i.e., if
O|Ψ〉=o|Ψ〉
(7)
Otherwise, the quantum-mechanical system does not generally possess a definite value of the observable, and a sequence of measurements performed with identically prepared systems will yield different
values. The average or expected value of o, averaged over many trials,
is given by the expectation value (6).9 Thus the quantum-mechanical
observable (O) is clearly distinct from its classically measured quantity
(o); the latter depends intimately upon the state of the system, whereas
the former is an operator in Hilbert space associated with the process
of gaining knowledge.
9A more detailed discussion of the quantum measurement process will be presented in Section V.
198
The quantum-mechanical notion of an observable (O) is a far more
dynamic concept than the classical quantity (o) it represents. Due to
their status as operators, these quantum-mechanical observables are
the dynamical generators of transformations in Hilbert space. They
actively transform one quantum-mechanical state into another and,
more generally, map the entire Hilbert space onto itself. Because they
correspond to self-adjoint operators, their continuous action generates a unitary transformation. Thus, for instance, the Hamiltonian H,
the quantum-mechanical observable that corresponds classically to
the energy of the system, becomes the dynamical generator of time
translations. The momentum operator P actively translates the system
in space. The angular momentum operator L accomplishes a rotation
of the physical system. The field operator Φ creates and destroys particles from the field, etc. Indeed, all transformations are induced by
quantum-mechanical observables. They are the dynamical generators
of all change, governing all activity and transformation in nature.
Of all the quantum-mechanical observables, the Hamiltonian enjoys
the most privileged position. It is the operator of nature’s choice: of all
the quantum-mechanical observables, it is the Hamiltonian which acts
continuously upon the system, and which is thereby responsible for the
time evolution of the system. This is the meaning of the time-dependent
Schrodinger equation (3). The evolution of the quantum-mechanical
system |Ψ〉 is generated by the continuous action of the Hamiltonian on
the system. Thus the Hamiltonian plays the role of the force of evolution: that specific impulse of natural law which controls the time evolution of everything. It is interesting to note that despite its fundamental
physical role, the Hamiltonian is itself composed of other more fundamental operators. Like all quantum-mechanical observables, it can be
expressed as a polynomial in the field <1> and its canonically conjugate
momentum ∏.
Because of their principal role in extracting knowledge about the
physical system (6), the quantum-mechanical observables clearly fall
within the category of “process of knowing.” But their role as such can
also be seen in another, more fundamental geometric sense. Without
the quantum-mechanical observables and the transformations they
generate, the Hilbert space would be completely inert. These transformations map the space onto itself, relating points in Hilbert space to
199
other points. The set of all such transformations that leave the space
invariant serves to define the space—its symmetries and its structure.
They provide the dynamical means through which the Hilbert space
knows itself—through which the quantum-mechanical space of all
possibilities becomes aware of its infinite structure. This dynamics of
knowing, the dynamics of transformation within the field, is known
as Devata in Maharishi Vedic Science [4]. In the structure of knowledge, Devata is the process of knowing—that dynamical element in
the structure of knowledge which links the knower with the object of
knowledge. As in the case of Rishi, there are not one but many different
qualities of Devata, collectively known as Devatas. They are described
as the dynamical impulses of natural law governing all transformations
in the field of consciousness, in exact correspondence with the quantum-mechanical observables in the Hilbert space formulation of the
quantum theory.
Last in the structure of quantum-mechanical knowledge is the
“known” or “object of knowledge.” These are provided by the quantummechanical states themselves—the individual points in Hilbert space.
These points, which collectively comprise the space, represent individual, isolated possibilities within the quantum mechanical field of all
possibilities. One, and only one, such point represents the actual state
of the physical system at any given time (although this state might correspond to a superposition of classically distinct or even incompatible
properties). The labeling of these quantum-mechanical states requires
a choice of basis vectors in Hilbert space. These basis vectors are, in
general, the eigenvectors of some self-adjoint operators—a maximal
commuting set of quantum-mechanical observables. From a dynamical
standpoint, the most natural choice of basis vectors is the eigenstates
of the Hamiltonian—the so-called energy eigenvectors. These states
possess a definite, well-defined energy and a degree of stability which is
not shared by any other states. From the time-dependent Schrodinger
equation (4,5) it is clear that these energy eigenstates undergo a particularly simple time evolution:
|E π(tˊ )〉 = eiEπ(1ˊ- t)/  |E π(t)〉
200
(8)
They oscillate in time with a frequency wπ = Eπ/  proportional to their
energy, and thus correspond to the stable vibrational modes of the system.
In the context of a unified quantum field theory, these stable vibrational states of the field play an especially fundamental role: they comprise the elementary particles and forces of nature. For example, in the
framework provided by the superstring, all the elementary particles and
forces governing physics below the Planck scale correspond to massless
vibrational states of the string, or string “fundamentals.” The higherenergy modes, or string “harmonics,” correspond to heavier particles
with masses O(MPI). These stable vibrational states of the string thereby
provide the stable foundation on which the entire material universe is
constructed—the elementary particles and forces of nature. They ultimately underlie the behavior of macroscopic, bulk matter, which has a
tendency to hide the essential, abstract nature of the field from which
it arises.
Here we find a very deep connection between modern theoretical physics and the Vedic Science of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
In Vedic Science, the “known” or Chhandas quality of the unified field, represented by individual points in an infinite space of all
possibilities, also corresponds to natural, stable modes of the field.
Indeed, the term Chhandas is often translated as “rhythm” or “frequency,” although Maharishi gives primary significance to its role as
the “known” in the structure of knowledge [4]. Hence Chhandas, the
known, corresponds to the natural resonant modes of consciousness—
the fundamentals and harmonics of the unified field which provide the
stable foundation on which the entire subjective and objective universe
is constructed. As in the case of modern physics, Chhandas also has the
property of “hiding” the essentially abstract quality of the field within
layers upon layers of increasingly inert structure.
In the previous paragraphs, we have analyzed the structure of quantum-mechanical knowledge provided by the Hilbert space formulation of the quantum theory. We have observed a close correspondence
between the quantum-mechanical description of the unified field and
the self-interacting dynamics of nature’s intelligence described by Vedic
Science. This correspondence is summarized graphically in Figure 1.
Both formulations describe a fundamental three-in-one structure of
201
knowledge. From the point of view of quantum mechanics, these three
are represented by the Hilbert space, the quantum-mechanical observables, and the individual states in Hilbert space. From the point of view
of Vedic Science, the self-interacting dynamics of the unified field also
gives rise to three distinct values, known as Rishi, Devata and Chhandas. We have presented one particularly simple interpretation of these
three as the knower, the known, and the process of knowing, although
Maharishi has at times introduced other translations. Knower, known,
and process of knowing, however, are particularly interesting since they
highlight the difference between the objective approach of modern science and the predominantly subjective approach of Vedic Science, in
which the unified field is directly experienced as a field of consciousness. The essential knowledge provided by both approaches, and even
the technical details, appears to be the same. The shift in terminology
(e.g., “quantum-mechanical observables” versus “process of knowing”)
is a natural consequence of the different approaches. Both approaches
offer powerful advantages. The objective approach, with its associated
mathematical formalism, provides a precise, quantitative framework
that has led to the development of important technological applications
which have had a major impact on many areas of human concern. The
subjective approach of Maharishi Vedic Science, through its applied,
experiential technologies, allows the direct exploration of the most
fundamental aspects of natural law in consciousness, developing higher
states of consciousness and the growing ability to utilize natural law
spontaneously to enrich all aspects of life in a completely balanced and
holistic way [4–10]. These two complementary approaches to knowledge will be further explored, together with their relative merits, in
Sections IV–VI.
Having established the fundamental three-in-one structure of
knowledge in the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics,
we will indicate briefly how the same basic structure appears in different forms when we consider the operator-algebra and path-integral
formulations of the quantum theory.
The path-integral approach is a formulation of quantum mechanics
based almost exclusively on the use of classical concepts. In this formulation, the evolution of a quantum-mechanical system is described
entirely in terms of classical objects moving along classical trajecto-
202
ries. This gross intrusion of classical ideas into the sacred domain of
the quantum theory has its inevitable repercussions. Specifically, one is
forced to postulate that the quantum-mechanical system (e.g., a point
particle) simultaneously moves along many distinct classical trajectories
—a classical absurdity. The fundamental postulate of the path-integral formulation is that all possible paths (known as “classical histories”) contribute to the particle’s evolution. Each classical history (P) is
weighted by a phase factor eiS[P] which depends upon the classical action
S[P] associated with that history. The quantum-mechanical amplitude
for a particle to move from an initial point A to a final point B is given
by the sum over all histories weighted by their classical action:
〈B|A〉 = ∫[dP] eiS[P]/ 
(9)
The emergence of classical behavior occurs in the following way.
In the limit as  →0, or in the case of large S, the various contributions to the quantum-mechanical evolution associated with different
classical trajectories P are accompanied by widely different and uncorrelated phases. As a consequence, the contribution to the quantummechanical evolution (9) from all of these histories cancels through a
process of destructive interference. An exception to this rule occurs at,
and immediately surrounding, the classical path of least action. Since
the action S achieves a minimum along the path of least action, the
action will be nearly constant for all paths in the neighborhood of this
path. These histories interfere constructively and therefore dominate
the quantum-mechanical evolution of the system. Everywhere else, the
phase is varying so rapidly that there is no appreciable contribution to
the quantum-mechanical evolution. In the extreme classical limit, only
those paths which are infinitesimally close to the path of least action
contribute to the evolution of the system; this means that effectively
only the classical path of least action survives.
In this alternative formulation of quantum mechanics due to Feynman, we can still identify a dynamical interplay between three distinct
elements. First is the space of all possible histories, which exist simultaneously at the quantum-mechanical level. Second are the individual
paths themselves, including the classical path of least action, which
dominates in the classical limit. Third is the dynamical principle (9) or
“action” principle, which computes the contribution of each classical
203
history and thereby governs the evolution of the quantum-mechanical
system. This three-in-one structure is actually quite similar to the structure of quantum-mechanical knowledge presented by the Hilbert space
formulation. In the latter, we have the quantum-mechanical space of all
possibilities (the Hilbert space), the individual states that comprise this
space, and the quantum-mechanical observables, including the Hamiltonian, which governs the evolution of the system through the timedependent Schrödinger equation. Indeed, the two formulations are
physically equivalent: the dynamical evolution derived from the action
principle (9) is, in fact, identical to the time-dependent Schrödinger
equation (3). They merely provide two different but complementary
perspectives on the same, underlying dynamics of nature.
Even the most rudimentary formulation of the quantum principle
provided by the algebraic form of the canonical commutation relation
(1) and the associated Lie algebra of observables exhibits a fundamental
three-in-one structure. From this algebraic perspective, we have the
infinite set of quantum-mechanical observables (comprising all polynomials in Φ and ∏), the individual elements that comprise this set, and
the binary operation or Lie bracket, which transforms the set into itself
and governs, through the Heisenberg equations of motion, the dynamical evolution of the quantum-mechanical system.
This analysis of the Hilbert space, operator-algebra and path-integral formulations of quantum theory illustrates a universal principle of
Maharishi Vedic Science that knowledge has a three-in-one structure.
In all three formulations we observed an infinite space to be identified
with Rishi; the individual elements that comprise this space, which
we identified with Chhandas; and a dynamical principle relating the
elements to the space, which we identified with Devata. Having considered these viewpoints separately, we can also comment on their
qualities relative to each other. We observe that the Hilbert space sets
the tone for the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics, the
commutator for the operator-algebra formulation, and the classical
paths for the path-integral formulation. This suggests that, in the total
structure of quantum-mechanical knowledge available to a physicist,
the Hilbert space formulation provides the predominantly Rishi viewpoint, the operator-algebra formulation a predominantly Devata viewpoint, and the path-integral formulation a predominantly Chhandas
204
viewpoint (see Figure 2). In a similar way, Maharishi has explained [4]
that the entire Vedic literature can be divided into three classes, which
respectively present the mechanics of creation from the Rishi, Devata
and Chhandas perspectives.
In this section, we have analyzed the structure of quantum-mechanical knowledge provided by the Hilbert space formulation of the quantum theory and examined this fundamental knowledge in the light of
205
Maharishi Vedic Science. We observed a close correspondence between
the three-in-one structure of quantum-mechanical knowledge and the
self-interacting dynamics of nature’s intelligence (Rishi, Devata, and
Chhandas) described by Vedic Science. We have previously shown
that the highly nonlinear dynamics of self-interaction introduced by
the quantum principle endows the field with a degree of dynamism,
discrimination, and a creative capacity which is essential for the emergence of creation as we know it. We have therefore identified the quantum principle with the “intelligence” aspect of the unified field—that
property of the unified field which, along with its classical symmetries
and structure, is responsible for the spontaneous and sequential emergence of the diversified structure of the laws of nature. In Maharishi
Vedic Science, this intelligence aspect of the unified field, or buddhi,
is considered equally fundamental: it is this dynamic, discriminative,
and creative property of the field which allows the field to know itself,
i.e., to interact with itself in a highly dynamic and nonlinear way. This
self-interacting dynamics of the unified field has, in fact, been called
by Maharishi the “first principle of nature’s functioning” [4]. It sets
up within the unmanifest field the three-in-one structure of knower,
known, and process of knowing, whose dynamical interactions sequentially unfold the diversified structure of the laws of nature governing
life at all levels of the physical universe.
In the following section, we will present a systematic analysis of
the fundamental modes of the unified field—the elementary particles
and forces of nature. Through the combined understanding provided
by Maharishi Vedic Science and the latest four-dimensional string
formulations, we will develop a more natural understanding of, and
terminology for, the elementary particles based directly on the unified
field.
IV. The Elementary Particles and Forces of Nature
as Modes of the Unified Field
In the previous sections, we presented a detailed analysis of the essential characteristics of the unified field and its self-interacting dynamics.
In this section, we will expand this analysis to include a systematic
investigation of its fundamental modes—the elementary particles and
forces of nature. We have already seen that unified quantum field theo-
206
ries provide a natural understanding of the elementary particles and
forces as the stable vibrational states of the field. These natural resonant
frequencies, known as energy eigenstates, possess certain properties of
stability and discreteness that lend themselves naturally to an interpretation in terms of particles, and which are indeed responsible for
the classical understanding of the universe as composed of particles.10
Due to their physical interpretation as particles, these energy eigenstates are also known as “physical particle states” of the field. We have
previously identified these particle states with the “known” or Chhandas quality of the field in Section III.
In the simplest theories, these physical particle states exist in simple,
one-to-one correspondence with the fundamental dynamical degrees
of freedom of the underlying field. For example, in quantum electrodynamics, electrons and photons respectively correspond to excited states
of the electron and photon field. In more complicated, nonlinear field
theories, this is generally not the case. In quantum chromodynamics,
for instance, the complex spectrum of physical particles (the baryons
and mesons) bears no simple resemblance to the fundamental degrees
of freedom of the underlying fields—the quark and gluon fields. There
may be many layers of quantum dynamics separating the fundamental
degrees of freedom of the underlying field and its emergent, physical
spectrum of stable vibrational states.
Until recently, there was no known field theory with a physical spectrum rich enough to accommodate the great diversity of elementary
particles and forces observed in nature. Previous unified field theories
based on extended supergravity had a physical spectrum rich enough
to include some, but not all, of the known forces—the strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, but not the weak force. It was
once hoped that the remaining forces and particles could be explained
through a more complicated dynamics involving bound states of the
fundamental components of the underlying theory (bilinears in the N
= 8 supergravity multiple!), but these efforts met with severe technical
difficulties. It is only with the recent discovery of the superstring that a
10 The discreteness of the energy levels of a quantum field results from the fact that the amplitude of vibration associated with each of these resonant modes is constrained by the quantum
principle to be in discrete multiples of Planck’s constant. For a more complete introduction, see
ref. [11].
207
completely unified field theory of all the elementary particles and forces
has become possible.
Now, for the first time in history, all known particles and forces of
nature can be explicitly identified with modes of the unified field. A
detailed investigation into the structure and dynamics of the superstring field reveals a rich spectrum of vibrational states in direct correspondence with the observed elementary particles and forces: the
graviton, the spin-1 force fields, chiral matter fields, and all their supersymmetric partners. Within the framework provided by the superstring,
all the necessary building blocks of creation can be clearly understood
as the natural resonant modes of the unified field.
In our effort to connect all aspects of physics to their unified source
in the unified field, we will briefly explain how all the known forces
and particles of nature arise from the superstring, clearly identifying
each of these particles with specific vibrational states of the field. This
identification has been considerably simplified by the recent derivation
[3] of supersymmetric Flipped SU(5) Χ U(l) from the superstring using
the free-fermionic formulation in four dimensions [19]. This derivation provides the most direct link between the heterotic string and
the observed elementary particles and forces of nature, while naturally avoiding the problems of cosmological baryogenesis, rapid proton
decay, tree-level flavor-changing neutral currents, and Cabibbo universality generally associated with manifold and/or orbifold constructions
in ten spacetime dimensions.
Indeed, the discovery of a fully realistic grand unified theory,
which is what supersymmetric Flipped SU(5) Χ U(l) represents, can
be counted as one of the major achievements of this current project to
restructure all aspects of physics in light of the unified field. Prior to
the knowledge provided by the superstring, it was impossible to know,
based on the partial and fragmented understanding of physics available at the electroweak scale, exactly what new forces and new gauge
symmetries were relevant to the physics of fundamental scales. As a
consequence, grand unified model building was largely a matter of
guesswork, and in the historical development of these theories, Flipped
SU(5) Χ U(l) was essentially overlooked.11 Now, based on the knowledge of the unified field provided by the superstring, one can easily
11
See, however, ref. [C3].
208
show that Flipped SU(5) Χ U(l) is the only viable grand unified theory
that can arise from the unified field in the context of string theory.
The canonical grand unified theories, based on conventional SU(5),
SO(10), or E6, all require adjoint or larger self-conjugate Higgs representations to break them, and these are not available in string theories
(see Appendix C). In contrast, Flipped SU(5) Χ U(l) breaks uniquely
to the Standard Model using just antisymmetric representations of
SU(5) [a 10 and a 5], which are abundantly available in string theories.
Motivated by the superstring, we first examined Flipped SU(5) Χ
U(l) in the spring of 1987 [3], and immediately found that this simple theory automatically solved the phenomenological problems (e.g.,
monopoles, fermion mass relations, mixing angles, proton decay) and
technical problems (i.e., the gauge hierarchy problem) of previous grand
unified field theories. Hence the discovery of the first viable grand unified theory was a direct result of connecting the area of grand unification to the underlying structure of the unified field provided by
the superstring. This provides a rather striking example of the type of
results which can be expected from clearly and explicitly connecting all
aspects of physics to their source in the unified field.
A string is, by definition, a one-dimensional extended object. One
must bear in mind, however, that this one-dimensional object is just
the classical tip of a vast, quantum-mechanical iceberg. It is a localized,
classical expression—a stable vibrational mode—of an unbounded,
underlying superstring field. The string stands in relation to the field
as a point particle stands in relation to the field in a conventional relativistic quantum field theory of elementary particles: both the string
and the particle represent excited states of their respective, underlying
quantum fields. Nevertheless, the concrete perspective afforded by this
classical description provides a useful starting point for our subsequent
analysis and discussion of the complex physical spectrum of a superstring theory.
The heterotic string is essentially a quantum field theory of closed,
elastic, relativistic strings. These one-dimensional strings are endowed
with the freedom to vibrate in a number of transverse dimensions perpendicular to the string. These dimensions can be viewed as forming an
external space in which the string is embedded. Some of these dimensions are bosonic and some are fermionic. If these bosonic and fermi-
209
onic dimensions happen to exist in one-to-one correspondence, as in
the case of the superstring, then one can say that the embedding space
takes the form of a superspace. An even more fundamental vantage
point results if we discard the concept of the embedding space and consider the string entirely from its own, internal perspective. In this second approach, one defines on the string a set of bosonic and fermionic
fields (Φ(σ) , ψ(σ) where σ is a parameter between 0 and 2π which specifies the location on the string. Then, instead of an external embedding
space in which the string lives and vibrates, we have a one-dimensional
field theory of bosons and fermions defined on the string itself.
In the free-fermionic formulation of Antoniadis et al. [19], all
but two of these string degrees of freedom are assumed to be fermionic. (One always has the freedom to adopt such a perspective,
since at this very fundamental level of string field theory, the difference between a bose field and a fermi field is a formal distinction only.) The two remaining bose fields play a rather special role.
Because they are bosonic, these fields can sustain arbitrarily large
amplitudes. (Fermi fields ψ(σ) are characterized by Grassman-valued
amplitudes which have the property ψ2 = 0 and therefore behave formally like infinitesimals.) The macroscopic excursions of these bosonic
string modes behave, from a mathematical standpoint, like motion
in a noncompact space. Physically and psychologically, we associate with these excursions the notion of an external, physical space.
From this profound perspective afforded by the superstring, the emergence of physical space, in addition to all the particles and forces that
inhabit it, is a consequence of the string itself. Space and particles,
respectively, result from bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom
intrinsic to the string.
The number of string degrees of freedom is completely determined
by mathematical and quantum-mechanical consistency. In particular,
conformal invariance (invariance of the string dynamics with respect
to scale) is needed to ensure the cancellation of quantum-mechanical
anomalies and, in the free-fermionic formulation in four dimensions,
fixes the number of string degrees of freedom to be 20 counterclockwise (or “left-moving”) fermions and 44 clockwise (or “right-moving”)
fermions. These fundamental fermionic degrees of freedom defined on
the one-dimensional string are not trivially related to the rich spec-
210
trum of vibrational states appearing in four dimensions. The complete
enumeration of the physical, four-dimensional spectrum requires first a
specification of periodicity conditions for the string degrees of freedom,
followed by a counting of all vibrational states of the string consistent
with these conditions.
The specification of periodicity conditions means the following.
Since the energy eigenstates of a system correspond to stationary
states—states whose time evolution involves at most multiplication by
a periodic phase—these states must correspond to standing waves on
the string. For any bosonic string degree of freedom Φ(σ), such standing waves are necessarily periodic in the string parameter σ; Φ(σ + 2π)
= Φ(σ) since σ and σ + 2π correspond to the same position on the string.
However, for a fermionic string degree of freedom ψ(σ), this is not necessarily true. A fermion can also be antiperiodic in σ: ψ(σ + 2π)= -ψ(σ),
or can even satisfy a more general, rational periodicity condition: ψ(σ +
2π) = ei2π/nψ(σ); n = 1, 2, 3 ... . The antiperiodic case is roughly analogous
to the peculiar behavior of fermions in four spacetime dimensions: one
must rotate a fermion by two full turns before it returns to its original
status. It means that the fermionic fields are not single-valued functions
on the string, but have two sheets, or even n sheets in the more general
case of rational periodicity conditions. The specification of periodicity
conditions for all fermionic string degrees of freedom is necessary (but
not sufficient) to completely define the vibrational states of the string.12
Once the fermion periodicity conditions have been specified, there
are still a large number of vibrational states consistent with these conditions. The lowest-frequency vibrations consistent with these periodicity conditions can be called the “fundamental” modes of the string.
In addition to these string fundamentals, there will also be an infinite series of string “harmonics” possessing integer multiples of these
fundamental frequencies which satisfy the same periodicity conditions.
Crudely speaking, the fundamentals correspond to massless modes of
the string. These are identified with the known elementary particles
12
In the interest of technical completeness, we note that the specification of these periodicity conditions is performed not on the string per se, but on the string world sheet. The world
sheet is the 1 + 1 = 2 dimensional spacetime surface that describes the classical history of a string
as it evolves through time. At the one-loop (quantum) level of the string dynamics, these world
sheets have the topological structure of a torus. The periodicity conditions described above actually refer to the behavior of these world-sheet fermions under parallel transport around this
one-loop string world torus.
211
and forces of nature, which have masses much less than MP1. The
higher frequency harmonics give rise to an ascending tower of massive modes with energies greater than MPL which have little to do with
physics below the Planck scale.
Due to the number of string degrees of freedom, the many possible choices of periodicity conditions, and the richness of the resulting spectrum, the complete derivation of all known particles from
the string is a somewhat lengthy procedure, which we reserve for the
Appendix. It must also be viewed as somewhat model-dependent,
since at the present time there are several different string formulations, including manifold compactifications and orbifold compactifications of ten-dimensional string theories in addition to the more direct
approach we have outlined. The equivalence of all these approaches
is by no means clear: the underlying string theory is certainly the
same, but the identification of known elementary particles and forces
with specific string modes may be different, and at the present time
appears far from unique. In the following discussion, we will therefore emphasize the most general, model-independent features of
the massless string modes which have a clear interpretation in terms of
the known elementary particles and forces of nature.
These massless modes of the string give rise to an effective lowenergy theory governing physics below the Planck scale. On the most
general grounds of Lorentz invariance and quantum-mechanical consistency, we know such a theory must take the form of a renormalizable
quantum field theory of elementary particles. Quantum-mechanical
consistency restricts the range of possible particles and forces to five
fundamental categories distinguished by their quantum-mechanical
“spins.” From a classical standpoint, spin simply refers to the angular momentum intrinsic to the elementary particles. This spin is constrained by the quantum principle to take half-integer values: 0, 1/2, 1,
3/2 or 2 in units of  . From a field-theoretic perspective, spin has even
deeper significance. It determines the spacetime transformation properties, the form of the couplings, and thus most of the physical characteristics of the underlying field. Spins greater than 2, for example, do
not lead to quantum-mechanically consistent field theories. We will
briefly introduce these quantum-mechanical spin types, which collectively constitute the five fundamental categories of matter and energy
212
in nature, together with a brief summary of the relevant portions of
Appendix C which identify these spin types with specific vibrational
states of the string.
1) The spin-2 graviton, responsible for the force of gravity and the field
of curved spacetime geometry.
[The graviton belongs to the “Neveu-Schwarz” or antiperiodic sector,
which corresponds to massless vibrational states of the string in which
all 20 left-moving and 44 right-moving world-sheet fermions are antiperiodic under parallel transport around the one-loop string world
torus.]
2) The spin-3/2 gravitino, the supersymmetric partner of the graviton
field.
[The gravitino corresponds to a massless vibrational state of the string
in which all fermions are antiperiodic except for ψ μ (the supersymmetric partners of the two transverse bosonic string coordinates) and
x1,...,6, which are periodic under parallel transport around the one-loop
string world torus.]
3) The spin-1 force fields, responsible for the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces in addition to other, superheavy grand unified force
fields.
[Same as 1.]
4) The spin-½ gauginos, the supersymmetric partners of the spin-1
force fields.
[Same as 2.]
4b) The spin-½ matter fields — the quarks and leptons.
[The three generations Ni=1, 2, 3 of the Standard Model correspond
to massless string modes with the following periodicity conditions:
N1 : ψμ, χ1, 2, y3, 4, 5, 6, y 3, 4, 5, 6, ψ 1, ..., 5, η 1 antiperiodic;
N2 : ψμ, χ3, 4, y1, 2, y 1, 2, ω 4, 5, ψ 1, ..., 5, η 2 antiperiodic;
N3 : ψμ, χ5, 6, ω3, 4, 5, 6, ω 1, 2, 3, 4, ψ
, η 3 antiperiodic;
1, ..., 5
and the rest periodic under parallel transport around the one-loop
string world torus.]
5) The spin-0 matter fields, including the supersymmetric partners of
the quarks and leptons in addition to certain neutral scalars (Higgs
bosons) responsible for the spontaneous breaking of gauge symmetries.
213
[The squarks and sleptons are similar to 4b, with opposite periodicity
conditions for ψμ , χ1, ...,6. The Higgs bosons arise from the same antiperiodic sector described in 1.]
(10)
From this analysis, we conclude that within the framework provided
by the superstring, all the elementary particles and forces of nature
can be clearly understood in terms of the unified field. We have explicitly identified all known particles with specific vibrational states of the
string (10). Thus, the elementary particles and forces of nature, which
provide the stable building blocks for the whole material universe,
stand clearly revealed for what they are—the natural resonant modes of
the unified field. This clear understanding provided by the superstring
lays the foundation for a new interpretation and language of physics,
in which the elementary particles and forces of nature, and indeed the
entire discipline, are clearly connected to their unified source. In the
light of this new understanding, many of the historical perspectives and
language of physics will give way to a more natural understanding and
terminology based directly on the unified field. Instead of their currently random and/or historical names, the elementary particles will be
named for the specific vibrational states they correspond to: periodic,
antiperiodic, etc., revealing their rightful place in the internal structure
and dynamics of the unified field. This natural labeling of all aspects of
the discipline in terms of the unified field provides a natural order and
organization to the entire discipline which was not possible as long as
its unified foundation was hidden from view.
At the present time, we have also seen that the labeling of modes
provided by the free-fermionic string formulation is rather awkward. Due to the number of string degrees of freedom, the many
possible choices of periodicity conditions, and the richness of the
resulting spectrum, the labeling of these string modes (10) is necessarily somewhat cumbersome. Maharishi Vedic Science, in comparison, provides a very natural and compact language of nature
which is also based directly on the unified field. In the language of
Vedic Science, the five fundamental categories of matter and
energy (10) responsible for material existence are called tanmatras
(meaning elementary in the sense of noncomposite) [6,9]. Respec-
214
tively they are known as akasha, vayu, tejas, apas, and prithivi.
There is a striking correspondence between these five tanmatras and the
five quantum-mechanical spin types of a unified quantum field theory:
between the akasha or “space” tanmatra and the gravitational field;
between the vayu or “air” tanmatra, which stands as a link between
space and the other tanmatras, and the gravitino field; between the
tejas or “fire” tanmatra, responsible for chemical transformations and
the sense of sight, and the spin-1 force fields; and between the apas
and prithivi (“water” and “earth”) tanmatras and the spin-½ and spin-0
matter fields, respectively.
This correspondence is even more striking in the context of a supersymmetric unified field theory, such as the superstring. In a supersymmetric theory, there is a natural pairing of the five spin types into
three types of N=l superfields (see Figure 3). The spin-2 graviton and
the spin-3/2 gravitino become unified in the context of the gravity
superfield, the spin-1 force fields and spin-½ gauginos combine to
form gauge superfields, and the spin-½ matter fields and their spin-0
supersymmetric partners give rise to matter superfields. These same
pairings are also considered fundamental in Vedic Science, wherein
akasha and vayu appear unified in the structure of vata prakriti,
tejas and apas become united in the structure of pitta prakriti, and
apas and prithivi combine to form kapha prakriti [20]. Like the N =
l superfields, the prakritis pertain to the structure of natural law at
fundamental spacetime scales—at or near the scale of superunification. This striking correspondence, which has been discussed in
greater detail elsewhere in the literature [11], adds further weight
to the fundamental identity between the unified field of pure, selfinteracting consciousness and the unified field of modern theoretical
physics: not only do they possess identical properties and characteristics (see Sections II and III) but also they share the same spectrum of
excitations.
It is very interesting in this context that the unified field or atman
(self) is also known as sutratma (literally, string-self) [21]:
mama chaiva shariram vai sutram ity abhidiyate
215
My body is called a string.
(or)
This my body having the nature of a string.
Like the heterotic string, this string (sutratma) has the topology of a
circle, or mandala [4]. The self-interacting dynamics of consciousness
described in the Veda gives rise to several distinct categories of mandala, which include the five tanmatras or spin types introduced above
(10) in addition to others (manas, etc.) which correspond to subjective
realities that have little to do with physics below the Planck scale. Here
again we observe a close correspondence between the structure and
dynamics of the unified field described by Maharishi Vedic Science
and the unified quantum field theory of modern theoretical physics.
The essential knowledge, and even the technical details, appear to be
the same. The difference in terminology can be naturally understood as
a consequence of the different approaches.
To understand the significance of the Vedic names akasha, etc., in
relation to the unified field, we first recall what the five fundamental categories of matter and energy actually represent in the context of
a unified field theory. They represent the stable vibrational states, or
natural resonant frequencies, of the unified field. We have explicitly
identified the five quantum-mechanical spin types with specific vibrational states of the field—periodic and/or antiperiodic, fundamentals
and/or harmonics of the string (10). We have therefore discovered a
level of nature’s dynamics where all matter and energy—the elementary
particles and forces—correspond to specific “sounds” or vibra-tional
patterns of the unified field.
This same understanding is considered fundamental in Maharishi
Vedic Science. Vedic Science posits an intimate relationship between
sound and meaning, or name and form, at the unified level of nature’s
functioning: nama (name) becomes identified with rupa (form) at the
level of the unified field [10]. This intimate relationship between sound
and meaning, which we have also seen in the context of the superstring, suggests a profound system of nomenclature which is both novel
and natural: to name every object or expression of the unified field
216
with the actual sound or vibration of the field which that object corresponds to. According to Maharishi, this is precisely what the Vedic
names akasha, vayu, etc., represent. They are the actual “sounds” or
vibrational patterns of the unified field associated with those fundamental objects. The spoken words (akasha, etc.) directly reflect
these fundamental sounds, amplified, translated in frequency, and
articulated on the level of speech.
217
Due to this intimate connection between sound and meaning, Vedic
Science has been aptly described as a highly refined and sophisticated
science of sound. This is perhaps most profoundly illustrated in the case
of the Rik-Veda, the most fundamental aspect of the Vedic Samhita
and, according to Maharishi, the foundation of the entire Vedic literature [4]. According to Maharishi Vedic Science, the Rik-Veda presents
a complete record of the structure and dynamics of the unified field in
the form of sound. Indeed, the syllables of the Rik-Veda are the actual
sounds generated by the self-interacting dynamics of the unified field
and the mechanics of symmetry breaking through which the unified
field sequentially gives rise to the diversified structure of natural law
seen in nature [10]. For this reason, this fundamental aspect of the
Vedic literature is also known as shruti, which means “heard.” This term
refers to the manner in which the Veda was cognized. These primordial
sounds, or mechanics of nature’s functioning, were heard by the sages
in the most silent, settled state of their own awareness—the unified
field of pure, self-interacting consciousness.13 These sounds were subsequently recorded and preserved in the form of speech. Thus the RikVeda, according to Maharishi, is not an intellectual commentary on the
fundamental mechanics of nature’s functioning. It is an actual acoustic
record of the total structure of the unified field and its self-interacting
dynamics. This explains why the Veda is primarily an oral tradition, a
tradition of sound painstakingly preserved and passed down from generation to generation. Transcription, translation and interpretation of
the Veda is given very little importance in the Vedic tradition. The true
meaning and significance of the Veda is vested in the Veda itself. This
understanding is aptly summarized in a verse from the Rik-Veda [6].
Richo akshare parame vyoman
yasmin deva adhivishve nisheduh
13 At this fundamental level of awareness, it is more correct to say that the Veda hears itself,
since in this unified state of consciousness the knower, the known, and the process of knowing
are one and the same. This is why the Veda is called Samhita, meaning unity of knower, known,
and process of knowing [4].
218
The sounds of the Veda are generated by the
collapse of unity within itself, in which reside
all the dynamical impulses of natural law
responsible for the whole manifest universe.
This is the specialty of the Vedic language, the intimate connection
between sound and meaning whereby the name corresponds precisely
to the form of the object. Such a language, in which every expression
of the unified field is named with the actual sound of the unified field
which that object corresponds to, is unified field–based in the fullest possible sense. Such names possess a level of authenticity that is
not shared by the historical and/or random nomenclature currently in
vogue.
Maharishi explains that the Vedic names are especially significant
for an individual possessing the requisite level of consciousness. Due
to the intimate connection between sound and meaning at the unified level of nature’s functioning, an impulse of sound automatically
carries with it the associated form, with all its various properties and
characteristics. If the awareness is lively at this fundamental level, the
sound automatically structures the corresponding experience, with all
its associated properties and characteristics. This level of awareness in
which the name automatically invokes the form of the object is known
as ritam bhara pragya, meaning “that level of the intellect that comprehends only truth” [4]. Given access to this fundamental level of awareness, the Vedic terminology provides a powerful research methodology.
All the fundamental modes of the unified field can be systematically
stimulated on the level of consciousness through the introduction of
these Vedic terms [4]. Without this ritam level of awareness, the Vedic
names lose their special significance, much as a hologram loses its special significance in the absence of coherent light. Maharishi explains
that it was the lack of widespread availability of this fundamental level
of consciousness in recent history that had placed the Vedic knowledge
in a state of decline [9]. This situation is also described by the previous
verse from the Rik-Veda, which continues [6]
219
Yastanna veda kimricha karishyati
ya ittadvidus ta ime samasate
He whose awareness is not open to this field,
what can the sounds of the Veda accomplish for him?
Those who know this level of consciousness are
established in unity, wholeness of life.
The current revival of the Vedic knowledge by Maharishi has largely
been possible through his rediscovery of the specific subjective technologies, the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs,
needed to restore this basic experience. The Transcendental Meditation technique naturally produces this fundamental level of awareness, in which consciousness is identified with the unified field. The
TM-Sidhi program then stimulates sequentially all the fundamental
modes of the unified field using specific mental formulas or impulses
of sound prescribed by Maharishi Patanjali thousands of years ago [4].
The resulting experience of all the fundamental aspects of natural law
as modes of one’s own awareness indeed provides the most striking
experiential confirmation of the proposed identity between the unified
field of pure, self-interacting consciousness and the unified field now
being glimpsed by modern theoretical physics [11]. This direct experience is as repeatable, as striking and unambiguous for the experiencer
as any data obtained through the use of particle accelerators. It can
be replicated at any time by anyone possessing the requisite apparatus
and training. This apparatus and as training, respectively, consist of a
human nervous system and instruction in the experiential technologies
of Maharishi Vedic Science—the Transcendental Meditation and TMSidhi programs. Indeed, the direct experience of the unified field of
pure, self-interacting consciousness as the unified field of all the laws of
nature is self-evidently more real than any experience in the domain of
ordinary waking consciousness, for the same reason that waking experience is self-evidently more real than dreaming—it represents a more
220
integrated, holistic and logically self-consistent state of functioning of
the brain physiology.
The knowledge of the Vedic sounds and their classification by
Maharishi has had profound application in many different areas.
This knowledge presents a complete science of transformation based
on the unified field. Through the introduction of specific impulses of
sound (specific frequencies or patterns of vibration of the unified field),
one can induce a transformation from one frequency or pattern to
another, in a manner familiar to experimentalists and theorists working with scattering experiments or Feynman graphs. The introduction
of a new frequency or “particle” into the initial-state configuration leads
to a whole new range of final-state possibilities, in accordance with a
set of selection rules and conservation laws appropriate to physics at
that level. This has opened up an entire field of “Vedic engineering” or
Maharishi Yagya [9], which applies the knowledge of the Vedic sounds
to effect transformations at any and all levels of the physical universe.
Although Vedic engineering is not a new science, it had fallen into a
state of relative disuse because its application must be from the level of
the unified field. Without the corresponding level of consciousness, the
Vedic sounds are just gross expressions on the level of speech, and have
a correspondingly limited effect.
One interesting and widespread application of the Vedic terminology
is known as Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology, which addresses
specific imbalances in the physiology through the application of certain
sounds. This represents just one small aspect of a complete science of
health known as Maharishi Ayur-Veda, which is based directly on the
fundamental knowledge contained in the Rik-Veda [4]. The principal
focus of Maharishi Ayur-Veda is on the level of the unified field, i.e.,
the restoration of balance in the physiology through direct experience
of the unified field of pure, selfinteracting consciousness. However,
Maharishi Ayur-Veda also includes numerous approaches based on
more expressed levels of natural law if and when necessary, including
the restoration of physiological balance at the level of the three prakritis
or superfields through the application of primordial sounds, herbs or
minerals with the appropriate balance of these prakritis. As in modern science, there are many different levels of structure on which any
organ or tissue can be described and treated: the gross structural level,
221
the molecular or biochemical level and, in the case of Maharishi Ayur
Veda, increasingly fundamental levels including the five spin types, the
three superfields, and the unified field itself.
A complete discussion of the numerous applications and approaches
of Maharishi Vedic Science is beyond the scope of this work. However,
the spectacular achievements and proven effectiveness of the Vedic language and approach in the field of health alone [22] clearly demonstrate
the practical value of a unified field-based approach and terminology in
which all objects are named with the actual sounds or vibrations of the
field that they correspond to.
Such a level of perfection of nomenclature is what we would like
to achieve for physics. Such a system will necessarily include the use
of Vedic terms, since these are the actual sounds corresponding to the
fundamental objects studied by physics. We have therefore included
these Vedic Science expressions in our graphical presentation of the
structure of a unified quantum field shown in Figure 1.
In this section, we have understood all the elementary particles
and forces of nature in terms of the unified field. We have explicitly
identified all the elementary particles and forces, along with the origin of space itself, with specific vibrational states of the field using
the free-fermionic string formulation. These elementary particles and
forces, which comprise the five quantum-mechanical spin types, are
shown in relation to the unified field in Figure 1, together with their
corresponding Vedic Science expressions. The addition of these Vedic
Science names should provide the student of physics, as well as the
advanced researcher, with a powerful research methodology when
these names are applied via the TM-Sidhi program at the appropriate, unified level of awareness, where the correspondence between
name and form is lively. In addition to the abstract knowledge such
experience provides, the applied, practical value of these fundamental
fields is obvious and automatic at that unified level of awareness.14 The
implications of a complete science and technology of the unified field
will be further considered in Section VI.
14 The practical application of the five tanmatras is described in Patanjali [23]. Research has
shown a restoration of physiological balance and efficiency [24], improved health and resistance
to disease [25], growth of intelligence [26] and creativity [27], improved moral reasoning [28],
and many other benefits [29] from the regular practice of the TM-Sidhi program.
222
V. Quantum Cosmology and Vedic Cosmology
The most obvious practical expression of the unified field is the universe itself. The study of the origin and evolution of the universe is the
science of cosmology. In this section, we will review the mechanics of
creation from the unified field and their implications for a unified fieldbased cosmological theory, using the combined perspectives of modern
science and the Vedic Science of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
We will begin this analysis with a concise summary and overview of
the structure of a unified quantum field developed in Sections II–IV
and presented in Figure 1. In Section II, we identified the essential
characteristics of the unified field as existence and intelligence. We saw
that the intelligence aspect of the field, which we identified with the
quantum principle, endowed the field with a degree of dynamism, discrimination, and creative capacity not present at the classical level of
description. This was essential for the spontaneous breaking of gauge
symmetries, the breaking of supersymmetry, and for the emergence of
discrete quanta (i.e., particles) from the continuous dynamics of the
field. In Section III, we saw that this intelligence aspect of the field
introduced by the quantum principle automatically implies a fundamental three-in-one structure of knowledge, comprised of the Hilbert space, quantum-mechanical observables, and states in the Hilbert
space formulation of the quantum theory. The highly nonlinear, selfinteracting dynamics of the field afforded by the quantum principle
ultimately gives rise to a rich spectrum of vibrational modes or energy
eigenstates of the field, which form the stable building blocks of the
entire material universe—the elementary particles and forces of nature.
Within the framework provided by the superstring, it is the massless
modes, or string “harmonics,” which constitute the known elementary
particles and forces governing physics below the Planck scale. At these
scales, the Lorentz-invariant structure of classical spacetime, together
with quantum-mechanical consistency, restricts the range of quantum
fields to five fundamental spin types, which combine to form three
superfields in the context of a supersymmetric unified quantum field
theory, such as the superstring. The resulting supersymmetric grandunified structure is, in general, followed by a further sequential process
of spontaneous symmetry breaking: SU(5) × U(l) → SU(3)c × SU(2)
× U(l)Y → SU(3)c × U(1)em, leading to the separate strong, weak and
w
223
electromagnetic forces at observable energies far below the Planck scale
(see Figure 1).
The identical structure and sequential dynamics is described by
Maharishi Vedic Science. The unified field or atman, being consciousness, has as its essential characteristics both existence and intelligence.
The intelligence aspect, or “witnessing” quality, of the field is known
as buddhi. Due to its essential nature as consciousness, the unified field
is aware of its own existence. This self-interacting property of awareness sets up, within the field of consciousness, a three-in-one structure of knower, known, and process of knowing: consciousness (the
knower) is aware of consciousness (the known) through the agency of
consciousness (the process of knowing). This three-in-one dynamics
of consciousness knowing itself (known as the Veda) generates a rich
spectrum of vibrational modes, which appear as all forms and phenomena in the universe. Among the resonant modes of consciousness
are the five fundamental categories of matter and energy, or tanmatras,
responsible for the material universe. As in a supersymmetric unified
quantum field theory, these five combine to form three more holistic
entities, known as prakritis in the language of Vedic Science.
Maharishi points out that this entire dynamics and sequence of
expression, from unity to diversity, can be seen as a sequentially more
elaborated commentary on the nature of atman itself [10]. Every stage
in the sequential unfoldment of the laws of nature from the unified field
is a spontaneous and inevitable consequence of the nature of consciousness and its self-interacting dynamics; it results from the discriminative
(buddhi) nature of consciousness to know itself more and more completely. From this fundamental perspective, put forth by the Vedanta
aspect of the Vedic literature, the mechanics of creation do not begin
with the field of consciousness and proceed towards matter; the entire
sequence of expression is understood to occur within the field of consciousness [4]. The process of creation simply represents a sequentially
more elaborated self-commentary on the nature of consciousness itself.
Similarly in physics, the entire dynamics and sequence of expression shown in Figure 1 can be viewed as a sequentially more expanded
commentary on the unified field itself. Every stage in the sequential
unfoldment of the laws of nature from the unified field is an automatic
consequence of the detailed structure of the unified field and its self-
224
interacting dynamics. At no stage in this sequential unfoldment is it
necessary to introduce additional ad hoc postulates and assumptions:
the creative process occurs entirely by itself in a self-sufficient manner
as a spontaneous and inevitable consequence of the unified field itself.
Herein lies the predictive power of a unified quantum field theory—
the entire diversified structure of the laws of nature can be derived from
the highly compact and unified structure of the unified field—provided
one possesses the analytic tools needed to unfold its detailed dynamics.
This spontaneous and sequential mechanics of creation is summarized in a verse from the Vedic literature describing the mechanics
of speech. Because the individual and the cosmos are unified at their
basis, the individual awareness (atman) and its self-expression through
speech is directly parallel to the mechanics of creation in nature. This
mechanics is analyzed in shiksha [30], on which Maharishi has offered
the following commentary:
Atman buddhi arthan manas vivarta kayagni vayu akasha
Speech is an expression of atman, the self. Its development begins
when the intelligence aspect of atman, or buddhi, discriminates the
self into the knower, the known, and the process of knowing. These
three are represented by arthan, which means the “objects of buddhi.”
All possible relationships among these three, and their associated
shades of meaning, constitute the domain of manas, or “mind.” The
four (atman, buddhi, arthan, manas) are traditionally associated with
the subjective aspect of existence. These are followed by vivarta, which
means “transformation in appearance.” It describes the transition from
subjectivity to objectivity which occurs, according to Maharishi, when
the subjective impulse of thought gets translated, through the DNA,
into neuropeptides and other complex proteins which comprise the
biochemistry of thought [4]. This transition also represents the junction point between the quantum-mechanical and the classical in the
structure of the human physiology. It is called a “transformation in
appearance” because, according to Maharishi Vedic Science, the transition from quantum-mechanical to classical, or from consciousness to
matter, never really occurs. Nature is never separate from consciousness, and the emergence of classical behavior is a matter of appearance
only. The classical viewpoint merely affords a natural and convenient
225
perspective once the system achieves a certain degree of complexity, or
once matter becomes sufficiently precipitated. On the level of the “cosmic physiology,” this apparent transition from quantum-mechanical to
classical begins at the Planck scale, where the field of gravity decouples
from the rest of physics and spacetime begins to display its classical 3 +
1 dimensional structure. At the same time, the dynamics of the superstring begins to be replaced by an approximate, effective low-energy
field theory of elementary particles. Neither of these transformations
are genuine: the transition from quantum gravity to classical gravity and from string dynamics to field theory are “transformations in
appearance” only. Next comes kayagni, or “fire of intelligence.” Once
the impulse of thought enters the biochemistry, it creates (along with
other physiological changes) a spur to exhale, leading to a movement
of air (vayu) and to the production of sound through the vocal chords
which then propagates through space (akasha). Hence the emergence of
the physical elements (vayu, etc.) follows the transformation (vivarta)
from quantum-mechanical to classical, just as the five spin types follow
the transition to classical spacetime in the structure of a unified quantum field theory (see Figure 1).
Here again, the key point which emerges from Maharishi Vedic Science description is that the transition from atman to buddhi, to arthan,
etc., never really occurs. Buddhi, arthan, manas, etc., all exist within the
nature of atman itself. Intelligence is not outside of consciousness: it is
the very nature of consciousness. Discrimination between the knower,
the known, and the process of knowing is not outside of intelligence,
but is the very nature of intelligence. The entire sequential mechanics
of creation exists within the field of consciousness. It is just a sequentially more elaborated commentary on the nature of consciousness, as
intellectually conceived by its own discriminative aspect, or buddhi.
Hence the notion of diversity disconnected from unity is a fundamental misconception. This misconception is known as pragya-aparadh or
“mistake of the intellect” [4]. Because it plays an important role in our
subsequent cosmological discussion and is considered so fundamental
in Maharishi Vedic Science, we will take a moment to elaborate on this
concept here.
Pragya-aparadh results when, in the mechanics of creation from the
field of consciousness, the intellect loses sight of the essential unity
226
which is the true nature of the self. Due to an inflexibility in the neurophysiology, somewhere in the sequential progression of unity to diversity the experience of unity is lost. The intellect gets caught up in its
own creation, i.e., gets overshadowed by the perception of diversity to
the exclusion of the unity which is the actual nature of the self being
discriminated. According to Maharishi, this mistake of the intellect is
so fundamental to the nature of human experience that it is responsible
for all problems and suffering in life.
Psychologically, this experience of a fragmented and disconnected
existence causes disorientation. Uncertainty, instability, isolation and
limitations automatically result when the unified source and basis of
existence is hidden from view. Neurophysiologically, this fragmented
structure of experience gives rise to the highly unintegrated style of
brain functioning known as waking consciousness, which is considered
normal throughout the world. Physiologically, this fragmented state of
psychology leads, through imbalanced thinking and its associated neurochemistry, to imbalance in the physiology, leading to a degradation of
the immune system and a resulting susceptibility to numerous diseases
and disorders, and to an acceleration of biological aging. Sociologically,
the lack of understanding and clear experience of the holistic and unified basis of existence results in behavior which is less than harmonious and universal in its scope.
This fragmented structure of knowledge and experience is reflected
in the current systems of education, as well as in the structure of the
individual academic disciplines themselves. Of all the disciplines, only
physics has achieved some partial understanding of its unified source in
the unified field, and this relatively recent understanding has had little
impact on the manner in which physics is understood and taught. The
primary purpose of Maharishi Vedic Science and its applied, experiential technologies is to restore a more integrated state of neurophysiological functioning in which all aspects of experience are clearly connected
to their unified source in the unified field of pure, self-interacting consciousness. The Transcendental Meditation technique, for example, by
taking the awareness repeatedly from the localized channels of thought
and perception to the silent, unmanifest source of thought, cultures
within the brain physiology a flexibility which simultaneously comprehends both silence and dynamism—unbounded awareness together
227
with the localized boundaries of waking, dreaming and deep sleep
states of consciousness. The TM-Sidhi program, by taking the awareness repeatedly through the fine mechanics of creation from the unified
field, clearly reveals all the diverse aspects of natural law as various
modes of the unified field. This experience, in particular, develops an
integrated state of neurophysiological functioning in which all aspects of
experience are directly perceived as modes of one’s own intelligence. In
this expanded state of awareness, the psychology, physiology, and social
behavior are restored to a natural state of integration, harmony and balance [24–29]. This quality of experience is summarized in a verse from the
Bhagavad Gita [9], which Maharishi has described as the encapsulated
essence of the Vedic wisdom:
He whose self is established in unity, whose vision everywhere is even,
sees the Self in all beings, and all beings in the Self.
This Vedic conception of the entire universe residing within the unified field, as opposed to emerging from it, has its corresponding understanding and expression in a relatively recent area of physics known
as quantum cosmology. Quantum cosmology applies the principles
of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole. Because the universe incorporates gravity in addition to the other fundamental forces
and particles, a proper treatment of this subject necessarily requires a
unified field theory such as the superstring, since without unification
the force of gravity is not quantum-mechanically consistent. The first
papers on superstring cosmology have now begun to appear.
We have previously seen, based on general principles, that the vacuum state of a field, or indeed any state characterized by a finite energy
density, must represent a simultaneous coexistence of many classical
field shapes. Indeed, in Appendix B we show that the vacuum state of a
scalar field is given by a quantum-mechanical superposition of all possible shapes. The vacuum state represents the natural starting point for
any cosmological study, since it is the only stable, unbounded, Lorentzinvariant state of the field. Let us now consider what would happen if
the unified field, through some dynamical means of self-observation,
were to perform a measurement of its own amplitude.
228
According to a fundamental postulate of quantum measurement
theory, the field would collapse to an eigenstate |Φ〉 of the field operator
Φ, i.e., to a definite classical field shape:
Φ(x, t0 ) |Φ〉 = Φ(x)|Φ〉
(11)
This result is rather intuitive: if the field were to remain in a state
which was a superposition of all classical shape states, the field would
not possess any definite amplitude and the measurement could not yield
a definite result. Hence the effect of a measurement is to collapse the
initial quantum-mechanical superposition of all classical field shapes
to some definite, well-defined classical shape. However, this localized
classical state of the field is highly unnatural from the standpoint of
quantum mechanics, since it represents a state of infinite energy density.
From the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (2), the fact that the uncertainty in the field δΦ is zero in a definite classical shape state implies
an infinite uncertainty in its canonically conjugate momentum. Such a
field shape will therefore immediately explode from its classically definite value to assume, once again, a quantum-mechanical superposition
of all possible shapes (see Figure 4). However, the resulting superposition of classical field shapes will no longer possess the precise and
definite balance of shapes which characterizes the vacuum state. (The
vacuum state is the unique superposition of field shapes which is stable
in time and unbounded in space—i.e., Lorentz invariant.) The initially
perfect balance of the vacuum state, once disturbed by the quantum
measurement process, becomes unstable: the field continues to reverberate forever in a highly nontrivial time evolution.
According to Maharishi Vedic Science, the most fundamental and
authoritative expression of the mechanics of creation is contained in
the Veda itself—in the phonetic structure of the Rik-Veda Samhita,
whose sequential progression of sound and silence15 perfectly reflects
the mechanics of creation itself [4]. Unfortunately, the available translations of the Veda do not mean much, since there are no corresponding English words that capture all the information stored in the Vedic
15 Maharishi explains that much of the creative dynamics of nature is contained in the gaps
between the Vedic phonemes, i.e., in the sequential mechanics of transformation from one syllable to the next. The mechanics of collapse of sound to silence, the mechanics of transformation
within the silence, and the sequential emergence of sound from silence are all essential components of the Vedic Samhita [4].
229
phonemes. Maharishi has, however, placed considerable emphasis on
the phonetic analysis of the Rik-Veda [10], and we will therefore briefly
summarize the mechanics of creation as revealed through a phonetic
analysis of the first word of the Rik-Veda: AGNIM.
According to Maharishi, the letter A represents fullness—the field
of all possibilities. Phonetically, it corresponds to the widest open and
least obstructed position in the physiognomy of speech.
It is the first letter in every major phonetic (or alphabetic) system and
is said to include all other sounds, in the sense that its modulation by
the tongue and lips produces all other sounds. The letter G represents
its extreme opposite—completes emptiness or “point value” of speech.
Phonetically it corresponds to the most closed or fully obstructed value
of speech. The combination AG, according to Maharishi, represents
the collapse of fullness to a point, which occurs when consciousness,
the field of all possibilities, becomes aware of its own point value. It
is precisely analogous to the collapse of the vacuum wave functional
which would occur if the field were to observe its own amplitude (see
Figure 4). The letter N represents negation, while the letter I indicates
a leading out. The combination NI represents a negation of the point
230
value followed by a leading out from the point back in the direction of
infinity. In the words of Maharishi, “consciousness recoils from its own
point value, which represents a highly restricted and hence unnatural
state of the awareness.” This is, again, closely analogous to the situation
in quantum mechanics, where the field rebounds dynamically from the
highly unnatural classical shape state (11) which results from quantum
measurement to again become a quantum-mechanical superposition of
shapes. Finally, the M in AGNIM represents continuance, and implies
that the mechanics of creation, once set into motion by the collapse
of infinity, continues indefinitely, in direct analogy to the situation
described by quantum mechanics.
There are several aspects of this cosmological model based on the
collapse of the vacuum wave functional that require refinement. First,
the collapse of the vacuum wave functional, were it really to happen,
would require an enormous expenditure of energy, since it takes the
field from the vacuum state to a highly excited state of the field, and it
is not clear where this energy would come from. This, by itself, is not
sufficient to invalidate the model, since it is not clear how to interpret
or enforce energy conservation at the superunified scale, given the presence of wormholes and other nonperturbative quantum-gravitational
effects. Second, there is no evidence in physics for the reduction of the
wave function in closed, quantum-mechanical systems with no external, classical observer. In particular, highly sensitive experimental tests
of nonlinear corrections to the Shrödinger equation of the form that
could lead to a reduction of the wave packet have found no evidence
for such nonlinear behavior. Both arguments indicate that an actual
collapse of the vacuum wave functional based on any intrinsic fieldtheoretic mechanism appears unlikely.
It seems much more plausible, from the standpoints of both modern science and Vedic Science, that the “collapse of infinity” does not
constitute an actual collapse of the vacuum wave functional, but merely
represents a shift in attention—from the quantum-mechanical superposition of all possible field shapes, which represents the true structure
of the quantum vacuum, to one of the infinite number of field shapes
which comprise this state. Once the awareness has become localized on
a particular value, the subsequent evolution of that state would appear
to follow in precisely the same dynamical manner described above.
231
However, due to the simultaneous coexistence of all such states, each of
which undergoes a highly nontrivial time evolution, the overall structure of the vacuum remains completely unchanged and retains its perfectly balanced and symmetrical structure.
This basic notion of a shift in attention may provide a more useful interpretation of quantum measurement generally. Besides the
fact that there is no physical evidence for wave function reduction in
closed quantum-mechanical systems, there are other arguments and
experiments which suggest that the reduction of the wave function
may be more a matter of perspective than an actual physical event.
First, the reduction of the wave packet has been experimentally
shown to violate strong causality: i.e., the collapse extends to spacelike separated components of a quantum-mechanical system. This
makes any physical interpretation of the collapse of the wave function
as an actual, causal event extremely difficult. Second, the collapse of
the wave function has been shown to obey weak causality, which means
that it cannot be used to communicate any information. Thus there
is no indication whatsoever for a second observer that a collapse has
occurred as a result of a measurement performed by the first observer,
which also suggests that the collapse of the wave function is a phenomenon in consciousness and not a physical event per se. It appears
to be intimately associated with a fragmented perspective, in which the
quantum-mechanical system is assumed to possess an objective existence independent from the system that measures it.16
According to this expanded cosmological framework, the true quantum vacuum is seen as a simultaneous coexistence, or quantum-mechanical superposition, of all possible universes. Some of these universes
correspond to deSitter manifolds in a state of exponential inflation,
while others are in a state of contraction. We are the inhabitants of one
such inflationary universe. As long as our awareness remains permanently confined within the localized boundaries of thought, speech and
action, this will be the extent of the reality we know. If, through proper
education, our comprehension is expanded to include the wave function
of the universe, we become identified with a much greater wholeness
in which time and evolution cease, and the eternal, Lorentz-invariant
reality becomes the dominant perception.
16
This view has also been expressed recently by J.S. Bell. [31]
232
This is the knowledge and experience provided by Maharishi Vedic
Science. The localization of the awareness within boundaries becomes
a matter of conscious choice—a shift of the attention from infinity to a
point. There is no harm in experiencing the point—of enjoying isolated
possibilities in the field of all possibilities—provided the experience
of the whole is maintained. In this highly flexible state of awareness,
in which the parts are enjoyed while the whole is maintained, there
is no collapse and no associated loss of wholeness. It is the loss of
wholeness, not the enjoyment of the parts, which is known as pragyaaparadh. It makes one a captive of one’s isolated experiences and a victim of circumstances in the endless field of change. The capacity for
localized experience through the machinery of the nervous system is
a precious gift, provided such experience is not at the expense of the
understanding and experience of the unbounded wholeness which is
the true nature of the self. The juxtaposition of dynamism and silence,
of change and nonchange, within the integrated structure of human
experience, is the natural state of life in enlightenment [9]. Silence
without dynamism, or atman without buddhi, is existence without intelligence—flat and inert. Dynamism without silence, or buddhi without
atman, is intelligence with no stable existence, localized and unstable.
Both, together, constitute the true nature of consciousness—eternally
existing, eternally creating.
The availability of this integrated structure of knowledge and experience will have a profound impact on quantum measurement and
quantum cosmology, for which a consistent interpretation has not been
available within the fragmented structure of ordinary waking experience.
VI. Unified Field-Based Civilization
In this article, we have presented a new understanding and language of
physics based directly on the unified field. We have based this analysis
on the most recent developments in our understanding of the unified
field provided by the superstring and on the very complete understanding and experience of the unified field provided by Maharishi Vedic
Science and its applied experiential technologies. Our analysis began
with a consideration of the unified field itself, viewed from its own level
and in terms of its own intrinsic properties and behavior. In Section
233
IV, we extended this analysis to include a systematic investigation of
its fundamental modes—the elementary particles and forces of nature.
Using the latest, four-dimensional string formulation, we explicitly
identified all known particles and forces with specific vibrational states
of the field. We proposed a new, unified field-based language and terminology in which the particles are named for the specific vibrational
states they correspond to: periodic, antiperiodic, etc., revealing their
rightful place in the internal structure and dynamics of the unified
field. By connecting all aspects of physics to their unified source in the
unified field, the whole of physics can be clearly seen in terms of its
sequential unfoldment from the unified field, providing a natural logic
and organization to the entire discipline.
Although the labeling of these string modes was somewhat cumbersome in the framework provided by the free-fermionic string formulation, we found that Maharishi Vedic Science provides a very natural and
compact system of nomenclature in which every expression of the unified field is named with the actual sound or vibration of the field which
that object corresponds to. These Vedic names also provide a powerful research methodology when applied, via the TM-Sidhi program,
at the appropriate, unified level of awareness where the correspondence
between name and form is lively. The experiential technologies of Vedic
Science thereby provide knowledge through direct experience of the
most fundamental mechanics of nature’s functioning.
Many physicists will, at first, view the use of a subjective methodology and approach to knowledge with skepticism. This is because,
historically, there has been no stable, reliable basis for subjective knowledge. However the shift away from the purely objective methodologies
of elementary particle physics to incorporate more subjective approaches
is inevitable. Already particle theorists are forced to rely increasingly on
their analytic and intuitive abilities as the principal focus of theoretical physics has shifted to the experimentally inaccessible domains of
grand unification and superunification. According to some well-placed
estimates, the practical lifespan of conceivable accelerator technologies
is at most one or two decades.
The historical basis for rejecting a subjective approach is that there
has been no stable foundation to conscious experience that could serve
as a basis for reliable knowledge. However the rediscovery, through
234
Vedic Science, of a stable ground state of consciousness which is nonvariable and completely universal provides a common, stable basis for
subjective experience. Knowledge gained on this basis has been found
to be reliable, repeatable, and open to verification at any time by anyone with appropriate training in the relevant experiential procedures
[32,33]. The rediscovery of this stable foundation to conscious experience thereby eliminates the historical grounds for rejecting a subjective
approach to knowledge. During the past twenty years, a large body
of published scientific evidence has grown to support the efficacy and
effectiveness of this subjective approach [12–14,22,24–29,A1–A15].
To continue to resist this approach in the face of this evidence simply because it stretches the prevailing worldview must be regarded as
highly unscientific.
Science is meant to be beneficial to life. Every step of progress in our
scientific understanding of natural law has found its practical application in a corresponding level of technology: chemical, electronic,
nuclear, etc. These practical technologies have brought great comfort and convenience to many areas of life in society. However, the
technological application of specific, isolated laws of nature based on
a partial and fragmented understanding of natural law has resulted
in psychological, sociological, and ecological imbalance, and has
even threatened mankind with annihilation. The continued progress
of society now demands the practical utilization of a level of nature’s
functioning which is at once more powerful and more holistic—
a technology based on the total potential of natural law available in
the unified field. The practical application of this most fundamental
and profound knowledge of natural law has already demonstrated
its capacity to create a quality of life [22,24–29] and civilization [A1–
A15] which was not possible based upon prior levels of scientific knowledge.
Through the knowledge and technologies of Maharishi Vedic Science, every aspect of life becomes profoundly unified field-based: the
mind, body and behavior remain profoundly connected to their unified source in the unified field of pure, self-interacting consciousness.
With the elimination of pragya-aparadh, the physiological and neurophysiological functioning becomes integrated and balanced [24]. The
immune system and other homeostatic mechanisms become spontane-
235
ously capable of resisting any physiological imbalance or disorder, creating a natural state of health and well-being [22]. In contrast, modern
medicine, which relies on increasingly exotic and expensive cures, has
led to a crisis in health care, with spiraling medical expenditures in
the U.S. of over $500 billion annually, of which an estimated $125
billion is wasted on unproven and or ineffective treatments [34]. Many
of these expensive and highly intrusive treatments, such as coronary
bypass surgery, have no statistical effect on the future history of the
disease [35]. In addition, the poisonous side effects of allopathic drugs
are often more dangerous and far-reaching than the diseases they are
intended to cure [36]. The widespread use of some of these medicines,
such as antibiotics, has led to the emergence of a whole new generation of drug-resistant diseases, which thrive in highly sanitized hospital
environments. Up to 36% of hospitalized patients contract iatrogenic
diseases (diseases caused by the side effects of modern medicine), which
have been shown to contribute to many more deaths than AIDS and
other diseases at the forefront of public concern [37]. Maharishi AyurVeda, which is based primarily on prevention and, when necessary,
natural and effective treatments that are free of negative side effects
[22], provides a more humane and effective health care system, which
is also affordable for the many countries for which allopathic medicine
is completely inaccessible.
In the field of education, Maharishi Vedic Science has given birth to
a highly innovative, integrated, and successful approach in which every
aspect of every discipline is profoundly linked to its unified source in the
unified field. All academic disciplines have their ultimate origin in the
dynamics of human consciousness, and the systematic understanding
of the dynamics of intelligence provided by Vedic Science thereby provides a natural and much-needed interdisciplinary foundation for education [38]. Through the introduction of unified field charts described
in Section I, every aspect of each academic discipline is clearly located
within the structure of the whole discipline, and the entire discipline
is shown sequentially emerging from its unified source in the unified
field—i.e., the pure consciousness of the artist, the pure intelligence
of the mathematician, or the heterotic superstring in the language of
physics. This method of presentation achieves its full significance with
the introduction of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi pro-
236
grams, in which all streams of knowledge are directly experienced as
modes of one’s own consciousness. In this way, as students gain knowledge of the different disciplines, they automatically awaken more and
more to the reality of the creative potential of their own intelligence,
realizing that all fields of knowledge are just different expressions of
their own intelligence [38]. In addition, while the students are gaining
intellectual knowledge of the laws of nature, they are simultaneously
growing in the ability to act spontaneously in accordance with the laws
of nature, i.e., to not make mistakes that create the ground for problems
and suffering in their own lives or in the life of society. This quality of
spontaneous right action [8] is the automatic result of a properly functioning brain physiology, in which the unified field of all the laws of
nature is fully lively in the conscious awareness [28]. This integrated
system of education, which combines intellectual understanding of natural law with the direct experience of the most fundamental dynamics
of natural law in consciousness, has been shown to develop the intelligence [26] and creativity [27] of the student, whereas conventional
education has no impact on basic tests of intelligence or creativity.
In the field of behavior, Maharishi explains [8,9] that the development through Vedic Science of a completely unified and universal
state of awareness spontaneously results in a quality of activity which
is nourishing and life-supporting for the whole environment. When,
through the elimination of pragya-aparadh, “all beings are seen in
the Self and the Self in all beings,” one behaves towards oneself and
one’s environment in a completely harmonious and evolutionary way.
Short-sighted and harmful behavior towards others or one’s environment is highly unnatural in that expanded state of comprehension. In
a sociological setting, extensive research has shown that the collective
practice of the advanced TM-Sidhi program produces an influence of
harmony and coherence that extends to society as a whole [A1–A15].
These extended, field effects of consciousness, known as the Maharishi
Effect, have been shown to reduce crime, violence, hostility, and war
in recalcitrant areas where political and negotiated settlements have
historically demonstrated their inability to do so.17 These effects result
from collective functioning at more fundamental and universal levels
of awareness, and thus far provide the most spectacular experimental
17See Appendix A on field effects of consciousness.
237
confirmation of the fundamental identity between pure consciousness
and the unified field, and of the knowledge and applied technologies of
Maharishi Vedic Science.
It is a fortunate fact that the utilization of natural law is often easier
than the intellectual understanding of natural law. The profound practical benefits to the individual and society of the knowledge and technologies of Vedic Science are not gained on the basis of intellectual
understanding. It is the direct experience of more unified and holistic levels of natural law in consciousness which produces the desired
physiological, psychological and sociological changes. These practical benefits arise long before a detailed intellectual understanding of
the structure and dynamics of the unified field is gained through such
experience. Very quickly, the brain physiology becomes accustomed to
maintaining pure consciousness, and a more integrated and balanced
state of neurophysiological functioning is permanently sustained [24].
The restoration of physiological balance and efficiency, improved health
and resistance to disease, and harmonious and life-supporting social
behavior are the spontaneous results of this direct experience and its
associated physiological correlates [24–29].
Thus, the intellectual understanding of natural law is quite distinct from the spontaneous utilization of natural law in daily living. In particular, the former is not a prerequisite for the latter. In
the spontaneous mechanics of desiring, for example, a simple mental impulse automatically activates dozens, if not hundreds, of laws
of nature. Through the desire to open a window, for example, the
muscles move and the body rises and walks toward the window,
guided by the sense of sight and touch. Even a child with no intellectual understanding of the laws of nature knows how to rise and
move through this simple and spontaneous mechanics of desiring.
This natural ability to utilize natural law spontaneously is built into
the hardware of the human brain physiology. The thinking process has
therefore been compared to an automated switchboard, spontaneously
activating and organizing the laws of nature in a coordinated way for
the fulfillment of any specific desire.
Maharishi explains that the range of natural law which is spontaneously utilized by the mind depends on the natural range of one’s
comprehension—the degree of alertness at more fundamental levels
238
of nature’s functioning [8]. Desiring from the transcendental level,
the level of the unified field, spontaneously makes use of the entire
range of natural law [9]. During the TM-Sidhi program, for example,
an impulse of thought projected from the unified field of pure, selfinteracting consciousness mobilizes the total potential of natural law,
accomplishing the desired result with maximum efficiency and the least
expenditure of energy [4]. When individual awareness functions from
the same unified and holistic level from which nature conducts the evolution of the entire universe, the fulfillment of desire becomes a spontaneous and inevitable phenomenon [9]. This spontaneous ability to use
natural law in a coordinated manner is already programmed into the
hardware of the human brain physiology. Its utilization simply depends
on the range of natural law that is lively in the awareness.
The spontaneous use of natural law to enrich all aspects of life in
society is therefore easier, as well as more important, than intellectual understanding of natural law. It is not, after all, the intellectual
understanding of natural law that makes natural law a living reality
in daily life. It is the expansion of the conscious awareness to incorporate more profound and unified levels of natural law by taking the
awareness repeatedly to more fundamental and universal levels of
consciousness that makes natural law a living reality. There will continue to evolve innumerable theories of natural law and the unified
field put forth by all the academic disciplines as they gain an understanding and appreciation of their unified source in the unified field, which
forms the ultimate origin and foundation of every discipline. Even within
the discipline of physics, there will be many different formulations of the
unified field, e.g., vibrating strings in 26, 10 or fewer spacetime dimensions, 1 + 1 dimensional conformal field theories, piadic numbers, etc.
All of these different viewpoints are correct, and merely provide different, complementary viewpoints of the same, basic underlying reality.
There is no harm in this intellectual inquiry, provided it does not preclude the direct utilization and practical application of the unified field
now, while the fully developed, applied technologies of the unified field
are available through Maharishi Vedic Science. Without this simple,
practical technology to utilize the unified field spontaneously on the
level of one’s conscious awareness, this most complete and profound
knowledge of natural law would remain divorced from practical life
239
and living, and even the scientists would remain intellectual witnesses
to the reality of the unified field. It is this spontaneous and direct utilization of the unified field to enrich all aspects of life which will make
civilization unified fieldbased.
This spontaneous and direct practical application of the unified field to enrich all aspects of life contrasts with the previous
application, through technology, of specific, isolated laws of nature
based on the intellectual understanding of those laws. It was this
scientific understanding of specific laws of nature and their technological application which laid the foundation for the industrial
revolution, in which more and more rapid development became
possible through the use of increasingly sophisticated machines
and technologies. The industrial revolution has, however, led to a
highly machine-dependent civilization, to a degree that has robbed life
of some of its natural self sufficiency and dignity. In contrast, the very
complete science and practical technologies of the unified field made
possible through the subjective approach of Maharishi Vedic Science
allows the spontaneous utilization of the total potential of natural law
to enrich all aspects of life in a completely balanced and holistic way,
and provides the means to accomplish anything through the simple
and spontaneous mechanics of desiring [7,8]. This supreme level of
fulfillment and self-sufficiency based on the spontaneous utilization
of the total potential of natural law, as opposed to the technological
application of specific, isolated laws of nature, lays the foundation for a
post-industrial revolution to a unified field-based civilization—a civilization based on the complete knowledge and practical application of
the unified field of all the laws of nature. The practical applications of
this complete science and technology of the unified field to health [22],
education [26–29], rehabilitation [39] and world peace [A1–A15] have
already demonstrated their capacity to produce a quality of life and
civilization which is far beyond that which is attainable through the
objective approach of modern science alone. To resist such an approach
due to its subjective methodology is therefore not only unscientific, but
inhumane.
Fortunately, the empirical approach of modern science is well
equipped to distinguish between fact and fancy, and to evaluate objectively the effectiveness of any approach through its own empirical means
240
of investigation. One is therefore optimistic that, in time, more and
more scientists will be drawn to investigate this subjective approach
of Vedic Science and the profound knowledge and practical technologies it provides. With the complete knowledge of the unified field and
its self-interacting dynamics provided by Maharishi Vedic Science,
modern physics will achieve a level of fulfillment that is unattainable
through its present, limited objective methodologies. In the process it
will raise the quality of life in society to a level of dignity and supreme
fulfillment that is unparalled in the annals of recorded history—a unified field-based civilization enjoying Heaven on Earth.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
for the understanding and experience which led to this work. Everything I know about consciousness and its self-interacting dynamics,
and about Vedic Science, is due directly to Maharishi or to the experiential technologies of his Vedic Science.
I would also like to thank C. Bech, J. Davies, M. Dillbeck, T.
Egenes, A. Hankey, R. Ticciati and G. Wells for valuable discussions.
This work was supported in part by a private grant from John Lloyd.
Appendix A:
Field Effects of Consciousness
At present, the most striking empirical evidence in support of a unified
field-theoretic description of consciousness is the Maharishi Effect,
which refers to extended field effects of consciousness produced by the
collective practice of the TM-Sidhi program. Over fifty consecutive
studies provide powerful evidence that the group practice of the TMSidhi program by as few as the square root of one percent of a population can reduce political violence, crime, and other manifestations of
societal incoherence. These studies employ standard sociological measures to assess the influence of groups of experts collectively practicing
the TM-Sidhi program on a surrounding population.
Historical Development
In 1960, Maharishi predicted that one percent of a population practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique would produce mea241
surable improvements in the quality of life for the whole population.
The first study designed to test this prediction [Al] analyzed crime
rate change in 22 U.S. cities (population > 25,000) from 1972 to 1973.
Crime rates decreased in the 11 cities with one percent of the population practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique, while crime
rates in the matched control cities continued to rise. A more extensive
study [A2] analyzed crime rate trends in 48 U.S. cities (population >
10,000) over the eleven-year period from 1967 to 1977. This included
all independent cities in this population range with one percent of
the population instructed in the Transcendental Meditation program.
Crime rates decreased significantly in the 24 “one percent” cities compared with their own previous trends and compared with 24 matched
control cities over the same period. Subsequent replications have analyzed crime rate trends in 160 cities and 80 metropolitan areas in the
U.S. using increasingly powerful design and analysis techniques [A2]
and have further demonstrated Maharishi’s prediction that participation in the Transcendental Meditation program would lead to a reduction in crime rate trends.
With the introduction of the more advanced TM-Sidhi program in
1976, Maharishi anticipated a more powerful influence of coherence in
the collective consciousness of society. He subsequently predicted that
the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program by as few as the square
root of one percent of a population would have a demonstrable effect on
standard sociological measures.18
The relatively small number of participants practicing the TM-Sidhi
program predicted to generate this effect of societal coherence has made
it possible for many direct experimental studies to be performed, in
which the necessary number of participants come together on courses
in various locations for periods of time ranging from one week to several
months. Most of these studies, including research at the metropolitan,
state, national and international scales, have used time series analysis to
reliably estimate experimental effects independent of cycles and trends
in time series data. This type of research design, called an experimental
intervention study, constitutes a unique and rigorous approach for the
social sciences.
18 This prediction is based on a field-theoretic model which assumes a coherent superposition
of amplitudes, such that the intensity of the effect generated is proportional to the square of the
number of participants.
242
Time Series Analysis
The effects of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs on quality of life indices are usually assessed with time series
analysis using the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA)
approach of Box and Jenkins [A3]. (A time series is a sequence of
equallyspaced measures on some variable, e.g., monthly crime rate.)
This methodology has become the standard for rigorously estimating the effects of an outside intervention on a time series or for
empirically determining the form of causal relationship between
two continuous time series [A4]. Time series “intervention analysis” is used to assess effects of hypothesized influences during specific time periods (e.g., when the number of TM-Sidhi participants
exceeds a certain critical threshold). Time series “transfer function
analysis” is used to model the input-output relationship between a continuous independent exogenous variable (e.g., the daily number of TMSidhi participants) and the dependent or endogenous variable (a social
indicator such as crime rate).
With both methods, the time series approach controls for any serial
dependence of observations, trends, or seasonal cycles in the data over
time by including these influences in a “noise model” of the series [A4].
That is, as part of the time series analysis a mathematical model of the
time-dependent regularities in the endogenous series is constructed,
and this model will account for, and therefore control for, patterns in
the endogenous time series that can be predicted from its own past history. The noise model thus serves essentially as a “null hypothesis” for
effects of the exogenous variable.19 Any intervention effects or trans-
19 The noise model N1 has the form N1=[θ(B)/ Φ(B)]at, where Φ(B) and θ(B) specify autoregressive and moving average parameters, respectively, at various time lags, and where at, is a series of
independent and normally distributed random disturbances. The term (B) indicates a backshift
operator that is used to model lagged influences in a time series. The noise model effectively
removes the serial dependence of the data by modeling it, and the residuals to the noise model
(at)form independent data points.
Transfer function analysis models the endogenous time series Yt as Yt = C + V(B)Xt+Nt, where
Xt is the continuous exogenous series, V(B) is the transfer function connecting the two series, C
is a possible constant, and Nt is the stochastic noise model that specifies the combined nonrandom (time-dependent) influences other than the exogenous series [A3]. Intervention analysis
employs an identical model, except that the exogenous variable is a binary intervention series It,
specifying the time periods during which an intervention occurred.
The transfer function or intervention effect V(B) is approximated by Ω (B)/ δ (B), where Ω(B)
contains parameters indicating the time delay of influence of the exogenous variable and the
magnitude of its effect at various time lags, and where δ(B) contains parameters specifying
243
fer function effects on the endogenous variable indicate effects of the
independent variable that cannot be predicted either from the previous history of the series or from any unmeasured continuous variables
that may be partially determining the endogenous variable. These time
series methods have proven to be ideal for assessing the effects of the
group practice of the TM-Sidhi program upon sociological indicators.
Recent Intervention Studies
Within the past few years, there have been an increasing number of
experimental studies using time series intervention and transfer function analysis to assess the effects of the group practice of the TM-Sidhi
program at the metropolitan, state, national and international scales.
At the metropolitan and state levels, time series intervention studies found reduced crime in Metro Manila, Philippines; in New Delhi,
India; and in Puerto Rico during periods in which large groups had
assembled for conferences involving twice daily practice of the TMSidhi program [A5]. Time series transfer function analysis similarly
found a reduction in violent crime in Washington, D.C., in weeks
following an increase in the size of a permanent group of TM-Sidhi
participants [A6]. Other intervention studies in Metro Manila and in
Rhode Island found improvements in holistic indices of the quality of
life composed of available monthly social indicators during periods of
assemblies of large groups of TM-Sidhi participants [A5].
The most well-documented analyses at the national level have been
in the U.S.,where a permanent large group of participants in the TMSidhi program has been established at Maharishi University of Management. The size of this group has exceeded the square root of one
percent of the U.S. population on a regular basis since 1982. An analysis of annual changes in a quality of life index comprising 11 major
variables showed a significant improvement correlated with the size of
the group of TM-Sidhi participants [A7]. More detailed analyses of
the U.S. quality of life using time series intervention and transfer function analysis during 1979 to 1985 found reduced weekly fatalities due
to violence (homicides, suicides, and motor vehicle accidents) on weeks
immediately after the size of the University’s TM-Sidhi group exceeded
the rate at which this influence decays (for an abrupt temporary effect) or grows (for a gradual
permanent effect) [A3]. The time series methodology can thus be used to model both linear and
nonlinear influences of one series on another.
244
the square root of one percent of the U.S. population [A8]. This analysis
showed that two-thirds of the observed decrease in U.S. violent fatalities from 1979 to 1985 could be directly attributed to the group practice
of the TM-Sidhi program. Reduced violent deaths were also found in
Canada when the size of the University group exceeded the square root
of one percent of the combined populations of the U.S. and Canada
[A9]. In addition, time series intervention analysis of monthly U.S.
and Canadian economic trends (a “misery” index combining inflation
and unemployment) showed improved economic conditions in months
immediately after the number of participants exceeded the required
number (1600) for the population of the U.S. and Canada [A10].
There have been three assemblies in which the number of TM-Sidhi
participants approached or exceeded the square root of one percent of
the world’s population — about 7,000 individuals. During each of these
assemblies, there was a significant reduction of international conflict,
as indicated by time series intervention analysis of news events [All].
The time series of news events was created from content analysis (rating
of news items) of major newspapers by raters who were unaware of the
dates of the news items being rated. Time series analysis also indicated
a significant reduction in fatalities and injuries due to terrorism during
and immediately after the period of these assemblies; data on terrorism
was collected by an independent agency [All].
Reduction of Violence in the Middle East
through the Maharishi Effect
One especially critical experimental test of the hypothesis that the
group practice of the TM-Sidhi program by the square root of one
percent of a population would positively affect sociological measures
was conducted in Israel in August and September of 1983 [A12]. Based
on the results of previous experiments, the research hypotheses and the
specific measures to be used in the study were lodged in advance of the
experiment with an independent review board of scientists in the U.S.
and Israel.
It was predicted that group practice of the TM-Sidhi program in
Jerusalem would reduce stress in the collective consciousness of Israel
and Lebanon. Box-Jenkins ARIMA intervention, cross-correlation,
and transfer function analyses were used to study the effects of changes
245
in the size of the group on several variables and composite indices
reflecting the quality of life in Jerusalem and Israel, and also the war
in Lebanon.
Figure 5 shows a striking covariation between the size of the group
of TM-Sidhi participants (dotted line) and a composite index of quality
of life that was the arithmetic average of standardized scores for crime
rate, traffic accidents, fires, stock market, national mood, and the number of war deaths as a measure of war intensity in Lebanon.
Figure 5. This figure illustrates the covariation between the number of TMSidhi participants (dashes) and a composite index of quality of life in a study
conducted in Israel during August and September of 1983. The composite
index was the arithmetic average of standardized scores for crime rate, traffic accidents, fires, stock market, national mood, and the number of war
deaths as a measure of war intensity in Lebanon. The sociological parameters
employed in this study were lodged in advance of the experiment with an
independent review board of scientists in the United States and Israel. (Figure courtesy of D. Orme-Johnson.)
246
Increases in the size of the group had a statistically significant effect
on the individual variables and on the composite quality-of-life index.
Cross-correlations and transfer functions indicated that the group
had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators,
supporting a causal interpretation. There was a 34% reduction in war
intensity and a 76% reduction in war deaths during periods of high
numbers of TM-Sidhi participants. Time series analysis demonstrated
that the effect could not be attributed to seasonality (such as weekend
effects or holidays) or to changes in temperature.
The hypothesis that the influence occurs on a fundamental and holistic level of nature is supported by the fact that the arithmetic average of
the different measures produced the clearest results and by the observation that the different sociological measures tended to change independently of each other when the group size was small, but all changed
coherently in a positive direction as the group size was increased.
A subsequent study (Figure 6) assessed the impact on the Lebanon war of three successive assemblies in which large groups practiced
the TM-Sidhi program during a six-month period from November
13, 1983, to May 18, 1984 [A13]. The assemblies were held in the
United States, Lebanon and Yugoslavia, and were approximately two
weeks long.
The authors used a time series intervention analysis of the Lebanon war to compare levels of conflict during the days on which the
assemblies occurred compared to the baseline period which consisted
of all other days during the six-month period of the study. The level of
the conflict was measured by three indices: daily levels of a Peace/War
Index [A14] of events reported in major Lebanon newspapers, daily
reported war deaths, and daily injuries due to the war. The scoring was
performed by representatives of the different factions involved in the
conflict, and interrater reliability was high.
As predicted in advance, the Peace/War Index showed that prevailing negative conditions were abruptly reversed and greater progress
towards peaceful resolution of the Lebanon conflict was observed than
would have been expected based on the prior six-month history of the
war (p < .00005). War deaths fell by 55%, from a mean of 6.5 per day
during the baseline to a mean of 2.9 per day during the three assemblies
247
(p < .0005). War injuries fell by 38%, from a mean of 20.6 per day during the baseline to a mean of 12.7 per day during the assemblies.
Figure 6. During the six-month period from November 13, 1983, to May 18,
1984, a measure of war intensity in Lebanon was most positive during three
assemblies in which the number of TM-Sidhi participants exceeded the predicted thresholds required for an influence on the war. Time series analysis
indicates significantly greater progress towards peaceful resolution of the
conflict during these assemblies than would have been predicted from the
prior history of the Lebanon war (p < 00005). The particularly large effect
coincident with the Lebanon assembly held in the immediate vicinity of the
conflict suggests the importance of proximity in the generation of societal
coherence. (Figure courtesy of C.N. Alexander.)
The study of the Lebanon conflict was subsequently expanded to
include a daily time series intervention analysis of a 27-month period
during which there were seven assemblies of TM-Sidhi participants
of sufficient size to influence the Lebanon conflict according to the
square root of one percent formula [A15]. These assemblies, which
ranged from a small group in the central area of fighting within Lebanon, to larger groups in Israel, Yugoslavia and the Netherlands, to three
groups of up to 7,800 in the U.S., are the only ones in the last decade
of sufficient size in relation to their proximity to Lebanon to exceed
248
the threshold for a predicted impact there. For each assembly lasting
between one and eight weeks, improvements in quality of life (including reduction of political violence and progress toward peace) were predicted publicly and in advance for the surrounding population equal to
~ 100 n 2, where n is the number collectively practicing the TM-Sidhi
program. For a total of 93 days, or 11.33% of the period of the study,
this population included all or most of Lebanon, or at least the primary
region of conflict within Lebanon.
The 821-day data base, which included daily levels of cooperation
and conflict and the number of reported war fatalities and injuries, was
generated using independently developed 16-point scales of cooperation and conflict [A16]. Events were coded by an experienced Lebanese coder, blind to the experimental hypotheses and unaware of the
assemblies and the technology employed, from eight international news
sources, including the New York Times, and news broadcasts from radio
stations in and near Lebanon representing all major parties to the conflict, as reported by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service.
Box-Jenkins intervention analyses indicated (Figure 7) that in contrast to nonexperimental days, during the 93 days when assemblies
were sufficiently large for a predicted impact in Lebanon there was an
estimated:
a) 66% mean increase in level of cooperation among antagonists
(t = 4.96, 20 p = 4 Χ l0-7);
b) 48% reduction in level of conflict (t = -5.81, p = 3 Χ 10-9);
c) 71% reduction in war fatalities (t =-6.45, p= 1 Χ 10-10); and
d) 68% reduction in war injuries (t = -4.91, p = 5 Χ l0-7).
A composite Peace/War Index combining these variables indicated
(Figure 8) that the seven assemblies each had independently significant
positive effects on the war (t = 9.03, p= 9 Χ 10-20)
The study employs an interrupted time-series design with multiple
replications, which offers a “very powerful” basis for addressing the
issue of causality [A17]. Changes in temperature or holidays did not
20 The value of |t| coincides approximately with the number of standard deviations when the
number of degrees of freedom is ≥ 30 as in the case of the present study.
249
account for any of the improvements during each assembly. The mean
temperature on experimental days (which were spread across all four
seasons) was slightly higher than on other days, yet despite an overall
tendency for higher levels of violence to occur on hotter days, violence
still diminished sharply on experimental days. The possible impact of
religious and national holidays was separately assessed, and in the one
case where these had a significant impact on the war (cooperation was
higher on Moslem holidays) this was also included as part of the null
model when assessing the impact of the assemblies.
The possibility that improvements were due to the assemblies being
initiated in response to worsening conditions in the war, and thus
being held when the conflict was improving anyway (through regression toward the mean), may be discounted for several reasons. First, all
assemblies except that in Lebanon were announced several weeks or
months in advance, and dates set without reference to the situation in
Lebanon, which was no more a concern than other trouble spots within
the range of impact of each assembly. Second, the statistical independence of the occurrence of the assemblies from patterns of behavior in
the war (dependent series) in the weeks and days immediately preceding and following the assemblies was explicitly tested and confirmed.
Finally, it is clear from the results that the observed impact on each
variable represents improvement substantially away from the mean, not
regression toward it. For the same reasons, the improvements could
not be due to convening assemblies at the first sign of improvement in
the war. Also, positive changes were found to occur with zero timedelay, from the first day of each experimental period: that is, the periods began before the improved events could be reported in the press,
and ended before renewed violence could be reported.
The design of the experiment also precluded explanation in terms
of coincidence, post hoc selection of data, or measurement artifact. Coincidence may be ruled out on the basis of extremely low
probability values (9 × 10-20 on the Peace/War Index), and the
high level of consistency across all indices and replications (assemblies). Post hoc selection of assemblies, variables or data sources was
precluded through announcement to the media (and in some cases to
independent review boards) of dates and predicted effects prior to each
assembly (again excepting the one held in Lebanon). Any possibility
250
of measurement artifact or bias was severely limited through use of
independently developed scales, multiple news sources representing all
parties, and a highly experienced coder, familiar with the political and
cultural context of the war, but blind as to the nature of the hypotheses,
the independent variable, and the theory and technology on which the
hypotheses were based.
Explanation of observed improvements as a consequence of publicity
or other behavioral interactions between assembly organizers or participants and the people fighting in Lebanon can also be excluded. Only
in the Lebanon assembly was there any possibility of direct personal
interaction, and that was minimized in those participants and organizers remained isolated in that their facility in a small village except
for such activities as purchase of food and travel when first joining or
leaving the assembly. In no case did the media in Lebanon carry any
prior or concurrent news items concerning any of the assemblies, nor
was there any attempt during any assembly to create any expectation
of change, or otherwise influence the behavior of parties to the conflict other than through practice of the Transcendental Meditation and
TM-Sidhi program (which involves an inward focus of attention, to
maximize coherence and normalize stress principally for the purpose
of personal development).
These findings strongly support the hypothesis that societal coherence can be enhanced, and even protracted violence alleviated, across
any population size as a spontaneous and nonintrusive field effect generated by the group practice of the TM-Sidhi program.
251
Figure 7. Mean daily level of cooperation (A), levels of conflict (B), number
of war fatalities (C), and number of war injuries (D) in the Lebanon War
during the nonexperimental and each of seven experimental periods from
June 1983 to August 1985. Time series intervention analysis indicates: (A)
significant improvements in the level of cooperation during five of the experimental periods, and during all seven combined (p = 4 × 10 -7); (B) significant
reductions in the level of conflict during six of the experimental periods, and
during all seven combined (p = 3 × 10 -9); (C) significant reductions in the
number of war fatalities during six of the experimental periods, and during
all seven combined (p = 1 × 10 -10); (D) significant reductions in the number
of war injuries during four of the experimental periods, and during all seven
combined (p = 5 × 10 -7). (Figures courtesy of J. Davies.)
252
Figure 8. Estimated mean daily level of a composite Peace/War Index for the
Lebanon War for each of seven experimental periods between June 1983 and
August 1985. Time series intervention analysis indicates significant progress
towards peace during each experimental period, and for all seven combined
(p = 9 × 10 -20). (Figure courtesy of J.Davies.)
Interpretation
Besides their obvious practical implications for eliminating war and
improving the quality of life in society, these research findings clearly
have profound implications concerning our understanding of consciousness and its relation to the physical world. Indeed, they appear
253
to invalidate completely the prevailing psychological and sociological
paradigm. In such circumstances, it is vital that leading physicists, psychologists and other scholars carefully assess the impact of these findings on our understanding of the natural universe. One such analysis
is presented in ref. [11], where it is argued that these results are consistent with the current framework of unified quantum field theories,
but require an expanded physical framework for our understanding of
consciousness. For completeness, we will briefly review the main elements of that analysis here.
Although it would be more accurate to say that the Maharishi Effect
data constitutes evidence for an “action at a distance” with respect to
consciousness rather than a “field effect” per se, physics has historically come to associate action at a distance with field phenomena. The
observed attenuation of the effect with distance (i.e., the fact that a
relatively small group in Lebanon produced an effect comparable to a
group of over 7,000 halfway around the globe) would support such a
field-theoretic interpretation. The quadratic dependence of the intensity
of the effect upon the size of the coherence-creating group is also characteristic of a field phenomenon in which the radiators are operating
coherently. More specifically, the coherent superposition of amplitudes
required to produce such an intense constructive interference suggests
the behavior of a bose field.
However, there are certain features of the Maharishi Effect that are
not easily understood on the basis of a conventional field. The main
difficulty with a simple field-theoretic model is in understanding the
observed data on the basis of any of the known fields. The only known
candidates for such long-range interactions are electromagnetism and
gravity. Any conventional gravitational interaction between individuals
is presumably orders of magnitude too weak.21 Moreover, it is generally
agreed that the electromagnetic interaction between individuals would
also be too weak to give rise to any significant effects. This conclusion
is probably reasonable despite new evidence that the physiology may be
sensitive to environmental AC electric fields six to seven orders of mag21 This also holds true for possible spin-1 forces that interact with gravitational strength, such
as a proposed “fifth force” or the gauge bosons associated with a hidden sector. (The latter would
probably operate only at short distances anyway due to confinement effects.) The same is presumably true of other weakly interacting bosons that have escaped detection in particle physics
experiments.
254
nitude weaker than had been previously considered possible [A18]. In
fact, the brain appears to be particularly sensitive to EEG-modulated
microwave radiation in the 0.5–10 gigahertz range, offering a potential mechanism for EEG communication and entrainment. It has been
shown by Tourenne [A19] that certain cellular structures within the
cortex that support the propagation of electromagnetic solitons could
provide highly efficient radiators of microwave radiation, which would
presumably be modulated in the EEG band.
While we therefore feel it is essential to pursue possible electromagnetic mechanisms for the Maharishi Effect, these mechanisms
at present appear unable to account for the observed phenomenology.
(Moreover, there was no evidence of attenuation in an instance where
the coherence creating group was electromagnetically shielded by a
metallic enclosure [All].)
If conventional mechanisms are unable to account for the observed
data, then some unconventional mechanism involving new physics is
obviously needed. Since there are no other long-range forces of electromagnetic or comparable strength, one is led to consider alternative theoretical frameworks that could serve to bridge the substantial distance
factors involved. One such framework is suggested by the structure
of spacetime geometry at the scale of superunification—the proposed
domain of pure consciousness.
Although we do not currently possess the calculational tools
needed to unfold the full dynamics of quantum gravity, there are several indications that the local 3+1 dimensional structure of classical
spacetime geometry observed at energies far below the Planck scale
may provide a totally inappropriate framework for physics at the scale
of superunification. In particular, topological effects in quantum gravity
could lead to inherently nonlocal phenomena. For instance Ellis et al.
[A20] have shown that worm holes may cause initially pure quantum
states to evolve into mixed states. Such effects cannot be accommodated
within a local framework, or even a framework that is approximately
local on scales much larger than the Planck length, for this would necessarily lead to large and phenomenologically unacceptable violations of
energy and momentum conservation [A21].
Moreover, these nonlocal effects have been derived in a perturbative context in which the nonlocal effects of gravity are expected to be
255
relatively benign. The full, nonperturbative theory of quantum gravity can be expected to contain even more profoundly nonlocal effects.
Indeed, there are strong indications that the Planck scale is associated
with a fundamental phase transition in the dynamics of quantum gravity and/or the structure of spacetime geometry (e.g., a transition from
four dimensions to ten dimensions). Such a phase transition would be
expected to produce long-range correlations that could enhance the
nonlocal structure of the theory. Hence the local structure of a relativistic field theory may provide a totally inappropriate framework for
physics at the superunified scale. Therefore, one might expect that if the
domain of consciousness is fundamentally the superunified scale, then
phenomena of consciousness would include influences that are inherently nonlocal. The Maharishi Effect data can thus be viewed as evidence
that individual consciousness can access the scale of superunification,
consistent with the proposed identity between pure consciousness and
the unified field.
The question most often raised by physicists is how human consciousness could possibly interact with physics at such fundamental
scales. This question stems from a recent but widespread understanding that consciousness is purely a product of complex biochemical and
electrophysiological processes in the brain. Such a viewpoint may seem
compatible with the restricted range of experience available in waking consciousness (in which consciousness itself is not directly perceived), but it is clearly incompatible with experience in higher
states of consciousness. For example, in the state of pure consciousness, consciousness experiences itself as the unified source and fountainhead of all the laws of nature: all forms and phenomena in the
universe are experienced to emerge from there, and can be generated at will through the application of the TM-Sidhi program.
Hence according to the understanding and direct experience provided
by Maharishi Vedic Science, the natural range of human experience
is from point to infinity: it extends from the localized boundaries of
sensory experience, through subtler levels of thought and feeling, to
the unbounded field of pure, self-interacting consciousness. Maharishi
explains that the range of one’s conscious influence is determined by
one’s range of comprehension—localized or unbounded, and that the
Maharishi Effect is a direct result of collective functioning at more
256
fundamental and universal levels of consciousness. The empirical
research presented above provides a striking confirmation of this profound perspective, and of its immense practical value for the individual
and society.
Appendix B: The Vacuum Wave Functional of a Scalar Field
One is always free to expand the vacuum state of a quantum field in a
basis of classical shape states. Consider a free, hermitian, scalar field
Φ(x,t). One can define eigenstates of the field operator with the property that
Φ(x,t0)|Φ, t0〉 = Φ(x)|Φ, t0〉
(Bl)
where the eigenstates |Φ, t0〉 correspond to definite shapes Φ(x) of the
Heisenberg field Φ(x,t) at some fixed time t=t0,. Since these classical
shape states form a complete (continuum normalized) basis, one can
expand the vacuum state |0〉 as a superposition of these states:
|0〉 = ∫ [dΦ]Ω [Φ] |Φ, t0〉
(B2)
By requiring that all particle lowering operators a(k) annihilate the
vacuum, it is easy to verify that the vacuum wave functional Ω[Φ] is
given by
1
−
k +m
∫ d d d φ ( x )φ ( y )e
Ω [Φ] = e 4 π
(B3)
x
y
k
ik ⋅( x − y )
2
2
Because this vacuum wave functional Ω[Φ] is nonvanishing for all Φ(x),
we observe that the quantum vacuum actually corresponds to a superposition of all classical field shapes.
Appendix C: Deriving Flipped SU(5)×U(l)
from String Theory
Two essential ingredients in formulating a consistent string theory are
conformal invariance and modular invanance. The former condition
fixes the number of degrees of freedom on the world-sheet. It can be
satisfied in any number of dimensions d ≤ 26 (10 for a supersymmetric
left- or right-moving sector) if the space time coordinates X μ : μ = 0, 1,
. . . , d-1 are supplemented by internal degrees of freedom contributing
26-d (15-3d/2) to the central charge of the Virasoro algebra. Modular
invariance then imposes nontrivial constraints on the boundary condi257
tions for these internal degrees of freedom which ensure that counting
errors are not made when higher-genus string topologies are summed.
It is known that the number of solutions to these modular invariance
conditions is restricted, particularly if the number of spacetime dimensions d is close to the critical number 26 (or 10). In particular, in d=10
there are only two modular invariant heterotic string theories with N=l
spacetime supersymmetry, based on the gauge groups SO(32) and E8
× E8 [Cl].
The choice of gauge group for string theories formulated directly in
d=4 dimensions is much more extensive, and no systematic enumeration of models has yet emerged. The strategy followed here is to start
from the bottom up, looking for models which contain phenomenologically favored ingredients such as the Standard Model or a plausible
grand unified theory. Although it may be that the Standard Model
can be derived directly from string without invoking any field-theoretic
intermediate scale of gauge symmetry breaking, so far all phenomenological string models [1–3] have had four-dimensional groups larger
than SU(3)xSU(2)xU(l). We feel [3] that if one is to extend the Standard Model gauge group, it is both interesting and desirable to embed
it in a grand unified theory (GUT), i.e., a simple non-Abelian group
containing the SU(3), SU(2) and (maybe) U(l) factors of the Standard
Model. Such a framework combines the physical advantages of GUTs
(e.g., slow baryon decay, cosmological baryosynthesis, small neutrino
masses, etc.) with the well-known benefits of the string. However, there
is an obstacle to such a program that we have emphasized previously
[3]: in general, GUTs require Higgs fields in adjoint representations
to break the gauge symmetry down to the Standard Model, and these
do not exist in string theories with N=l supersymmetry and/or chiral
fermions [C2, 18] that have level K=l Kac-Moody algebras.
The only viable GUT that does not require adjoint Higgses is Flipped
SU(5)xU(l) [C3,3]. This model also possesses [C4] other advantages,
such as natural Higgs doublet-triplet splitting, a seesaw neutrino
mass matrix, no problematic fermion mass relations, and no troublesome d=5 proton decay operators. The minimal Flipped SU(5)xU(l)
model g[3] contains N8=3 generations of matter fields F, = (10,
1/2), fi = () , l(c =(1, 5/2); two pairs of chiral higgs fields H = (10,
1/2), H= (10, -1/2) and h = (1 -1), h = (5, 1) which respectively
258
break SU(5)xU(l) down to SU(3)xSU(2)xU(l) and SU(3)xSU(2)
xU(l) down to SU(3)ptU(l)em; and four SU(5)xU(l) singlets fa. The
superpotential of the model is [3J
ij
ij
ij
c
W = λ1 Fi Fj h + λ2 Fi f j h + λ3 fi l j h
= +λ4 HHh + λ5 H H h
(Cl)
+λ6im Fi Hφ m + λ7m hhφ m + σ 8mnpφ mnφnφ p
which is the most general set of trilinear interactions invariant under
the discrete symmetry H →-H. The couplings λ1, 2, 3 give masses
to charge -1/3 quarks, charge +2/3 quarks and charged leptons,
respectively; λ4 and λ5 combine the uneaten higgs color triplets in
the H and H with the triplets in the h and h to form supermassive Dirac eigenstates, leaving only the Weinberg-Salam higgs doublets naturally light; λ6 provides a seesaw neutrino mass matrix
yielding light left-handed neutrinos with masses 0(mw3/m 2 GUT); λ7
insures acceptable electroweak symmetry breaking and prevents a light
axion; and λ8 stabilizes the potential against a large Φ v.e.v. [3].
We start with a brief review of the main characteristics of fourdimensional heterotic string theories in the free fermionic formulation [18]. In the light-cone gauge, in addition to the two
transverse bosonic coordinates X μ and their left-moving superpartners
ψμ(z), theAfermionic content is 44 right-moving and 18 left-moving fermions ψ (Z ) : A = 1, 2, ... , 44 and xi(z), y i(z), w i(z) : i = 1, 2, ... , 6,
respectively. World-sheet supersymmetry is nonlinearly realized among
the latter via the supercurrent
TF(Z)
6
= ψ ∂ 2 χ μ + ∑ χ i χ iω i
μ
(C2)
i =1
A four-dimensional string model is defined by specifying a set !E of
boundary conditions for all the world-sheet fermions, constrained by
making the world-sheet supercurrent (C2) periodic (spacetime fermions) or antiperiodic (spacetime bosons). When all the boundary conditions are diagonalized simultaneously in some general complex basis
{f}, the elements of E are vectors a such that every complex fermion f
picks up a phase
f → - eiπɑ(f) f : ɑ( f ) ∈ ( -1, 1]
259
(C3)
when parallel transported around the string. In this case, E forms a
group under addition (mod 2), and can therefore be generated by some
basis B ) |bh b2, , . . , bN|, It has been shown [18] that to every element
a of H there corresponds a sector Ha in the string Hilbert space H, and
to every basis element b; of B a fermion number projection:
N
⎡ eiπ b I ⋅ F = δα e∗
⊕
H= α ∈E ∏ ⎣
i =1
( )⎤⎦H
α
bi
(C4)
α
where F is the vector of all fermion numbers defined: F(f) = 1 =
-F(f*), the dot product is Lorentzian (left minus right), 6a is the
spacetime fermion parity and the phases c(^) are constrained by
multiloop modular invariance.
In order for this Appendix to be self-contained, we now give the
explicit form of the constraints on the basis B and on the phases c for
generic rational boundary conditions.
Basis B
mi bi
al) We choose B to be canonical, i.e., any linear combination
i
= 0 iff mi = 0 (mod Ni) for some integers N; (for example, Ni = 2
when the fermions are periodic or antiperiodic), and the vector 1∈B.
a2) For any pair bi, bj of basis elements, one has22 Nij bi. bj = 0 (mod 4) where Nij
is the least common multiple of Ni and Nj and Nibi2 = 0 (mod 8) if Ni is even.
a3) The number of real fermions which are simultaneously periodic
under four boundary conditions b1, b2, b3, b4 is even.
∑
Phases C
bl) We choose the c
( ) for i < j such that they are simultaneously
bi
bj
⎧ π
⎫
δbi x( N j root of unity) and δbi x exp ⎨i 2 bi • b j ⎬ x (Nfh root of unity).
⎩
⎭
b2) The remaining phases are calculated using the properties
th
c
c
22
( ) = − exp ⎛⎜⎝ i π4 α
α
α
2
⎞
⎟⎠ c
( )
α
1
( ) = exp ⎛⎜⎝ i π2 α ⋅ β ⎞⎟⎠ c ( )
α
β
∗
β
α
(C5)
The Lorentzian dot product counts each real fermion with a factor 1/2.
260
c
( ) = δ c( )c ( )
α
β +γ
α
α
β
∗
α
γ
Physical states from the sector Hα are obtained by acting on the vacuum
|0〉α with bosonic or fermionic oscillators with frequencies [1 + α(f)]/2
([1 - α(f)]/2 for f 23) and applying the fermion number projections, eq.
(C4). The mass formula is
1 1 2
+ α L + ∑ VL
2 8
L
1 2
= −1 + α R + ∑ VR
8
R
M2 = −
(C6)
where αL(αR) is the left (right) part of the vector α and the vL (vR) are
frequencies. When some fermions are periodic, the vacuum is a spinor
in order to represent the Clifford algebra of the corresponding zero
modes. For each periodic complex fermion f there are two degenerate
vacua |+〉, |-〉, annihilated by the zero mode f0 and f0*, and with fermion numbers F(f) = 0,-1, respectively.
Before we start to construct our model, we note a simple but very
crucial relation between the world-sheet fermion numbers F(f) and the
U(l) charges Q (f) with respect to the unbroken Cartan generators of
the four-dimensional gauge group, which are in one-to-one correspondence with the U(l) currents F*f for each complex fermion f:
Q( f ) =
α( f )
+ F( f )
2
(C7)
The charges Q (f) can be shown to be identical with the momenta of
the corresponding compactified scalars in the bosonic formulation. The
representation (C7) shows that Q is identical with the world-sheet fermion numbers F for states in a Neveu-Schwarz sector (α = 0), and (F +
1/2) for states in a Ramond sector (α = 1); note that the charges of the
|±〉 spinor vacua are ±1/2.
23 The Lorentzian dot product counts each real fermion with a factor 1/2.
261
Our Flipped SU{5)xU(l) string model [3] is generated by the following basis of eight vectors of boundary conditions for all the world-sheet
fermions:
where 1 stands for periodic fermions, 0 for antiperiodic, and 1/2 for
those twisted by a phase -i. The semicolon separates left- from rightmovers: we have chosen a basis in which all left-movers (χ, χ i yi ,ω i :
262
i = 1, 2, ... , 6) are real, among which supersymmetry is realized nonlinearly, 12 right-movers yi ,ω i are real, and l6 ( 1, 2...5 1, 2 , 3 1, 2...8 )
ψ
,η ,φ
are complex.
(
)
We make the following choice of generalized GSO projection coefficients:
c
( ) = c(
bi
S
=c
bi
bj
) = c( )
α
bi
i≠5
( ) = −c ( ) = −1
α
ς
α
b5
(C9)
with the others specified by modular invariance and spacetime supersymmetry.
The basis vectors {S, ζ, 1 = b1 + b2 + b3 + ζ } define an N=4 spacetime supersymmetric model with an SO(28)xE8 gauge group: S
plays the role of the supersymmetry generator, since when added to
a sector it gives its superpartner. The vectors b1 and b2 reduce to N=l
supersymmetry, break SO(28) → SO(IO)xSO(6)3 and give six chiral
families (16+4) + (16+4), two from each of the sectors b1, b2 and b3. The
vectors b4, b5 and 2α break SO(6)3 — U(l)6, Es → SO(16) and lead to
six chiral SO(10) families. In addition, in the observable sector there
are two extra 16+16 pairs from b4 and b5, and two 10’s from b4+b5.
Finally, the vector a breaks SO(10) → Flipped SU(5)xU(l), U(l)6 →
U(l)4 and the “hidden” group SO(16) -» SO(10)xSO(6), and projects
out half the chiral families. The four remaining U(l)’s correspond to
the right-moving world-sheet currents η1η*1, η2η*2, η3η*3, and <a2 o>3.
Thus the following massless matter particles are produced by the
sectors b1, 2,...,5, S+b4+b5, 0 and their superpartners in the observable
SU(5)xU(l)xU(l)4 sector.
(a) The bl, 2, 3 sectors produce three SO(10) chiral families Mα
c
= Fα + fα + lα (α = 1, 2, 3) with F = (10, 1/2), f = (5, −3 / 2) and
c
l = (1, 5 / 2) of SU(5)xU(l) and the following extra U(l) charges:
263
(M 1 )
(−
and
1
2
,0,0,0 )
(F3 )
(M 2 )
;
(0,−
1
(F5 )
1
2
,0,0,0 )
(0, ,0,0 )
2
( f4 ) 1
;
;
,0,0 )
;
(C10)
1 1
(0,0, , )
2 2
(b) The b4, 5 sectors give:
(−
2
+ ( f3 + l3c )
1 1
(0,0, ,− )
2 2
(F4 )
1
( ,0,0,0 )
2
( f5 )
(0,−
1
2
,0,0 )
;
(l3c ) 1
;
(l3c )
( ,0,0,0 )
2
(0,−
1
2
;
(C11)
,0,0 )
respectively, where f ≡ (5, 3/2), l c ≡ (1, -5/2) and F = (10, −1 / 2) .
(c) The S + b4 + b5 sector gives
h45 ≡ (5, −1)
(−
1
2
,−
φ 45 ≡ (1, 0) 1
1
2
1
( , ,1, 0 )
2 2
,0,0 )
;
φi ≡ (1, 0) 1 1
for i = 1, ..., 4;
( ,− ,0,0 )
2 2
φ + ≡ (1, 0) 1
1
( , − , 0 ,1)
2 2
φ − ≡ (1, 0) 1
;
(C12)
;
1
( , − , 0 , −1)
2 2
;
(and their conjugates h45 etc.) obtained by acting on
its vacuum with the iff*, rf, to2 ± w3 fermionic oscillators for the first four states respectively, and by those of y 5’6,
of5’6 for the $ : i = 1 to 4 (and their complex conjugates for h45, etc.)
264
(d) Finally, the Neveu-Schwarz 0 sector gives
Φ23 ≡ (1, 0)(0, -1, 1, 0) ;
h1 ≡ (5,-l)(1,0,0,0) ;
h 2 ≡ (5, -l)(0, 1, 0, 0) ; Φ31 ≡ (1, 0)(1, 0, -1, 0) ;
(C13a)
Φ12 ≡ (1, 0)(-1,1,0,0)
h3 ≡ (5, -l)(0,0,l,0) ;
their complex conjugates;
ΦI
≡ (1, 0)(0, 0, 0, 0)
for I = 1,..., 5
(C13b)
obtained by acting on the vacuum with the fermionic oscillators of
a∗
χ 1 + iχ 2 with ψ
1
2∗
3
∗η , η ∗η , y1 ∗ω 1 (for h1, Φ23, Φl),
2
a∗
1
3∗
4
4
χ 3 + iχ 4 with ψ η ,η η , y ω ( for h 2, Φ31, Φ2) and χ 5 + iχ 6
a∗
3
1∗
2
2
3
5
5
6
5
with ψ η ,η η , y y , y ω and y ω (for h3, Φ12, Φ3, 4, 5).
For completeness, we also list the massless matter fields transforming under the hidden SO(10)xSO(6) gauge group.
(e) The sectors bi+2α and bi+2α+ζ for i=l to 5 give the following vector
representations:
((1, 6 ) + (10,1))
;
((1, 6 ) + (10,1))
;
1 1 ⎞
⎛
⎜⎝ 0 , − , , 0 ⎟⎠
2 2
(1, 6 )
1 ⎞
⎛ 1
− ,0, ,0⎟
⎝⎜ 2
2 ⎠
1⎞
⎛ 1 1
⎜⎝ − , − , 0 , ⎟⎠
2 2
2
+ (10,1)⎛⎜ − 1 , − 1 , 0 , − 1 ⎞⎟ ;
2
⎝
2
(1, 6 )
+ (10,1)⎛⎜ 0 , 1 , − 1 , 0 ,⎞⎟ ;
(1, 6 )
+ (10,1)⎛⎜ − 1 , 0 , 1 , 0 ⎞⎟
1 1 ⎞
⎛
0,− , ,0⎟
⎝⎜
2 2 ⎠
1 ⎞
⎛1
⎜⎝ , 0 , − , 0 ⎟⎠
2
2
⎝
⎝
2
2
2
2
(C14)
2⎠
⎠
⎠
which are SU(5)xU(l) singlets.
(f) The following sectors give spinorial representations of SO(6):
265
which are SU(5) singlets, but carry the nonzero U(l) charges indicated
by the upper right index, corresponding to fractional electric charges
±1/2.
We observe that the above string spectrum (C10-C15) corresponds
to a three-generation Flipped SU(5)xU(1)xU(l)4 model, with ail the
required higgs representations needed to break SU(5)xU(l)xU(l)4 down
to the Standard Model. Among the four surplus U(l) generators, there
is one anomalous linear combination
U(1)A = -3 U (1)1 - U (l)2 + 2U (l)3 - U (1)4
(C16)
while the three orthogonal combinations are completely free of both
gauge and mixed gravitational anomalies. In ref. [3] we show that the
anomalous combination is broken by the Dine-Seiberg-Witten mechanism [C5]. These extra U(l) factors forbid renormalizable superpotential
couplings giving masses to all but the third generation of quarks and
leptons t, b, τ. Nonrenormalizable couplings induced by exchange of
massive string modes then provide a viable mechanism for generating
the remaining fermion masses with mc, u, s, d, μ, e ≪ ml, h, τ . A detailed anal-
266
ysis of Yukawa couplings, nonrenormalizable couplings, gauge symmetry breaking, the top-quark mass, proton decay, and flavor-changing
neutral currents is provided in ref. [3], where it is explicitly shown that
the choice of boundary conditions (C8) provides a phenomenologically
realistic derivation of low-energy physics from the superstring.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
References
B. Greene, K.H. Kirklin, P.J. Miron and G.G. Ross, Physics
Letters 180B (1986) 69; Nuclear Physics B278 (1986) 668; B292
(1987) 606;
R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Physical Review D39 (1989) 2006;
Physical Review Letters 60 (1988) 1817 and 62 (1989) 1437, 2225;
Texas A&M University preprints CTP-TAMU-74/88 (1988)
and 36/89 (1989).
L.E. Ibanez, J.E. Kim, H.P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, Physics Letters 191B (1987) 282;
L.E. Ibanez, J. Mas, H.P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, Nuclear Physics
B301 (1988) 157;
A. Font, L.E. Ibanez, H.P. Nilles and F. Quevedo, Physics Letters
210B (1988) 101;
J.A. Casas, E.K. Katehou and C. Munoz, Nuclear Physics B317
(1989) 171;
J.A. Casas and C. Munoz, Physics Letters 209B (1988) 214; 212B
(1988) 343; 214B (1988) 63;
D. Bailin, A. Love and S. Thomas, Physics Letters 194B (1987)
385; Nuclear Physics B298 (1988) 75.
J. Antomadis, J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin and D.V. Nanopoulos, Physics
Letters 194B (1987) 231; 208B (1988) 209; Maharishi University
of Management preprint M1U-THP-89/42.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Life Supported by Natural Law, Age of
Enlightenment Press, Washington, DC (1986); Maharishi Vedic
University Inauguration, Age of Enlightenment Press, Washington, DC (1985).
K. Chandler, Modern Science and Vedic Science 1 (1987) 5.
Science, Consciousness and Ageing—Proceedings of the International
Conference, MERU Press, West Germany (1980).
267
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Creating an Ideal Society—A Global
Undertaking, MERU Press, West Germany (1977).
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, The Science of Being and Art of Living,
Maharishi University of Management Press, Livingston Manor,
NY (1975).
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad-Gita—A New Translation and Commentary, Penguin Books,
Baltimore, MD (1969).
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 30 Years Around the World—Dawn of
the Age of Enlightenment, MVU Press, The Netherlands (1986).
J.S. Hagelin, Modern Science and Vedic Science, 1 (1987) 28.
R.K. Wallace et al., Scientific American 226 (1972) 84;
J. Allison, Lancet 7657 (1970) 833;
J.T. Farrow and J.R. Hebert, Psychosomatic Medicine 44 (1982)
133;
N. Wolkove, H. Kreisman, D. Darragh, C. Cohen and H.
Frank, Journal of Applied Physiology: Respiratory, Environmental
and Exercise Physiology 56 (1984) 607;
R. Jevning, A.F. Wilson, W.R. Smith and M.E. Morton, American Journal of Physiology 235 (1978) R89.
K. Badawi, R.K. Wallace, D.W. Orme-Johnson and A.M. Ro
zere, Psychosomatic Medicine 46 (1984) 267;
C. Gaylord, D.W. Orme-Johnson and F. Travis, International
Journal of Neuroscience (in press);
R. Lang, K. Dehof, K.A. Meurer and W. Kaufmann, Journal of
Neural Transmission 44 (1979) 117;
D.W. Orme-Johnson and C.T. Haynes, International Journal of
Neuroscience 13 (1981) 211;
C.N. Alexander and W.E. Larimore, in Scientific Research on the
Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programme: Collected
Papers, Vol. 3, MVU Press, Netherlands (in press);
J.P. Banquet, Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
33 (1972) 454; 35 (1973) 143;
C.T. Haynes, J.R. Hebert, W. Reber and D.W. Orme-Johnson,
in Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation and TMSidhi Program: Collected Papers, Vol. 1, MERU Press, Livingston
Manor, NY (1977) 208.
268
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
R. Jevning, A.F. Wilson and E.F. VanderLaan, Psychosomatic
Medicine 40 (1978) 329;
R. Jevning, H.C. Pirkle and A.F. Wilson, Physiology and Behavior 19 (1977) 611;
M. Bujatti and P. Riederer, Journal of Neural Transmission 39
(1976) 257;
J.P. O’Halloran, R.A. Jevning, A.F. Wilson, R. Skowsky, R.N.
Walsh and C.N. Alexander, Physiology and Behavior 35 (1985);
K.G. Walton, T. McCorkle, T. Hauser, C. MacLean, R.K.
Wallace, J. Ieni and L.R. Meyerson, Advances in Experimental
Medicine and Biology 221 (1987) 503.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, ref. 8, 132-134;
R.K. Wallace, Science 767 (1970) 1251; American Journal of Physiology 221 (1971) 795;
D.W. Orme-Johnson, Psychosomatic Medicine 35 (1973) 341;
C.N. Alexander, R.W. Cranson, R.W. Boyer and D.W. OrmeJohnson, Sleep and Dreams: A Sourcebook, Garland Publishing,
New York (1987) 282.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Science of Creative Intelligence [course
syllabus], Lesson 8.
S. Coleman, Communications in Mathematical Physics 55 (1977)
113.
A. Bohm and J.D. Dollard, The Rigged Hilbert Space and Quantum Mechanics: Lectures in Mathematical Physics at the University
of Texas at Austin, Springer-Verlag, New York (1979).
I. Antoniadis, C. Bachas, C. Kounnas and P. Windey, Physics
Letters 7775 (1986) 51; Nuclear Physics B289 (1987) 87;
I. Antoniadis and C. Bachas, Nuclear Physics B298 (1988) 586.
Hridayam Samhita.
Shrimad Devi Bhagavatam, III.7.41.
D.W. Orme-Johnson, Psychosomatic Medicine 49 (1987) 493;
R.H. Schneider, H.S. Kasture, S. Rothenberg, R. Averbach, K.
Cavanaugh, D.K. Robinson and R.K. Wallace, Proceedings of the
International College of Psychosomatic Medicine (in press);
R.K. Wallace, J. Silver, P.J. Mills, M.C. Dillbeck and D.E.
Wagoner, Psychosomatic Medicine 45 (1983) 41;
269
M.J. Cooper and M.M. Aygen, Journal of Human Stress 5 (1979)
24;
R.K. Wallace, M. Dillbeck, E. Jacobe and B. Harrington, International Journal of Neuroscience 76 (1982) 53;
B. Blackwell, I.E. Hanenson, S.S. Bloomfield, H.G. Magenheim, S.I. Nidich and P. Gartside, Psychosomatic Medicine 57
(1975) 86;
R.W. Honsberger and A.F. Wilson, Clinical Research 27 (1973)
278;
Respiratory Therapy: The Journal of Inhalation Technology 3 (1973)
79;
A.F. Wilson, R.W. Honsberger, J.T. Chiu and H.S. Novey, Respiration 32 (1975) 74;
M. Shafii, R.A. Lavely and R.D. Jaffe, American Journal of Psychiatry 131 (1974) 60; 132 (1975) 942;
R.K. Wallace et al., in Drug Abuse: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia (1972) 369;
W. Seeman, S. Nidich and T. Banta, Journal of Counseling Psychology 19 (1972) 184;
L.A. Hjelle, Perceptual and Motor Skills 39 (1974) 623;
G. Seiler and V. Seiler, Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine 26 (1979) 8.
23. Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, R. Prasada, translator, Oriental Books
Reprint Corporation, New Delhi (1912).
24. T.M. McEvoy, L.R. Frumkin and S.W. Harkins, International
Journal of Neuroscience 10 (1980) 165;
D.W. Orme-Johnson and P. Gelderloos, International Journal of
O.R. Werner, R.K. Wallace, B. Charles, G. Janssen, T. Stryker
and R.A. Chalmers, Psychosomatic Medicine 48 (1986) 59.
25. R.K. Wallace, M. Dillbeck, E. Jacobe and B. Harrington, International Journal of Neuroscience 16 (1982) 53;
R.K. Wallace, J. Silver, P.J. Mills, M.C. Dillbeck and D.E.
Wagoner, Psychosomatic Medicine 45 (1983) 41;
J.L. Glaser, J.L. Brind, M.J. Eisner, J. Vogelman, M.C. Dillbeck, D. Chopra and R.K. Wallace, Age 10 (1987) 160;
D.E. Smith, J.L. Glaser and M.C. Dillbeck, Age 10 (1987) 160.
270
26. M.C. Dillbeck, D.W. Orme-Johnson and R.K. Wallace, International Journal of Neuroscience 15 (1981) 151;
A. Jedrczak, M. Toomey and G. Clements, Journal of Clinical
Psychology 42 (1986) 161;
S.I. Nidich, P. Moulin, F. Travis and R.J. Nidich, Department of
Education, Maharishi University of Management (1987);
D.W. Orme-Johnson and B. Granieri, in Scientific Research on the
Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programme: Collected
Papers, Vol. 1, MERU Press, Livingston Manor, NY (1977) 713.
27. D.W. Orme-Johnson and C.T. Haynes, International Journal of
D.W. Orme-Johnson, G. Clements, C.T. Haynes and K. Badawi,
in Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation and TMSidhi Program: Collected Papers, Vol. 1, MERU Press, Livingston
Manor, NY (1977) 705.
28. S.I. Nidich, Dissertation Abstracts International 36 (1975) 4361A;
S.I. Nidich and D.W. Orme-Johnson, paper presented at the
International Symposium on Moral Education, University of
Fribourg, Switzerland (1982).
29. M.C. Dillbeck, P.O. Assimakis, D. Raimondi, D.W. OrmeJohnson and R. Rowe, Perceptual and Motor Skills 62 (1986) 731;
P. Gelderloos, P.H. Goddard III, H.H.B. Ahlstrom and R.
Jacoby, Perceptual and Motor Skills 64 (1987) 1003.
30. Paninaya Siksha, Verse 6.
31. J.S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge University Press,
New York & Cambridge (1987).
32. C.N. Alexander and R.W. Boyer, Modern Science and Vedic Science
2 (1989) 325.
33 . J.T. Farrow and J.R. Hebert, Psychosomatic Medicine 44 (1982)
133;
K. Badawi, R.K. Wallace, D.W. Orme-Johnson and A.M. Rouzere, Psychosomatic Medicine 46 (1984) 267.
34. R.W. Dubois et al. (Rand Corporation), Annals of Internal Medicine 109 (1988) 582;
M.R. Chassin et al. (Rand Corporation), Journal of the American
Medical Association 258 (1987) 2543;
271
S. Wolfe, USA Today, October 31, 1983.
35. C.M. Winslow et al., New England Journal of Medicine 318 (1988)
721; Journal of the American Medical Association 260 (1988) 505.
36. K. Melmon, New England Journal of Medicine 284 (1971) 24;
Editorial, The Lancet 8061 (1988) 2.
37. K. Steel et al., New England Journal of Medicine 304 (1981) 11;
P. Trunet et al., Journal of the American Medical Association 244
(1980) 23.
38. Maharishi University of Management Bulletin, Maharishi University of Management Press, Fairfield, IA (1986-1988) 14.
39. M.C. Dillbeck and A.I. Abrams, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 11 (1987) 111;
C.R. Bleick and A.I. Abrams, Journal of Criminal Justice 75
(1987) 211;
A.I. Abrams and L.M. Siegel, Criminal Justice and Behavior 5
(1978) 3; 6 (1979) 13.
Al. C. Borland and G.S. Landrith, in Scientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation Program: Collected Papers, Vol. 1, MERU
Press, Livingston Manor, NY (1977).
A2. M.C. Dillbeck, G.S. Landrith and D.W. Orme-Johnson, Journal
of Crime and Justice 4 (1981) 25.
A3. G.E.P. Box and G.M. Jenkins, Time Series Analysis: Forecasting
and Control, Holden-Day, San Francisco (1976) 337-349.
A4. R. McLeary and R.A. Hay Jr., Applied Time Series Analysis for the
Social Sciences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA (1980).
A5. M.C. Dillbeck, K.L. Cavanaugh, T. Glenn, D.W. Orme-Johnson
and V. Mittlefehldt, Journal of Mind and Behavior 8 (1987) 67.
A6. M.C. Dillbeck, C.B. Banus, C. Polanzi and G.S. Landrith, The
Journal of Mind and Behavior (1988) 457.
A7. D.W. Orme-Johnson, P. Gelderloos and M.C. Dillbeck, Social
Science Perspectives Journal 2 (1988) 127.
A8. M.C. Dillbeck, Social Indicators Research (in press).
A9. P.D. Assimakis, doctoral dissertation, Maharishi University of
Management (1989).
A10. K.L. Cavanaugh, Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Business and Economics Statistics Section (1987) 799.
272
A11. D.W. Orme-Johnson, M.C. Dillbeck, C.N. Alexander, H.M.
Chandler and R.W. Cranson, presented at the 85th Annual
Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta
(1989).
A12. D.W. Orme-Johnson, C.N. Alexander, J.L. Davies, H.M.
Chandler and W.E. Larimore, Journal of Conflict Resolution 32
(1988) 776.
A13. C.N. Alexander, T.M. Abou Nader, K.L. Cavanaugh, J.L.
Davies, M.C. Dillbeck, R.J. Kfoury and D.W. Orme-Johnson,
presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Psychological Association, Chicago (1987).
A14. E.E. Azar, Journal of Conflict Resolution 24 (1980) 143.
A15. J.L. Davies and C.N. Alexander, presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta,
GA (1989).
A16. K. Rasler, doctoral dissertation, Florida State University (1981).
A17. T.D. Cook and D.T. Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation: Design
and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston
(1979).
A18. W.R. Adey, Physical Review 61 (1981) 435.
A19. C. Tourenne, Journal of Theoretical Biology 116 (1985) 495.
A20. J. Ellis, S. Mohanty and D.V. Nanopoulos, CERNTH.5260/88.
A21. T. Banks, L. Susskind and M.E. Peskin, Nuclear Physics B244
(1984) 125.
Cl. M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Physics Letters 149B (1984) 117;
D.J. Gross, J.A. Harvey, E. Martinec and R. Rohm, Nuclear
Physics B256 (1985) 468.
C2. H. Dreiner, J. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoulos and D. Reiss, Physics Letters 216B (1989) 283; Texas A&M preprint CTPTAMU-06/89 (1989).
C3. S.M. Barr, Physics Letters 112B (1982) 219.
C4. J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, S. Kelley and D.V. Nanopoulos, Nuclear
Physics B (1988) 1.
C5. M. Dine, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nuclear Physics B289 (1987)
585.
273
This article, “Restructuring Physics from Its Foundation in Light of
Maharishi Vedic Science,” by John S. Hagelin, Ph.D., here revised/
updated, was originally published in Modern Science and Vedic Science,
3(1), (1989), 3-72.
274
t o wa r d a n i n t e g r a t e d v i e w o f p a r t i c l e s a n d f o r c e s
Toward an Integrated View of Particles and Forces
■
Park Hensley, M.S.
275
about the authors
Park Hensley, a U.S. Air Force pilot, received his M.S. in Physics from
Maharishi University of Management in 1983 and has served as acting
chairman of the University’s Department of Physics. He has worked
closely with the University’s founder on several computer-related projects.
276
abstr act
In the ancient Vedic tradition of Sankhya, three fundamental forces are
identified that can be associated with creative, maintenance, and dissolution operators. These three forces materialize five fields or constituents said
to comprise the entire physical universe. This framework may be helpful for
contemporary particle-force theories with a multitude of particles emerging
from four quantum fields—electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear, and
gravity—that gain mass via another more recently theorized Higgs field.
Key words: Einstein locality, wave function collapse, decoherence,
quantum gravity theories, compactification, Planck scale, nonconventional spacetime, nonlocality, spin states, inflationary big bang theory,
Vedic science
Introduction
bjective investigation of the essence of matter has primarily
involved a reductive strategy of probing and measuring smaller
and smaller time and distance scales, and higher and higher
energy and temperature states. In simple form the range of scales can
be depicted as follows:
O
Ultramacroscopic levels
Macroscopic levels
Microscopic levels
Ultramicroscopic levels Unified field level
~ cosmic expanse to infinity?
~ 10 –3 cm to ~ cosmic expanse
~ 10 –4 cm to ~ 10 –8 cm
~ 10 –9 cm to ~ 10 –3cm
(Planck length)
~ infinitesimal point to infinity?
The resolving power of our ordinary senses for direct sensory observation is comparatively quite limited. The wavelength of visible light,
for example, is in the range of 10 –4 cm, too wide to observe directly anything smaller than a cell. Visual observation has been extended with
the aid of equipment such as electron microscopes to about 10 -8 cm,
still larger than an atomic nucleus. Research has now gone far beyond
obtaining tangible empirical evidence directly through the ordinary
senses. At these ultramicroscopic scales, indirect methods are required.
The results are macroscopic phenomena observed via the ordinary
277
senses that are predicted by and dependent on conceptual models of
processes theorized to occur at much smaller unobservable scales.
One prominent indirect method uses particle accelerators, the most
powerful of which are at the Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, in the U. S.
and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, with the capability to probe down to about the scale of 10-19
cm. However, the energy levels needed to probe the theorized smallest
scales are still far beyond even these most powerful probing instruments. An alternative indirect method is to search for measurable remnants that may support predictions of events occurring near the time
of the big bang. These cosmological methods are associated primarily
with research on gravity and the shape of the cosmos, while the largest
of the particle accelerators have been used more for quantum field and
supersymmetry research. In recent years cosmological methods have
become prominent in both areas.
Analyses of theorized events at unobservable scales increasingly
rely on conceptions of what is being measured and what measurement
means. Cognitive processes of reasoning are relied upon more than sensory perception; and it becomes increasingly clear that what is observed
depends on subjective mental processes in observers. Moreover, at very
small scales, probing and measurement are thought to interact with and
significantly alter theorized objects being examined. A major change
from classical to quantum physics is that these issues are now recognized, evident in the measurement problem and the role of the observer
in creating observed outcomes. Inevitably, tacit assumptions about the
object of investigation, the probe, evidence of their interaction, as well
as the observer all must be considered in examining the essence of matter (Boyer, 2008).
What is the Matter?
Atoms are the matter. Classical Newtonian physics conceptualized
matter as atomic particles interacting in force fields via an unbroken
causal chain of measurable local physical events. Objects were conceptualized as localized in space and time, existing independently of each
other and of the observer, and influenced mechanically by forces that
decrease with the square of the distance. Atoms were thought to be
the “uncuttable constituents” of nature, represented mathematically as
278
idealized dimensionless points in infinite space and eternal time. Subsequent research led to theories of subatomic and even more elementary
particles. In particle-scattering experiments, 150 or more elementary particles have been theorized to exist. Sometimes particle pairs
appeared to emerge that were mirror matches with opposite electric
charge—a particle and antiparticle partner. The topmost classification
of these particles is into two groups: bosons, or force-carrying particles
(to be discussed later), and fermions, or matter particles (actually, both
bosons and fermions can take on both roles of force-carrier and matter
particle—this is just what is usually seen at today’s available energies).
The theorized matter particles are further classified into three groups,
called generations, according to the concept of mass (Greene, 1999),
where Generation I particles are the lightest, followed by Generation
II particles, and then Generation III particles, which are the heaviest.
Quanta are the matter. As levels of nature have been further revealed,
matter and forces have been conceptualized as excitations or waves in
fields of abstract quantized energy. In some sense they are thought to
have boundaries or discrete particle properties, but at the same time are
also thought to be wave packets with their own energy. Quantum wave
functions are amplitude distributions that model wave packets as fluctuating only at certain discrete energy states. This discreteness results
from the fact that the amplitude of vibration associated with each of
the modes of the particle is constrained by the quantum principle to
be in whole number multiples of Planck’s constant h. Related concepts
are Planck length and Planck time, which are thought to be the fundamental units of space and time. The Planck length is arithmetically
derived from Newton’s gravitational constant, the speed of light, and
Planck’s constant.
Stable states of fluctuation are conceptualized as the particle quality
of the field, and transient fluctuations as the force quality. The transient
fluctuations—force carrier particles, exchange particles, messenger
particles, or virtual particles—are theorized to mediate the exchange
of energy between matter particles. They are conceptualized as being
in existence for such a short time that they are described as virtual. In
quantum field theory, forces are depicted as being mediated by these
virtual or exchange particles that pass between interacting matter
279
particles. In addition to stable matter particles and transient virtual
particles the quantum field also is described as capable of being in a
least excited ground state, the vacuum state. The quantum field is conceptualized as inherently dynamic, continuously exhibiting “zero point
motion” or energy whether in its particle, force, or vacuum state.
Quantum force fields are the matter. According to unified field
theory the universe first appeared via spontaneous symmetry breaking
in three stages of increasing diversity as the extremely high levels of
energy distributed and temperature dropped. The first phase transition
broke supersymmetry into the gravitational and grand unified forces.
In the second phase (about a hundred-thousandth of a second later and
at about 10-27 cm, called the Grand Unification model), the grand unified force broke into the strong nuclear and electroweak forces. In the
third phase (about a hundredth of a second later and at about 10-16 cm),
the electroweak force differentiated into the weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces. The long-range forces of gravity and electromagnetism account for most activity in the physical universe; the short-range
strong nuclear and weak forces were proposed later to explain processes
within atomic nuclei. All particles and forces are now theorized to be
excitations of these four quantized particle-force fields. Historically
electricity and magnetism were separate forces, reflecting the model
prior to recognizing their symmetry.
Sequential symmetry-breaking also relates to the cosmological theory of an additional field, the Higgs field, considered one of the most
important concepts in twentieth century physics (Greene, 1999). A
Higgs field is envisioned as a kind of viscosity throughout space that
resists change in motion, and is used to explain how particles acquire
mass. It is associated with inflationary big bang theory, which holds that
at the outset of the big bang the force of gravity became a repulsive
force that drove the emerging universe into a colossal expansion. This
inflationary event involved a Higgs field called the inflaton field, contributing a uniform negative pressure to space that produced a repulsive
force so strong that the universe expanded by a factor as much as 1090.
An elaboration of inflationary theory proposes that the big bang
emerged from a pre-inflationary period, in which the gravitational
and Higgs inflaton fields were bumpy, chaotic, and highly disordered;
280
and eventually a random fluctuation produced the values needed for
inflationary expansion. But “when” the theorized big bang “began,”
an orderly temporal sequence also began. At least in the world as we
understand it through science, an event manifests in an orderly manner
from the previous event, which implies that the source of the universe
is a state of lowest entropy, not fundamental randomness. This is crucial for understanding the source of order in nature. If the universe
were fundamentally random, there would be no memory or principles
of order whatsoever to connect one moment to the next, no continuity
through time, and no orderly laws of nature. As physicist Brian Greene
(1999, p. 271) points out:
[I]f the universe started out in a thoroughly disordered, high-entropy
state, further cosmic evolution would merely maintain the disorder…
Even though particular symmetries have been lost through cosmic phase
transitions, the overall entropy of the universe has steadily increased. In
the beginning, therefore, the universe must have been highly ordered.
The principle of symmetry has facilitated the development of theories that unify quantum fields in the same type of internal spin. In
this context spin is an important mathematical concept characterized
as a discrete amount of angular momentum that determines properties
of particles. It is sometimes likened to rotational movement analogous to the external spin of a top. Particles are classified into five spin
types (0, ½, 1, 3/2, and 2) in half-units of Planck’s constant. Particles
with whole number spins (0, +1 and +2) are the force carrier or virtual
particles known as bosons, with the statistical property of unifying or
collecting together in the same energy state. Bosons are not discrete
particles and cannot be distinguished from each other; they relate to
coherence phenomena such as laser light. Half-integral spin types
(+1/2 or +3/2) are the matter particles, fermions, with the property of
exclusion, and cannot occupy the same energy state. Because of this
inability to coexist, fermions are the matter particles that create the vast
diversity of material forms throughout creation. Particles are either
fermions or bosons; in general (although the roles can be reversed), fermions as matter particles interact via boson force-carrier particles that
mediate the interactions.
The mathematical principle of supersymmetry has fostered theories
attempting to unify bosons and fermions—a major step toward unifica281
tion of the strong-electroweak and gravitational forces. This principle
requires that supersymmetric partners (sparticles) exist for all the particles and antiparticles. Each particle is thought to have a supersymmetric partner with a spin either ½ larger or ½ smaller. To verify this,
supersymmetric partners of all the particles need to be found (such
as the photino as the theorized partner to the photon, gluino for the
gluon, and gravitino for the graviton). They are sometimes referred to
as dark matter because they do not seem to interact with normal matter
through the same forces (or, the same thing, because the interaction
is so weak) and so are not visible. Dark matter was proposed due to
mathematical applications of supersymmetry, and to help explain how
galaxies hold together. Dark matter is different from dark energy, proposed more recently to explain empirical findings that the universe is
expanding at an increasing rate.
A prominent concern over the past few decades has been how to
unify the three forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear) with
or into the one force of gravity, which also would unify bosons and
fermions. Called superunification, it requires integrating the two major
breakthroughs of twentieth-century physics—quantum theory and the
general theory of relativity—into a theory of quantum gravity. Such
a theory is generally considered to be a necessary step toward a viable
unified field theory of one field as the source of everything. In the language of spin states this means to connect the spin 2 gravity field with
the other spin-type fields, to connect the spacetime continuum itself
with the particle and force fluctuations of the other quantum fields.
But attempts to do this until the advent of string theory produced the
inconsistency of infinite quantities, and it has been quite difficult to
find the rationale to cancel out the infinities to obtain mathematically
meaningful results.
Strings are the matter. String theory is believed by many physicists to
be the best direction for developing quantum gravity theory. Basically
it replaces the dimensionless point particle used in classical and quantum physics with a tiny one-dimensional filament or string approximately the Planck size. The concept of a particle is of a point in space
with no internal structure or spatial extension, with only the capability
of movement through space. A string has extension in one dimension
282
of space, allowing mathematically for more complex higher-order patterns of fluctuation, which adds explanatory power. The higher-order
fluctuations are significant at the ultramicroscopic scale; otherwise
strings have much the same mathematical properties as dimensionless
point particles.
Mathematically, string theories seem to require dimensions in addition to the ordinary four dimensions of space and time, sometimes conceptualized as spatial dimensions curled up in the internal structure of
the string, called spacetime compactification. The classical four dimensions are thought to be the noncompactified or unfurled dimensions
that make up our ordinary sensory world. The higher-order dimensions
may be what are called internal dimensions or degrees of freedom in
conceptual, imaginary space—not necessarily comparable to the ordinary four spacetime dimensions.
String theory is so complicated that its exact equations have not
been able to be determined. Approximations yield many perspectives
or models, but there are indicators of a smaller set of consistent ones
(Types I, IIA, IIB, Heterotic-O, Heterotic-E, and 11-D Supergravity). Recent advances pull together these models into a framework
called M-theory, which involves 11 dimensions: the ordinary four, plus
seven compactified dimensions in mathematical space. In addition to
one-dimensional strings, zero, one, two, three, and higher dimensional
geometrical objects called branes (membranes) are posited. Understanding and developing exact equations for string theory and M-theory are major current issues. The theories are said to provide a logical
framework that integrates much of the progress in the past century.
However, there is considerable debate as to whether they represent the
appropriate direction to develop a theory of quantum gravity. There is
concern whether supersymmetry, upon which the theories are based,
exists in the natural world. Also, though mathematically compelling,
experimental evidence for strings and branes is scant.
To summarize, matter is conceptualized as built of unseen atoms,
composed of unseen elementary particles and forces, which are theorized to be quantum-wave fields of potential energy, which involve geometric patterns such as strings, branes, or other similar mathematical
objects. The overall picture is of probing indirectly the smaller and
smaller time and distance scales down to the ultramicroscopic Planck
283
scale. This scale is so incredibly tiny as to be almost like a dimensionless point. It is theorized that compactified at about this smallest size
are mathematical geometric “objects” that generate our ordinary world.
These terms, however, may give the impression that the geometric
“objects” are physical. They are mathematical “objects” described using
spatiotemporal metaphors to help develop the theories. The Planck
scale is thought to be the ultimate limit of spacetime. If these geometric “objects” exist in nature other than being just mathematical models,
they would be fundamental curvatures of spacetime not made of matter. The reductive search for the essence of matter has gone beyond
all forms of matter—beyond elementary matter and force particles and
ordinary spacetime—to a theorized nonmaterial basis of physical creation. In other words, ultimately there is no matter, which strongly
suggests that there is more to the story than physical reality.
A new direction in M-theory explores a possibly more fundamental
level from which a coherent background of string vibrations emerges
that produces ordinary space and time. This relates to the concept of
a zero-brane (Greene, 1999), which like a point particle has no spatial
extent but is attached to strings and functions differently than classical point particles. Zero branes don’t produce the same mathematical
problems associated with quantum fluctuations that plagued classical point-particle theory and that string theory has made progress on
resolving. Importantly, this theory glimpses a more fundamental level
beyond ordinary or conventional spacetime.
Loop quantum gravity is another approach to quantum gravity that
also posits a field underlying and generating conventional spacetime.
It is a mathematical theory of a nonmaterial pure geometry called a spin
network. This theory links the concept of bits of quantized pure geometry with bits of nonphysical information in a formal mathematical
relationship—Bekenstein’s bound. Accordingly, the smallest possible
surface area of space has an inherent mathematical limit to the amount
of information it can contain. Matter is reduced to quantized units
of spacetime, then to a more abstract nonmaterial pure geometry, and
then further to an even more abstract quantized information space that
generates conventional spacetime (Smolin, 2001).
284
The Planck scale and underlying nonlocality. In the expanded context
emerging in these quantum gravity theories, the concepts of strings,
branes, or loops—however the smallest entity, process, or event is
envisioned—still embody some notion of a membrane or boundary.
This potentially brings up the issue of infinite regress unless there is a
“jump” from this smallest possible physical boundary between discrete,
noncontinuous objects to the undivisible continuity of the unified field.
A possible resolution to this is outlined in the following paragraphs.
The Planck length is the distance light travels (10-33 cm) in the
Planck time (10 –43 sec.). The theorized four particle-forces that mediate change in the physical world are subject to this limitation. However, the experimental verification in the 1980s of nonlocality cannot
be accounted for within this limitation. Given that the theories and
findings about the physical universe are generally correct, it would
seem necessary that a subtle underlying, nonlocal field would have to
be outside of conventional space and time, as suggested in the quantum
gravity theories above. Measurable objects in conventional spacetime
are theorized to be made of Planck-size quanta; but perhaps there are
underlying non-quantized levels. There would still be no smaller scale
than the Planck scale using any independent probe built of matter particles.
The Planck length thus may be the smallest curvature of spacetime
from which quantized material objects are constructed, imposing on
the field the quantum principle as applied to matter and associated with
the Planck scale as the smallest scale of conventional space and time.
Planck-scale quantization may be the limitation of a subtler underlying nonquantized field. Theorized strings, branes, loops, or other
geometric objects may represent attempts to model quantization and
compactification, rather than using the idealized mathematical concept
of a dimensionless point. For example, in string theory the classical
macroscopic and microscopic world is where the four dimensions of
spacetime are unfolded and unfurled, and spatial dimensions near the
ultramicroscopic Planck scale are enfolded or compactified. But the
opposite view may be more appropriate: quantization at the Planck scale
may be the limiting of a more abstract, underlying, extended, unfurled,
non-material, nonlocal field into discrete localized, enfolded particles.
In other words, conventional spacetime may end at the Planck scale,
285
but it may materialize from a subtler nonconventional, nonlocal field
that generates and permeates it (Boyer, 2008).
A holistic perspective of levels of nature
A helpful strategy in building a more holistic understanding of levels of nature is to disembed from the reductive perspective that brings
everything down through smaller and smaller scales. Instead of the
universe narrowing down to an infinitesimal point such as a black hole
or nothing, the big bang or whatever mechanics of nature result in
phenomenal materialization might be a concretization of infinity into
finite values. It might not create spacetime from nothing, but rather
be a phenomenal limitation of the infinite eternal unified field that is
already everywhere. From this perspective, no new dimensions of space
and time would be needed to account for nonlocality. The difference
between subtle nonconventional spacetime and gross conventional spacetime may not be any new higher-order spatial dimensions, if they
both are limitations of the infinite eternal unified field. In the process
of manifestation the unified field would become limited into nonlocal,
nonmaterial, nonconventional spacetime, and then further limited into
conventional spacetime and ordinary matter (Boyer, 2008).
The ancient knowledge tradition of Veda is increasingly recognized
to be a holistic view that applies this strategy in modeling levels of
nature. Although there are many different interpretations, the word
“Veda” generally can be translated as “knowledge,” and more specifically as “total knowledge” (Maharishi Vedic University: Introduction,
1994). The closest concept in modern science seems to be the unified
field as the “source of everything” (Hagelin, 1987, 1989). In contrast
to the reductive physicalist paradigm, the holistic view of Vedic science can be understood to begin with unity, sequentially unfolding the
parts of nature within infinite eternal unity as sequential limitations
or localizations into finite forms, similar to the concept of sequential
symmetry-breaking. The parts emerge within the whole, rather than
the whole emerging from combining the parts (Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi, 1972). This holistic approach may shed light on attempts to integrate forces and particles. It seems quite consistent with the direction
unfolding in quantum gravity theories described above toward unified
field theory.
286
Three fundamental forces. The aspect of ancient Vedic science called
Sankhya enumerates levels of nature within the totality of nature or
theorized unified field, from subtle and gross levels to the grossest inert
levels of matter. Sankhya and Vedic literature in general can be interpreted as identifying three fundamental qualities or forces in nature—
sattva guna, rajas guna, and tamas guna. These three gunas or forces are
fundamentally inseparable, co-existing and co-functioning in various
relative degrees to carry out every interaction at all phenomenal levels
of existence. The three gunas are said to shape the infinite potentiality into relative finite phenomena of nonlocal interdependence and
local independence. They also can be related to the three aspects of
time—present, future, past—the three spatial dimensions—x, y, z axes
or up/down, forward/backward, and right/left—as well as many other
trinities throughout nature. Although their dynamics are intimately
intertwined and self-interacting, they can be related to the basic creative, maintenance, and destructive or dissolution operators that can be
said to conduct all change. Vedic scientist Maharishi Maharishi Yogi
(pp. 269–270) explains:
The entire creation is the interplay of the three gunas. When the primal
equilibrium of sattva, rajas and tamas is disturbed, they begin to interact and creation begins. All three must be present in every aspect of
creation because, with creation, the process of evolution begins and this
needs two forces opposed to each other and one that is complementary
to both. Sattva and tamas are opposed to each other, while rajas is the
force complementary to both. Tamas destroys the created state; Sattva creates a new state while the first is being destroyed. In this way,
through the simultaneous processes of creation and destruction the process of evolution is carried on. The force of Rajas plays a necessary but
neutral part in creation and destruction; it maintains a bond between
the forces of sattva and tamas.
Sattva guna can be associated more with the maintenance operator, upholding and fostering balanced change and continuity. It is the
unifying principle, the attraction, balancing, or harmonizing value of
nature. In the physical universe it can be associated most directly with
gravity, attraction to the center point of an object, and the gravitational
constant. Rajas guna can be associated more with the creative operator,
activating the maintenance and dissolution operators. It provides neu-
287
tral energy or activation that impels change. In the gross physical universe it can be associated most directly with the principle of energy and
with expressive or diversifying processes following the law of energy
conservation and relating to light-speed and Planck energy. Tamas
guna can be associated more with the dissolution operator, restraining the creative and maintenance operators, and with the principle of
inertia or resistance to change. In the gross physical universe it can be
related to the concept of mass, Higgs field theory and possibly Planck’s
constant. The three components from which the Planck length is
derived—gravitational constant, the speed of light, Planck’s constant—
may correspond generally with properties of sattva, rajas, and tamas.
To apply these three abstract forces to the ordinary physical level of
nature of conventional spacetime, they can be thought of as inherent
in the nature of every point in an unbounded field. Thinking of an
abstract field as being made up of infinity of points, if each point has
a certain property then the field also has the property, which gives the
field overall textural qualities or defining features. This can be associated with the concept of a medium or ether. This may give a sense of
how the quantitative values of the Planck scale, the speed of light, and
relativistic gravity all relate to defining textural qualities of the fabric of
conventional spacetime. Inherent throughout the unbounded fields of
nature and embodied in each point in the field are said to be the three
forces associated with creative, maintenance, and dissolution operators.
Five fundamental constituents. In Sankhya the three gunas materialize or condense further into five fields, constituents, or elements of
nature, the mahabhutas. The term mahabhuta is from maha (great, universal), bhu (curving back, giving form, to happen, occur, exist), bhut
(creation), and ta (finished, created) (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1967).
These five mahabhutas can be described as frequencies or vibrations
of the unified field in its subtlest, relative localized expression. They
are associated with the classical concepts of space, air, fire, water, and
earth—but this terminology can be interpreted in a much too simplistic
and misleading manner.
The mahabhutas refer to abstract processes that structure physical
objects with the respective properties of vacuity (space and the sense
of hearing), mobility (air and the sense of touch), luminosity (fire and
288
the sense of sight), liquidity (water and the sense of taste), and solidity (earth and the sense of smell). For example, the mahabhuta of air
not only refers to what we ordinarily think of as air, but more fundamentally to the abstract principles that manifest as gaseous processes,
and also agglomerations into matter. The nature of the mahabhutas
or fundamental elements as abstract processes may be more obvious
with respect to fire. Inclusion of the concept of fire as a fundamental
constituent of material creation clearly suggests the more abstract functional nature of the mahabhutas, not a superficial description of basic
elements sometimes attributed to primitive cultures. The mahabhuta
of fire refers to the underlying laws of nature involved in transformations through processes such as radiation, combustion, oxidation, and
illumination.
In Sankhya the five mahabhutas make up the entire gross relative
creation, which can be viewed as comprising the ultramicroscopic,
microscopic, macroscopic, and ultramacroscopic levels investigated in
the physical sciences. Each mahabhuta precipitates from the immediately preceding one and manifests an additional limitation, property or
specific quality—along with the general properties of the others. The
mahabhutas combine in innumerable patterns to create the vast diversity of the physical universe, but no new ontological levels are created
from them.
As physical realities of the ordinary phenomenal world, the five
mahabhutas must in some way correspond to the quantized particle-forces. An indication of this mapping is given by physicist John
Hagelin (Hagelin, 1987). A perspective on this correspondence will
be discussed later in this article. The mahabhuta of space contains in
potential or latent form the other mahabhutas, but expresses the specific
qualities associated with space. To link this system to the fundamental
forces and the concept of sequential symmetry breaking, the mahabhuta of space is most closely associated with the gravitational force.
Likewise the mahabhuta of air can be seen to express the gravitational
and strong nuclear forces. The mahabhuta of fire would express the
gravitational, strong, and weak forces. In this comparison, the mahabhutas of water and earth would express all four forces but be most associated with electromagnetism.
289
Space (Akasha). Akasha is associated with the sense of hearing or
sound. In the holistic view of the infinite eternal unified field as the
source of everything, the universe and spacetime would not begin by
blasting out in a big bang but rather many “places” or points simultaneously (Greene, 1999). This eliminates paradoxical issues in reductive
conceptions of nature emerging from nothing or a Planck-size quantum
from which space and time expand outward—which impels questions
of what existed before it, what it expands into, or what remains when
it contracts. Finite levels can be understood as phenomenal limitations
within the infinite eternal unified field. This also is relevant to the contemporary model of space as “flat” in the sense of extending in all three
directions without being curved, which Greene (2004) describes as the
front-running contender for the overall shape of the universe.
With respect to finite space in the sense of relative creation, however, space can be thought of as curved. The notion of the curvature
of space—such as into a torus or sphere, or both if a sphere can be
conceived in terms of curving back on itself—relates to finite limitation
of infinite self-referral. To explain finite creation, it can be said that
infinity curves back onto itself, infinite self-referral (Bhagavad-Gita,
9.8) (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1997, p. 37). This curving back onto
itself can be associated on the finite manifest level with a mandala form.
This is related to the Vedic concept of Hiranya garbha, sometimes called
the cosmic egg or manifest form of the unified field curving back onto
itself in the creation of the cosmic expanse of relative finite spacetime.
On the grosser level of conventional spacetime, this dynamic of curving
back onto itself can be associated with the concepts of a point particle,
Planck-size quanta, and atomic structures.
From the root “to appear,” akasha relates to the abstract principle
of vacuity, and seems to be most akin to the concept of conventional
spacetime. Every physical object is permeated by and shaped from akasha. In modern physics, objects existing in this level have the limitation
of light-speed, and all gross movement of energy and mass in relativistic conventional spacetime reflects this limit. It is directly related to
the Planck scale, zero point energy, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Einstein locality and the light cone, Einstein gravity, the particle
interaction model of causality, and Planck-size quantization that can
290
be viewed as the defining features or textural fabric of conventional
spacetime.
The mahabhutas are sometimes described as dimensionless points,
in the same sense as the point particle concept used in calculations
of motion in nonrelativistic and relativistic classical physics (Bernard,
1947). Physical objects involve the delineation of space into the three
spatial dimensions necessary to establish volume and magnitude. The
mahabhuta of akasha is not described as having a particulate structure
in the sense of quantum theories which posit spacetime as fundamentally discrete Planck-size quanta or as mediated by a particle such as the
hypothesized graviton. However, the principle of vacuity of akasha is
sometimes conceived as having an additional textural quality of porosity (Bernard, 1947)—which may correspond to these conceptions, as
well as to spacetime foam. Although the general theory of relativity
describes space as a relational phenomenon, it is nonetheless associated
with specific textural properties. It is in this sense that akasha historically has been associated with the concept of ether.
In Vaishesika, another aspect of Vedic science, there is also a delineation of the five mahabhutas. The four mahabhutas other than akasha are identified as paramanus, sometimes interpreted as meaning the
smallest possible divisions of matter. The four paramanus (air, fire,
water, earth) are characterized as having extension and magnitude in
space (akasha), and can be associated with quantization and particle
properties.
One way to look at the physical world as quantized is that when each
point in a field has a quality of attraction or gravity, pulling toward
itself from all directions—so to speak—and points in the field are differentiated or separate from each other in some sense, then the points
would pull on each other. If there were only two points, they would
gravitate back together to become one point. But when the pull of each
point on the points adjacent to it is from all directions—for all practical
purposes, of infinite extent—then they would pull against each other in
the sense that a point on one side would pull in the opposite direction
of the point on the other side, in all directions. There would be opposing pulls that would appear to establish each point as a specific point
within an undivided field. The point could be thought of as becoming
quantized with extension, determined by the strength of their attrac-
291
tion and other counteracting forces. This would give a texture to the
field and determine the size of the quantum, in our physical world theorized to be the Planck size (Boyer, 2008).
Thus, the three gunas may be the fundamental forces or properties
that define the Planck length, the fundamental length of spacetime
where the gravitational constant can be related to the force of attraction
or sattva, and counteracting the force of gravity by giving a fundamental size to structure would then be Planck’s constant or tamas, and the
two mediated by the speed of light or rajas.
The five mahabhutas or gross constituents of nature can be
thought of as fields with progressive limitations, each more expressed
one embedded in the previous one. They also can be thought of as
progressive layers of gross spacetime, each one taking on an additional
specific quality from which is expressed a variety of different physical
phenomena. One way to think about the paramanus is that they are
structured by the spacetime gravitational field being further limited,
drawing into its point value—sharply collecting into or curving back
onto itself and compactified into discrete forms that function as
independent, self-contained quanta or particles. In this speculative view
the mahabhuta of space would express the gravitational force.
Air (Vayu). From the root “to blow,” vayu is associated with the sense
of touch and can be related to the abstract principle of mobility or
motion, and the related functions of pressure and impact, compression
and rarefaction, most akin to the concept of air. The mahabhuta of
air precipitates from the mahabhuta of space. In the increasing limitation of space, it is the nature of the gravitational unifying force to
attract points of spacetime together into clumps or regions of more and
less compression, which further precipitates into a gaseous state. The
mahabhuta of air fills the available three-dimensional space—within
the constraints of gravity—but has the additional limitation of not
being able to permeate objects. With respect to particle-forces, the
fundamental force that binds or glues particles into atomic nuclei and
compounds is the strong nuclear force. In this view the mahabhuta of
air would express the gravitational force along with the strong nuclear
force (but again including the weak and electromagnetic forces, latent
and not yet expressed).
292
Fire (Tejas). From the root “to be sharp,” tejas relates to abstract principles of luminosity, form, and transformation, associated with the fundamental element of fire and the sense of sight. The mahabhuta of
fire relates to heat and temperature as well as radiation, combustion,
and oxidation. Fundamental to fire is oxygen, a core element associated with the principle of air involved in combustion. When there are
aggregates of points as volumes in spacetime that cannot penetrate each
other, like air, their agitation increases when further limited; pressure
and activity rise, measured as increased temperature or heat. At certain
temperatures, particles can be emitted in the form of kinetic energy,
resulting in radiation, heat and luminance. Continuing the comparison with fundamental particle-forces, the mahabhuta of fire thus might
relate to interactions of the gravitational, strong nuclear, and especially
weak nuclear forces. As Greene (2004, p. 172) explains:
Gravity is a universally attractive force; hence, if you have a large
enough mass of gas, every region of gas will pull on every other and this
will cause the gas to fragment into clumps.... Even though the clumps
appear to be more ordered than the initially diffuse gas—in calculating entropy you need to tally up the contributions from all sources....
For the initially diffuse gas cloud, you find that the entropy decrease
through the formation of orderly clumps is more than compensated by
the heat generated as the gas compresses, and, ultimately, by the enormous amount of heat and light released when nuclear processes begin
to take place.
Water (Apas). Apas relates to the abstract principle of liquidity or fluidity and is associated with the sense of taste. It has the freedom of
flow or movement to fill the available space within the limitations of its
permeability, but because of its lower kinetic energy and higher mass,
only sort of “downward” gravitational pull due to increased mass. The
liquid state, such as water, has additional limitations over fire, air, and
space. There is less internal motion, less heat, and additional restriction
of flow rather than gaseous expansion. Again Greene (2004, p. 253)
discusses relevant points with respect to symmetry:
On a molecular scale, for instance, ice has a crystalline form of H 2O
molecules arranged in an ordered, hexagonal lattice.... The overall
pattern of the ice molecules is left unchanged only by certain special
293
manipulations, such as rotations in units of 60 degrees about particular
axes of the hexagonal arrangement. By contrast, when we heat ice, the
crystalline arrangement melts into a jumbled, uniform clump of molecules—liquid water—that remains unchanged under rotations by any
angle, about any axis. So, by heating ice and causing it to go through
a solid-to-liquid phase transition, we have made it more symmetric....
Similarly, if we heat liquid water and it turns into gaseous steam, the
phase transition also results in an increase in symmetry. In a clump of
water, the individual H 2O molecules are, on average, packed together
with the hydrogen side of one molecule next to the oxygen side of its
neighbor. If you were to rotate one or another molecule in a clump it
would noticeably disrupt the molecular pattern. But when the water
boils and turns into steam, the molecules flit here and there freely; there
is no longer any pattern to the orientations of the H 2O molecule and
hence, were you to rotate a molecule or group of molecules, the gas
would look the same. Thus, just as the ice-to-water transition results in
an increase in symmetry, the water-to-steam transition does so as well.
Liquidity embodies the concept of flow—movement of energy
through or along a specific path, such as a current of water in a river or
a current of electricity. With respect to fundamental particle-forces,
this seems to be most closely associated with the electromagnetic force.
The outer shell of charged atoms allows electrons to flow, such as current through a medium of copper wire, from negative to positive and
positive to negative electrical charge. Electric current flows easily when
electrons are loosely held. Mediums that hold electrons more tightly
are insulators, in which the flow is restricted. In this comparison, the
mahabhuta of water expresses properties of all four fundamental forces,
but most specifically the electromagnetic force, with emphasis on electricity.
Historically electromagnetism was thought to involve the two forces
of electricity and magnetism, before their underlying symmetry was
recognized. This symmetry so intimately connects electricity and magnetism that they are not characterized as differentiating through symmetry breaking in the same way as the other forces associated with
Higgs fields. However, physical objects can appear to exhibit electricity or magnetism, as well as both or neither.
294
Earth (Prithivi). From the root “broad or extended,” the mahabhuta of
prthivi relates to the abstract principle of solidity associated with earth,
the most inert state, and is associated with the sense of smell. Matter
associated with the principle of earth has no directional freedom, in
the sense that it doesn’t flow, so to speak. It involves various degrees of
crystalline structures, with relatively rigid and fixed alignment of parts.
It represents increased limitation over a liquid form—such as water into
ice when the temperature and motion associated with heat or fire is
reduced into a less dynamic state. The mahabhuta of earth is described
as the endpoint of the process of manifestation.
The five spin states and five mahabhutas. The five states of internal spin
also may correspond to the five fundamental constituents or principles
of space, air, fire, water, and earth. In physics, only elementary particles
associated with the spin states of +1 and +½ have been experimentally
confirmed; elementary particles associated with the spin states of +2,
+3/2 and 0 have not yet been found in nature. Another way of saying this
is that neither the graviton nor the particles for upholding supersymmetry (sparticles) have been found yet in nature. However, the model
of five fundamental spin states is strongly supported by the mathematics of the theories that predict their presence in nature. Given that the
five spin-states model does reflect the structure of nature, how might it
match the five constituents of space, air, fire, water, and earth—which
of course we do know exist in phenomenal nature? To speculate on this
potential correspondence, we need more detail on the five spin states.
In the model of five spin states, spin 2 has the highest degree of
freedom. Spin 2 values can be +2, to give two different possibilities.
Spin 3/2 has four (+3/2 or +½); spin 1 has three (+1 and 0) for the
massive W+ and Z0 electroweak unification bosons and two (+1) for
photons because they are massless; spin ½ has two (+½); and spin 0 has
only one possibility. These possible states are made up of three distinctions of fundamental properties that mathematical point particles in
conceptual space seem to exhibit. The most fundamental distinction is
between the particle families of bosons and fermions—integer versus
half-integer spin (integer spin-types 2, 1, and 0 particles are bosons;
and half-integer spin-types 3/2 and ½ particles are fermions). Also
there is the distinction of the value of the spin (2 or 1, and 3/2 or ½),
295
and the distinction of the opposite signs of plus and minus, which relate
to opposite directions of spin in mathematical space.
The five types of internal spin also relate to three different types of
rotational symmetry or invariance, as well as different types of mathematical fields. Rotational invariance in mathematical space concerns
the transformations necessary to reestablish the same appearance. Different types of mathematically defined fields have to do with a directional component of the point particle field. The reference used here is
four-dimensional space—three spatial and one time dimension.
Spin 2, associated with gravitation, relates to a tensor field (rank 2)
in which there is magnitude and direction in all three spatial axes (plus
time) associated with every point in the field. For this spin state, rotational invariance means that a 180-degree spin results in a return to the
same appearance or original state. Spin 3/2, associated with connecting gravitation to the other forces, relates to a pseudo-tensor field. It is a
tensor field (rank 2) but with a change in orientation about the axis of
rotation to the opposite sign. In this case, a 180-degree rotation results
in change in orientation or the opposite sign of the axis of rotation.
Thus rotational invariance involves a 360-degree spin in order to return
to the original state. These tensor fields might correspond to properties
of the mahabhutas of space and air.
Spin 1, associated with electromagnetism, relates to a vector field
(rank 1 tensor) in which there is magnitude and a particular direction
in one axis—a directional force field. For this spin state, a 360-degree
spin also results in a return to rotational invariance of the original state.
Spin ½, associated with matter fields, relates to a pseudo-vector field
involving a vector with opposite sign. For this spin state, when the
directionality of the field is rotated 360 degrees, there is a change to
opposite sign, so a 720-degree rotation is needed to return to the original state for rotational invariance. Spin 0, associated with the Higgs
field and particle mass, relates to a scalar field (rank 0 tensor) which has
only magnitude and no directional meaning—no internal spin.
In this delineation the mahabhutas of space and air may correspond
to tensor fields of rank 2. The mahabhuta of fire, and to some degree
the mahabhuta of water, may correspond to tensor fields of rank 1 (vector). The mahabhuta of earth may correspond to a scalar field—the
most inert, least dynamic level of nature characterized by magnitude
296
but no inherent directional component. However, there is an important
difference with respect to the underlying basis of the four fundamental
particle-forces (presumably the unified field) and the underlying basis
of the mahabhutas. The underlying basis of the mahabhutas is the subtle relative level of nature, in between the gross relative level and the
unified field.
Conclusion
Sankhya (as well as ancient Vedic science generally) identifies three
fundamental levels—which can be interpreted as the gross relative, the
subtle relative, and the unified field. Recognizing these three levels
of nature—and especially the intermediate subtle relative level now
emerging in cutting edge quantum gravity theories—provides the
needed bridge to account for many unresolved paradoxes in the reductive physicalist paradigm.
The precise matching of fundamental particle-forces and spin states
in modern physics with the three fundamental forces and five constituents in ancient Vedic science has yet to be established. But even at
this point the possible correspondences encourage additional research.
Hopefully this research will lead to more integrated models of particles
and forces, toward holistic appreciation of the natural world and our
place in it.
References
Bernard, T. (1947). Hindu philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Barnarsidass
Publishers.
Boyer, R.W. (2008). Bridge to unity: unified field-based science & spirituality. Malibu, CA: Institute for Advanced Research.
Greene, B. (1999). The elegant universe: superstrings, hidden dimensions,
and the quest for the ultimate theory. New York: Vintage Books.
Greene, B. (2004). The fabric of the cosmos: space, time, and the texture of
reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Hagelin, J. S. (1987). Is consciousness the unified field? A field theorist’s perspective. Modern Science and Vedic Science, 1 (1), 29-87.
297
Hagelin, J. S. (1989). Restructuring physics from its foundation in
light of Maharishi’s Vedic Science. Modern Science and Vedic Science, 3 (1), 3-72.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1972). Science of Creative Intelligence: knowledge and experience [syllabus of videotaped course]. Los Angeles:
MIU Press.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1967). Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad-Gita: a new translation and commentary, chapters 1-6. London: Penguin Books.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1997). Celebrating perfection in education:
dawn of total knowledge. India: Age of Enlightenment Publications (Printers).
Maharishi Vedic University: Introduction (1994). Holland: Maharishi
Vedic University Press.
Smolin, L. (2001). Three roads to quantum gravity. New York: Basic
Books.
298
s y mm e t r y s i mpl i f i e d
Symmetry Simplified:
The Physics–Vedic Science Connection
■
299
about the author
Robert D. Klauber received his Ph.D. from Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 1982 and is currently adjunct professor of physics at Maharishi
University of Management, where he pursues independent research in
theoretical physics. He holds 18 U.S. patents and more than a dozen
foreign patents as the co-inventor of a magnetostrictive torque/misfire
sensing system and the inventor of an ergonomic backspace/erase key
for computer keyboards. He was co-founder and board chairman of
Technical Advances, Inc., Sensortech LLC, where he secured R&D
contracts with Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Hyundai and raised almost
$2 million in venture capital; and president and founder of Keyboard
Advancements, Inc., where he obtained licensing contracts with Compaq Computer and four of world’s top six keyboard manufacturers. He
has published over 20 papers in pure science and in physics and philosophy. He is currently writing a graduate-level physics textbook entitled
Quantum Field Theory: The Fundamentals.
300
abstr act
Symmetry is one of the most aesthetically captivating and philosophically
meaningful concepts known to modern man. Rooted originally in the arts,
it has evolved and re-emerged in this century as a unified and holistic structural basis for all of science. In addition, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has recently
pointed out the profound connections between symmetry and the unified field
of consciousness described by ancient Vedic literature. Although not commonly
appreciated, understanding symmetry and the role it plays in art, modern
science, Maharishi Vedic Science, and even human physiology can be remarkably simple.
S
ymmetry is one of the most aesthetically captivating and philosophically meaningful concepts known to modern man. Rooted
originally in the arts it has evolved and re-emerged in this century
as a unified and holistic structural basis for all of science. In addition, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has recently pointed out the profound
connections between symmetry and the unified field of consciousness
described by ancient Vedic literature. Although not commonly appreciated, understanding symmetry and the role it plays in art, modern
science, Maharishi Vedic Science, and even human physiology can be
remarkably simple.
Each of us has some intuitive feel for what symmetry is, though
most might, at least at first, have some difficulty coming up with a
very precise definition. Certainly snowflakes have symmetry, and so do
cylinders and beach balls. A map of New York probably does not. Just
what exactly is it that we sense about an object that causes us to deem
it symmetric?
To see what that certain something is, imagine yourself looking at
a real-life version of the cylinder depicted in Figure 1 below. Then
imagine closing your eyes for a moment, and during the time you can’t
see, someone else rotates the cylinder about the vertical line (the axis)
shown in the figure. When you open your eyes is there any way you
could tell that the rotation had taken place? The answer, of course, is
no, but what does that mean?
It means that even though something changed (the rotational position of the cylinder), something else remained unchanged. (The form
we perceive, the wholeness that is the cylinder, looks exactly the same.)
301
The act of moving or “transforming” the cylinder simultaneously exhibits the qualities of both change and nonchange.
So what then is symmetry? It is nothing more than the propensity for
nonchange with change. To be precise, it is a relationship between the
whole and the parts in which the whole exhibits changelessness while the
component parts change. Strikingly, the interrelationship between the
wholeness of pure consciousness and the diversity of the entire manifest
universe is described by Vedic Science in precisely the same way. It
should not be surprising, therefore, to find that many deep and intimate connections exist between symmetry and the most fundamental
universal truths.
Symmetry manifests to greater or lesser degrees. A sphere, for
instance, has more symmetry than a cylinder because it possesses innumerable (rather than only one) possible axes about which it could be
rotated and still appear the same. A snowflake has even less symmetry
than a cylinder since there are only six discrete positions into which it
could be rotated where no change could be discerned. A glove has no
symmetry whatever. There are absolutely no ways it could be rotated
without looking distinctly different. (Please see examples in Figure 1.)
Extrapolating these ideas beyond mere geometry and rotation, we
can begin to understand why symmetry is considered so meaningful
and fascinating. Nonchange with change permeates many diverse
phenomena. Mirror symmetry, for example, implies that reflection or
“switching” of each side of an object into the other leaves the object
looking unchanged. We humans exude this symmetry, and it may be
partially in this sense that we are, allegorically speaking, “made in the
image of God”, the most perfect synthesis of the changing and nonchanging realities.
In an even deeper sense, symmetry turns out to play an extraordinary role in the great cosmic symphony of creation. Albert Einstein,
in perhaps the most far-reaching of any scientific discovery, provided
the first insight into the universe’s innate symmetry. He showed, via
his theories of relativity, that even though the visible world of changing objects appears different at different places, in different times, to
different observers, the physical laws of nature governing those objects
remain invariant regardless of when, where, or how they are perceived.
The laws of physics, acting on a subtler, more holistic level of creation,
302
exhibit changelessness in the midst of change and are said to be symmetric throughout spacetime.
Modern physics has carried this idea even further. The four basic
force fields of nature—gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and
weak force—are, for example, presently thought to be but superficial
manifestations of a single underlying unified field. Changing from one
force (such as the weak) to another (such as the electromagnetic) leaves
the wholeness of the unified field unchanged—it is still the same field.
That changelessness with change is, in the simplest of terms, the symmetry of the four forces. And because that symmetry has its roots in
unity, in the oneness of the whole, symmetry can also be seen to be the
coexistence of unity with diversity.
Figure 1. Examples of symmetry and nonsymmetry.
303
Supersymmetry theories postulate a similar relationship between
forces and the other fundamental constituent of our universe—matter.
Though matter has traditionally been thought to consist of minute discrete particles, modern physics has revealed that in actuality such particles are really fields, called matter fields, which tend to be extremely
small and which behave in many ways much like forces. In supersymmetry, each type of force field is thought to have a partner, a matter field,
both of which are but different manifestations of a single underlying
superfield. Changing from force to matter while the intrinsic wholeness of the superfield remains unchanged is considered to be a “super”
symmetry.
Superstring theories go one step further. They posit that every force
field and every matter field are but different vibrations of one single type
of an incredibly tiny field of “string.” Such theories represent the greatest of physical symmetries since, in them, all possible types of fields,
the building blocks of the entire visible creation, are but different manifestations of one underlying reality, the unified field of the superstring.
As Maharishi and Vedic literature assert, the universe at its depths is
truly one.
The human body exhibits, to various degrees, this same universal
symmetry. The form or wholeness of the human body is that which
remains the same even in the midst of a dynamic material interplay
with the environment. Though that symmetry is only approximate,
since the individual form does change slowly, the DNA structuring
that form maintains its integrity virtually inviolate over an entire lifetime. And though even the DNA changes from parent to offspring,
the underlying genetic structure of the species is nonetheless conserved
over eons of time. At each level, subtler, more profound, and more
holistic symmetries can be found orchestrating the rich somatic processes within all living beings.
But the most pervasive of all symmetries is embodied in the threein-one structure of the Samhita described by Maharishi Vedic Science.
Turning from Rishi (the observer) to Devata (the process of observing)
to Chhandas (the observed) leaves the immutable wholeness of the Samhita unchanged. The non-changing absolute “one” is the Unified Field
of the Samhita, pure Transcendental Consciousness, and its relationship with the changing diversity of the relative “three” is nature’s quin-
304
Figure 2. Supersymmetry and Samhita
tessential symmetry. (Please see Figure 2.) The Samhita, above all
else, is one and the same in all directions, in all places, for all persons,
for all time. The Rig Veda expounds at length about this primordial
symmetry, summing up with the phrase, “All this is That.” “All this” is
the totality of parts of the universe, each incessantly in flux, and each a
different manifestation of the innumerable levels of interplay between
Rishi, Devata, and Chhandas. “That” is the unchanging wholeness of the
universe, the unity of the Samhita.
Throughout history, man has sought, both intellectually and experientially, to know That, and that age-old quest for knowledge and
wholeness is simply an age-old quest to find symmetry in all things.
Copyright © 1990 The Fairfield Source. All rights reserved.
305
306
p r a g y a - a p a r a d h a n d b r o k e n s y mm e t r y
Pragya-aparadh and Broken Symmetry:
A Simplified View
■
307
about the author
308
abstr act
Pragya-aparadh, the “mistake of the intellect,” is described by Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi as the ultimate cause of ignorance and hence of all suffering in
the world. The intellect, immersed in the changing and relative phenomena of
creation, becomes so caught up in transience and diversity that it loses sight of
the unity of Being, the unified field of pure consciousness which is the source,
course, and goal of the entire universe and everything in it.
Maharishi has discussed pragya-aparadh in the context of a phenomenon known as “ broken symmetry,” a term cosmologists use to describe certain
events which occurred during the birth throes of our universe. Though broken
symmetry is often considered to be a dense and opaque topic, in this article we
will look at it from a new and simplified angle in order to understand it and
its relationship to pragya-aparadh. With that understanding we can then
begin to appreciate why Maharishi and others have found broken symmetry
such a captivating and extraordinarily meaningful concept.
Symmetry Simplified
In an earlier article (see “Symmetry Simplified” in this volume), we saw
how symmetry can be viewed as “the propensity for nonchange with
change.” In that article we showed how a symmetrical object such as
a cylinder or snowflake could be rotated and still look the same. (See
illustration.) During the rotation, the parts of the object change (they
shift to new locations), but the wholeness (the shape of the object that
one perceives) remains unchanged. We concluded that any symmetrical
object has a very intriguing property. Its parts may move (change) while
the wholeness remains unchanged.
We also noted how different objects may possess greater or lesser
symmetry, depending on how many different ways they can exhibit
“nonchange with change.” A snowflake can be rotated into six specific positions and still look the same. A five-pointed star, on the other
hand, has only five such positions, whereas a cylinder has an infinite
number. Hence, a cylinder is more symmetric than a snowflake, and a
snowflake, in turn, is more symmetric than a five-pointed star.
We also saw how symmetry need not be restricted solely to rotation.
Symmetry of reflection, for example, entails visualizing a reflection, or
exchanging, of each side of an object with the other side. (See illustra-
309
tion of human symmetry.) If such an exchange leaves the object looking
unchanged, we say that object has “mirror symmetry.”
Other types of symmetry exist, and we will explore several of them
in this article. Some are relatively abstract and have little to do with
physical objects per se. Remember, however, that one simple unifying
theme underlies all types of symmetries. They all entail some way for
maintaining wholeness unchanged while the component parts change.
Symmetry and Maharishi Vedic Science
In Maharishi Vedic Science, the extrapolation of symmetry into the
domain of consciousness is straightforward. The pure unbounded consciousness of the unified field of Being, known as the Samhita, is not
only nonchanging, it is also the wholeness of the entire universe. So
the universe itself is symmetric. Its myriad parts are incessantly mutating and evolving while its totality, the infinite field of pure consciousness, remains inviolate and unchanged by all that transpires within the
domain of space and time.
310
Unfortunately, that Symmetry, the grandest of all symmetries, is
not at all obvious, or even conceivable, to most people. Only by experiencing transcendental pure consciousness can one truly know and
comprehend it. Even then, it can only be lived in daily life when one
is enlightened, i.e., when transcendental consciousness has become
established as a permanent part of one’s existence, co-existing with, yet
impervious to, the ebbs and flows of the relative world. The true state of
life, its Symmetry, is therefore hidden to all but the enlightened, those
free from the constrictions of pragya-aparadh, those whose intellects
remain established in unity, unseduced by the illusion of the relative.
The loss of awareness of life’s ultimate reality, its Symmetry, goes by
many names—ignorance, pragya-aparadh, delusion, maya, etc. It is also
closely related to the phenomenon of broken symmetry.
Broken Symmetry Simplified
Broken symmetry is, in actuality, quite a simple concept. Any symmetric entity which, in any way, loses symmetry is said to have had its
symmetry broken. As one example, imagine a cardboard cylinder (like
that shown in the illustration) which is suddenly crushed. Its symmetry
is then broken. When we rotate it, it is obvious that the rotation has
taken place. As another example, imagine severing every other one of
the six appendages of a snowflake. This breaks some (but not all) of its
symmetry. The snowflake then has only threefold (rather than sixfold)
symmetry since there are then only three positions into which it could
be rotated and still appear to be the same. So symmetry breaking, like
symmetry itself, can occur to different degrees.
Symmetry breaking can be of two kinds: 1) actual and 2) apparent.
We have already looked at examples of actual broken symmetry. In
apparent broken symmetry, the symmetry only appears to be broken,
where in reality it is not.
As an example of apparent broken symmetry, imagine for a moment
that the surface of the moon is smooth and has no distinguishing features such as craters, etc. When such a featureless moon is full, its
symmetry is readily obvious. However, ten days later when the moon is
in a crescent phase, the symmetry appears to have been broken. Ultimately, of course, our intellect knows that part of the moon facing us
is simply not illuminated by the sun, and that is what makes it seem
311
nonsymmetric. Hence, the broken symmetry is only apparent. Had we
not known this, we would have suffered a mistake of the intellect. We
would have mistaken nonsymmetry for symmetry, nontruth for truth,
illusion for reality.
Pragya-aparadh and Broken Symmetry
Pragya-aparadh occurs on the level of the individual as well as on the
universal level. By losing sight of the unified field of pure consciousness, we, individually and collectively, become over-enamored with,
and entrapped by, the changing, superficial side of creation. By not
living both aspects of life, the changing diversity and the unchanging
unity, we have fractured the cosmic Symmetry and committed pragya-aparadh. Like the moon when not fully illuminated, our intellects,
when not fully illuminated, create apparent broken symmetry where
only symmetry exists.
Broken Symmetry of the Samhita
Both modern physics and the ancient Vedic literature describe creation
as a sequential unfolding of greater and greater diversity from a primordial undifferentiated field of unity. Both sources of knowledge also
maintain that the field of unity remains inviolable and immutable in its
nature even as it coexists with the evolving relative universe.
In Maharishi Vedic Science that fundamental field underlying creation is known as the Samhita. The dynamics of the unfolding of the
Samhita involve a process of growing self-awareness within the unified
field. The Samhita alone is a very simple state of pure awareness devoid
of awareness of any particular thing. When that state of pure awareness becomes conscious of itself, a “three-in-one” structure emerges.
By becoming aware of itself, it is observing itself, and in the process, an
observer (Rishi), an observed (Chhandas), and a process of observation
(Devata) are created. These three, Rishi, Devata, and Chhandas, further interact amongst themselves in myriad different ways, building up,
in layer upon layer, the diversity we see before us today in our universe.
This three-in-one structure of the Samhita is robustly symmetric.
As we turn from Rishi to Devata to Chhandas, the parts of the Samhita
change, but the underlying wholeness of the Samhita remains the same.
312
However, when the intellectual value of consciousness becomes so
charmed by the emerging diversity of Rishi, Devata, and Chhandas
that it loses sight of the Samhita, then pragya-aparadh and igorance
are born. At that point the symmetry becomes broken, since there is
no longer any apparent wholeness which remains unchanged. In turning from Rishi to Devata to Chhandas, nothing appears the same, and
asymmetry pervades everywhere. In truth, the symmetry is never lost.
The Samhita always underlies all. To the deluded intellect, however,
(apparent) broken symmetry rules supreme. further. At that point only
two forces appear to be the same (symmetric). In the final symmetry
breaking, all four appear different, and that is our heritage, the asymmetric state of affairs in the present epoch of the universe.
313
It is important to realize that symmetry is not actually broken at
the point when the threeness of Rishi, Devata, and Chhandas emerges
from the oneness of the Samhita. In truth, that is when symmetry is
created. Before that, nothing of the relative world existed, not even
symmetry. Symmetry becomes broken (apparently but not in reality) at
the point when the intellect makes its cosmic mistake and forgets the
universal value of oneness at the basis of all existence.
Modern Physics and Broken Symmetry
Modern theories of physics recount a remarkably similar tale of creation. In them, a single undifferentiated unified field existed at the
moment of creation. Out of that field, diversity spontaneously erupted
in sequential steps, as the various particle and force fields that constitute the universe as we know it today.
The process by which this is believed to have occurred is a singularly subtle and elegant one whose detailed explication would require a
separate article unto itself. We can, however, abridge all of that into the
illustration depicting the symmetry of the four forces of nature. In that
illustration, the unified field can be seen to diverge firstly into two force
fields, the gravity field and the grand unified field. (Note the quirk in
nomenclature: the grand unified field is actually less unified than the
unified field.) The grand unified field then subsequently diverges into
the strong and electroweak fields, followed by a bifurcation of the electroweak field into the weak and electromagnetic force fields. In a very
subtle way, however, the unified field never actually changes, it only
appears to. Though phenomenologically it breaks into four components,
in its most elemental sense it remains as one.
From the level of the unified field, turning from any given field (such
as the strong force field) to any other field (such as the electromagnetic)
leaves the wholeness of the universe (the unified field) the same. In
changing the parts, the whole is unchanged. This, in the simplest sense,
is the symmetry of the unified field of which physicists speak.
Note though, that at the first stage of diversity, the gravity field
appears different from the other three. The other three—in wholeness,
the grand unified field—possess symmetry with respect to themselves
but not with respect to gravity. The symmetry then has broken to a
lesser symmetry. At the next level of diversity, symmetry breaks even
314
These steps of symmetry breaking occur spontaneously. That is, the
impetus for change is due only to the nature of the unified field and not
to anything external to it. Nothing causes it to break; it just does so
naturally. The symmetry breakings are also, as we have seen, sequential
and dynamic.
Maharishi has often described the evolution springing forth from
the unified field of the Samhita as a sequential, spontaneous, dynamical
symmetry breaking. Little wonder that he takes so much delight in the
modern physical theories of cosmogenesis.
Though symmetry in physics has many facets, there is none more
fundamental than the concept that each of the fields which conjointly
comprise our universe is but a different manifestation of one unified
field. Without knowledge of the unified field (and until recently it was
unknown), the entire province of physics was based on pragya-aparadh,
a partial and mistaken view of reality. The symmetric aspect of creation
was hidden, and symmetry appeared to be broken. Physical theorists
now believe, however, that in the deepest sense, the universe is, always
has been, and always will be, symmetric.
One Final Symmetry
As mankind learns more and more about nature’s grand design, symmetry seems to keep popping up everywhere. Modern researchers
continue to report discoveries of more and more variegated types of
symmetries in many diverse fields.
In man’s eternal quest for knowledge of himself and his universe,
disparate avenues of exploration end up revealing the same truths.
Both modern science and the ancient Vedic Science revived by Maharishi have, for example, uncovered parallel knowledge about the ultimate
nature of creation. The universe is, in its essence, unified; and it is, in
its essence, symmetric. On this, both fields of knowledge concur.
So moving from the Vedas and the study of consciousness, to physics and the study of matter, the wholeness of knowledge remains the
same, thus showing us that even knowledge itself, like all about which
it deals, is in its deepest nature, fundamentally and quintessentially,
symmetric.
315
316
PHYSICS ORGANIZED ACCORDING TO PR AKRITI ELEMENTS AND MANDALAS
Physics Organized
According to the Eight Prakriti Elements
and to the Ten Mandalas of Rig Veda
■
Richard Wolfson, Ph.D.
317
about the author
Richard Wolfson, Ph.D., received a B.Sc. in mathematics and physics, and an M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in theoretical physics. His doctoral thesis on stimulated Raman scattering was published in part as R.
Wolfson and K.J. Druhl, “Raman Solitons in Media with a Stark Shift:
Soliton Regeneration through Self-Phase Modulation,” Optics Letters
14 (1989). Dr. Wolfson is also co-author of “A Consciousness-Based
Approach to Human Security,” which was chapter 9 in Perspectives on
Human Security, published by the Canadian Peace Research Association, Editor M.V. Naidu (2001). Currently, Dr. Wolfson is adjunct faculty at Maharishi University of Management, where he has taught in
both the physics and mathematics departments. He also teaches physics and mathematics at Maharishi School in Fairfield, Iowa.
318
abstr act
The Rig Veda is composed of ten major divisions, called mandalas. These mandalas correspond with the eight fundamental levels of nature in Maharishi
Vedic Science (prakriti elements): prithivi, jala, tejas, vayu, akashaaaaaa,
manas, budhi, and ahamkhara, which are translated as earth, water, fire,
air, space, mind, intellect, and ego, respectively, as well as two additional elements (purusha and para-prakriti) that will be discussed later in this article.
These different levels of nature correspond remarkably well with the different levels and theories of physics. The sequence from the first mandala to the
sixth mandala corresponds with the development of physics from the macroscopic classical description of matter to the microscopic and subatomic theories, quantum mechanics, and quantum field theory, culminating in unified
quantum field theories such as superstring theory and M-Theory. For the fifth
mandala, which is associated with quantum field theory, a mathematical
correspondence between the stages of development of quantum field theories
and the structure of the mandala is described in more detail below.
The progression from the seventh to the tenth mandala is related to quantum measurement theory. The sequence suggests that consciousness underlies
matter. The sequence may also explain the TM-Sidhi program through a
mechanism that employs deeper subjective levels of nature, thereby circumventing the uncertainty principle.
I
Overview
n his exposition on Maharishi Vedic Science and the Science of
Creative Intelligence, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi1 set
forth the principle that nature is structured in layers. Deeper layers
represent more universal laws of nature that underlie and give rise to
more diverse and localized laws and expressions of nature.
This principle is expressed quite clearly in the physical world and the
laws of physics. For instance, Newton’s laws of motion are universal
laws that give rise to both the specific laws of planetary motion and the
equations describing motion on Earth. The laws of quantum mechanics, which operate at the subatomic scale, can be considered more universal than Newton’s laws of macroscopic motion.
In Maharishi Vedic Science, the principle that nature is structured
in layers is expressed in the eight divided prakriti elements.2 The prakriti
elements range from most gross to most subtle, with the more subtle
319
320
elements underlying the more gross elements. The prakriti elements,
which will be explained in more detail below, also correspond with the
eight of the ten mandalas (volumes) of Rig Veda.
In explaining the layered structure of creation, Maharishi has also
described creation as being analogous to a seed with many layers.3 Inner
layers are successively more fundamental, underlying outer layers. In
an analogy comparing the source of creation to a banyan seed,4 Maharishi explained that an empty space or “hollowness” right in the center
of the seed underlies all other layers and gives rise to the entire tree.
This article delineates a qualitative and quantitative correspondence
between the levels of nature described by physics and the levels represented by the eight prakriti elements and the ten mandalas. This parallel is illustrated in Figure 1, in which the levels are represented as layers
of a seed. This parallel will next be discussed in more detail.
The Rig Veda
The Rig Veda is the central core of the entire Vedic literature. In
printed form, the Rig Veda is a Vedic text with ten major divisions
called mandalas, which are usually separated into ten volumes.
While western scholars have traditionally viewed the Rig Veda as a
poetic composition, Maharishi has explained that the Rig Veda embodies in its structure and sounds the most fundamental laws of nature giving rise to and governing the entire universe.5 The Rig Veda itself states
richo akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi vishve nisheduh,4 which
translates as “The verses of the Veda exist in the transcendental field,
in which reside the laws of nature responsible for the whole manifest
universe.” In this context, the Rig Veda can be called the blueprint of
creation.
Dr. Tony Nader has further shown that the structure of the human
physiology parallels the structure of the Rig Veda and the entire Vedic
literature.6 His research demonstrates that the same laws of nature governing the external universe, as expressed in the Rig Veda, are also
precisely embodied in the structure and function of the human body
at every level.
321
The eight prakriti elements and the mandalas of Rig Veda
Maharishi Vedic Science (MVS) describes eight fundamental layers of
nature, which are termed the eight divided prakriti elements.7 These
eight elements, called prithivi, jala, tejas, vayu, akashaa, manas, budhi,
and ahamkhara, can be translated in sequence as earth, water, fire, air,
space, mind, intellect, and ego. More fundamental than these eight
divided values of prakriti is para-prakriti,8,9 the undivided nature of
prakriti. All of the eight divided values of prakriti are understood to
emerge from para-prakriti.
The eight divided prakriti elements can be pictured as eight layers of
a seed, as shown in Figure 1. Para-prakriti can be considered the stage
of a seed before it has differentiated into distinct components. Maharishi has also compared para-prakriti to a seed that is swollen in preparation for sprouting.7 In Figure 1, para-prakriti is shown for simplicity as
the outer shell of the seed. More properly, it could be considered as a
substrate of the entire seed.
Prithivi, as the most expressed of the eight prakriti elements, can be
considered the outermost layer. Within prithivi is jala, the next inner
layer. Within jala is tejas. Within tejas is vayu, etc. In this way, the
eight prakriti elements provide a stratified structure of nature. The first
five elements (prithivi/earth to akashaa/space) are termed the objective
prakriti elements. The last three (manas/mind to ahamkhara/ego) are
considered subjective.
The second through ninth mandalas of Rig Veda are associated with
the eight prakriti elements in order. The second mandala associates
with the first prakriti element, prithivi. The third mandala expresses the
second prakriti element, jala, etc. The ninth prakriti element expresses
the eighth prakriti element, ahamkhara. The mandalas can be considered elaborations of the laws of nature associated with the corresponding prakriti levels.
If the second through ninth mandalas express the eight fundamental prakriti values, what do the first and tenth mandalas of Rig
Veda express? The first mandala corresponds with para-prakriti. The
tenth mandala corresponds with an additional element, purusha,10,11 as
explained below.
Purusha represents the transcendental Self or silent transcendental
consciousness. In the analogy of the seed, purusha represents a hollow
322
region, similar to a vacuum, at the center of the seed. In the following
sections, a correspondence is developed between the levels of nature
described by physics and the mandalas of Rig Veda.
The eight prakriti elements, ten mandalas,
and the theories of physics
As science has probed within matter at increasingly smaller distance
scales, it has also found that our physical world is structured in layers.
Macroscopic material objects are built up from molecules, atoms, and
subatomic particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons, as well as
quarks, gluons, and other exotic particles and quantum fields.
By analyzing the hierarchical structure and properties of these internal components of matter, we find that these levels in physics correspond in their overall structure with those of the mandalas and prakriti
values. The sequence from the first to sixth mandalas corresponds in
physics with the evolution from macroscopic Newtonian physics to
quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. The sequence from
the seventh to tenth mandalas provides a model of the structure of
individual consciousness and the relationship between consciousness,
observation, and matter. A more detailed description of this correspondence follows.
First mandala: para-prakriti
The first mandala expresses para-prakriti (undivided prakriti). Paraprakriti is the most compressed, concentrated form of all the laws of
nature. For a tree, para-prakriti is analogous to the seed in its most
primordial state, prior to differentiation. The physics correspondence
is the study of the big bang, cosmology, and the origin of the universe.
In physics, various theories about cosmology, the big bang, and the
origin, overall structure, and evolution of the universe are under development. Unified field theory, inflation, dark matter, black holes, dark
energy, dark radiation, and dark flow are a few of the topics involved in
this intricate field of study. Some theorists regard our universe arising
as a large black hole. Others view our universe as one bubble amidst
a collection of bubbles, with each bubble corresponding to a parallel
universe.
323
In comparison to modern physics, what does the first mandala of
Rig Veda suggest about the origin and overall structure of the universe?
Maharishi has located the seed of creation (and the universe) within
the first syllable of the first mandala, “ak.”12 In analyzing the pronunciation of ‘ak,’ Maharishi has explained there is a fundamental transformation of consciousness that occurs between the fading of the first
letter “a” and the emergence of the second letter “k.” In this gap, consciousness oscillates back and forth between infinite silence and infinite
dynamism.
This oscillation of consciousness back and forth, which can be
called the self-referral dynamics of consciousness, or self-referral consciousness, underlies all of creation. The Sanskrit term ԁtmā, which
Maharishi translates as “self-referral consciousness,”13 also represents
this two-directional motion in consciousness between infinite silence
and infinite dynamism. Even in the structure of ԁtmā, Maharishi
has located the two directions of motion in the movement of consciousness, back and forth between the two syllables “a” and “ma.”10
Maharishi explained that these two opposite motions together generate the eight swaras14,15,16 or fundamental Vedic vowels (a i u ŗ ļ e o am),
which correspond with the eight prakriti values. These eight swaras are
then elaborated as the first eight syllables of the Rig Veda (ag ni mi le
pu ro hi tam), which also correspond with the eight prakriti elements.
These eight syllables in a series of steps (elaborations), as Maharishi
explains, give rise to the entire Rig Veda and ultimately all of creation.
(The reader is advised to refer to Maharishi’s exposition of Apaurusheya
Bhāshya, the uncreated commentary of the Veda on itself.17)
Can we use this understanding of the unfoldment of the universe out of the first syllable of the Rig Veda to make sense of the
various theories in physics about the origin of the universe? Dr. John
Hagelin has discovered a profound correlation between the structure of the first mandala of Rig Veda and the Lagrangian of the
heterotic superstring, the leading unified field theory. The Lagrangian is the most compressed mathematical formulation of the superstring. The Lagrangian can be considered the mathematical seed of
the superstring, similar to the first mandala being the seed of creation. The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Hagelin’s papers.18,19,20,21,
324
Second and third mandalas: prithivi and jala
The second and third mandalas correspond in physics with the classical
Newtonian treatment of matter and motion. The second mandala corresponds with Newtonian physics applied at macroscopic scales, while
the third mandala corresponds with microscopic Newtonian physics.
Based on Newton’s three laws of motion, Newtonian mechanics has
been very successful at describing the motion of macroscopic objects.
Whether applied to falling apples or orbiting planets, Newtonian physics is amazingly accurate. While developing classical mechanics, Newton also invented calculus, the mathematics used to precisely describe
motion and change. Newtonian mechanics ruled physics from the time
of Newton in the 1700s until the early 1920s when quantum mechanics
was developed.
The second mandala expresses the value of prithivi (earth). Prithivi
represents the most material, macroscopic, visible features of matter.
Prithivi therefore corresponds naturally in physics with the Newtonian description of macroscopic objects and motion. Newtonian physics describes the motion of objects that move, collide, and bounce off
each other. Matter is viewed for its external material properties such as
mass, volume, density, velocity, specific heat, friction coefficients, etc.
irrespective of any internal structure.
The third mandala expresses jala (water). Jala represents the property
of internal flow, as seen in a liquid. Jala corresponds in physics with
the classical atomic theory of matter, in which matter is assumed to be
composed of microscopic particles that obey Newton’s laws.
Since Newtonian mechanics was so successful at describing macroscopic objects, scientists assumed that Newton’s laws could also be
applied to microscopic components. For instance, the flow of water
was attributed to the movement of water molecules, particles of matter.
Similarly, electric current was explained as the internal flow of electron
particles in a wire.
In many cases, Newton’s laws were initially very successful at
describing the behavior of microscopic components. However, as physics probed to even deeper levels of matter, observations were made that
violated classical mechanics. To explain these anomalies, quantum
mechanics was developed.
325
Fourth mandala: tejas
The fourth mandala expresses tejas (fire). Tejas represents processes of
interaction, metabolism, transformation, and radiation. In physics,
tejas corresponds with the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity,
electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. All the
observed processes and interactions we see in the physical world are due
to these four forces.
Gravity and electromagnetism are apparent on macroscopic levels.
Gravity seems to be everywhere, holding us to the earth, and the earth
to the Sun.
The electromagnetic force, in addition to being responsible for magnetism and electricity, explains fire, light (electromagnetic radiation),
and all of chemistry. On the atomic scale, electromagnetism accounts
for the stability of the atom. Electrons are bound to the nucleus due to
electromagnetic attraction between negatively charged electrons and
positively charged protons in the nucleus.
As physicists probed deeper into matter, they found two more forces,
the strong and weak nuclear forces. The strong force prevents the
nucleus from exploding, in spite of electromagnetic repulsion between
protons in the nucleus. The weak force explains radioactive decay.
Fifth mandala: vayu
The fifth mandala expresses the value of vayu (air). Vayu represents the
fundamental property of a gas that it is not localized, but fills all available space. Therefore, the sequence from prithivi to vayu expresses a
transition from localized to nonlocalized objects.
In physics, vayu corresponds with quantum mechanics. Analogous
with vayu, in quantum mechanics objects are described as non-localized waves. (In mathematical terms, these waves are called wave functions.) For instance, in quantum mechanics an electron is treated as a
wave (wave function) that is spread out all over space.
The connection of this wave to the electron particle is that in regions
where the electron wave has the greatest amplitude, an electron particle
is most likely to be detected. Therefore, the electron wave function can
be viewed as a wave of probability. In an atom, an electron wave function is called an atomic orbital.
326
The sequence from classical Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics thus expresses a transition from localized to nonlocalized matter.
However, as quantum mechanics developed, the concept of wave function was replaced by an even more abstract concept called a quantum
field. We will next discuss the stages in the development of quantum
mechanics before investigating the relationship with the fifth mandala
of Rig Veda.
Stages of quantum mechanics
As noted above, in elementary quantum mechanics (see Figure 2a),
particles are treated as wave states (mathematically described as wave
functions). As particles gain or lose energy, they make transitions
to higher or lower energy states. For instance, after an electron loses
energy, it is described by a different wave function representing lower
energy.
In quantum field theory (QFT), or advanced quantum mechanics,
particles can not only change energy states. Particles can also be created or destroyed, or can change into other particles. Particles are still
327
considered to be waves. But now the waves are viewed as excitations of
underlying quantum fields. Each type of elementary particle, such as
the electron, has its own quantum field. As these fields interact, they
can exchange energy and absorb or emit particles.
For instance, quantum field theory explains how inside a particle
accelerator, two high energy protons can collide, excite other quantum
fields, 22 and produce new particles. Quantum field theory is characterized by a diversity of subatomic particles, each described by separate
quantum fields.
As quantum field theory advanced, the different quantum fields
were sequentially shown to be unified into more complex multicomponent fields. In this process of unification, three of the four fundamental
forces of nature were also sequentially unified. These three forces are the
electromagnetic force (responsible for light, heat, chemistry, electricity,
and magnetism), the strong nuclear force (which holds nuclei together),
and the weak nuclear force (responsible for radioactive decay).
The fine details of the theories that unify these three forces are still
being worked out. Scientists are also currently working to create quantum theories that also bring the fourth force, gravity, into a unified
structure.
The next two sections will describe a mathematical correspondence
between the stages of unification in quantum field theory and the
structure of the fifth mandala. Readers who do not feel to toil over the
mathematical details could skip ahead to the subsequent section on the
sixth mandala.
Mathematics of unification in quantum field theory
Before describing a correspondence between the stages of development
of quantum field theory and the structure of the fifth mandala, we need
to present a few of the mathematical details of quantum field theory.
We will begin with a general picture of the quantum theories of the
electromagnetic, strong, and weak nuclear forces, as these theories are
quite well developed. Quantum theories of gravity, which are still in
the development stage, will be discussed later. As quantum field theory
is quite complicated, in this article it is only possible to present a few of
the general features.
328
In order to represent the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces
quantum mechanically, twelve separate quantum fields are required. 23
The electromagnetic force is represented by a single quantum field,
the photon field. Three quantum fields, called the W+, W-, and Z0, are
needed to represent the weak force. The strong force is represented by 8
quantum fields, the 8 gluons. Thus, 1 + 3 + 8 = 12 quantum force fields
are required to represent these three forces. The formulation of these 12
quantum fields is here considered the first stage in the development of
quantum field theory.
In addition to force fields, our universe is also composed of matter
fields. For instance, electrons and quarks are considered matter fields
because atoms, the building blocks of matter, are composed of electrons and quarks. (While matter particles are technically excitations of
matter fields, the terms matter field and matter particle are often used
interchangeably.)
The quantum force fields mediate the interactions between matter
particles. For instance, when two electrons (matter particles) repel each
other, the force between them is attributed to photons, intermediaries
of the electromagnetic force. Similarly, radioactive decay of a nucleus
is attributed to the W field, representing the weak force. The theory in
physics in which the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces are represented by 12 separate quantum fields is called the “standard model.”
Once the standard model had been developed, physicists began unifying the 12 separate quantum force fields. Researchers found that in
order to unify the 12 quantum force fields, 48 different matter fields
were needed. (More accurately, one matter field with 48 different components was required. However, it is more convenient to speak of 48
separate matter fields.) Unification of these 12 separate quantum force
fields is considered here as the second stage of development of quantum
field theory.
These 48 matter fields are organized as 3 generations of 16 matter
particles. For instance, the first generation of matter fields contains the
electron, three “colors” of “up” quarks, three “colors” of “down” quarks,
and a more exotic particle called a neutrino. In addition to these 8 particles, the first generation of matter fields contains 8 antiparticles, an
anti-particle for each of these 8 particles. (An antiparticle of a particle
329
is similar to the particle, but with opposite charge.) With 8 particles
and 8 anti-particles, the first generation contains 16 matter fields.
The second and third generations also contain 16 matter fields, organized in a similar fashion. However, as the particles of the second and
third generation are much more massive than those of the first generation, the particles from the higher generations cannot be as easily created, and are not as common in our universe today.
In addition to the 48 matter fields, in order to unify the strong,
weak, and electromagnetic forces, 12 additional force fields were also
required. These 12 fields, called X and Y fields, are very massive, and
therefore not seen in our present universe.
Once electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces were
unified, in the next stage of quantum field theory physicists strived to
create a quantum theory that unified all four forces, including gravity.
Several theories are under development. Superstring theory, 24 which
appears to be the most promising of these theories, is discussed below.
Superstring theory is here considered the third stage in the development of quantum field theory. Superstring theory has also led to additional higher-dimensional stages of unification, referred to as M-theory,
which will be discussed later in conjunction with the sixth mandala.
Superstring theory
In superstring theory, all the different matter and force fields are understood to arise from different vibrational modes (harmonics) of one
superstring field. The superstring can be thought of as a loop of string,
which, when plucked, can produce different tones, similar to harmonics
of a violin string.
Theoretical physicists have developed a superstring theory in which
the different vibrational modes of the superstring match in a very elegant manner with the known particles and forces.25,26 Without delving into great detail, the superstring needs to possess 44 right-moving
modes of vibration and 18 left-moving modes of vibration in order to
successfully encompass the known matter and force fields.
330
Figure 3: Quantum Field Theory and the Fifth Mandala of Rig Veda
Three stages in the development of quantum field theory
Stage 1
Determination
of underlying
quantum fields
Stage 2
GUT: unifying
the separate
quantum fields
12 separate
quantum force
fields are used
in the standard model to
represent three
forces(weak
force,strong
force, & electromagnetism
48 matter fields
are required in
grand unification
to unify the
12 quantum
force fields;
12 additional
force fields are
required
Preparation for
stage 3
Verifying
compatibility
with superstring
theory
Grand unified
theory must be
expandable into
the 44 rightmoving and 18
left-moving
vibrational
modes of the
superstring
Stage 3
Expansion
of GUT to
superstring
theory, unifying
all four forces
Embedding of
grand unified
theory within the
4-dimensional
superstring,
with 44 leftmoving and 18
right-moving
vibrational
modes
Three stages in the analysis of the fifth mandala of Rig Veda
Step 1
Analysis of the
first sukta into
richas
Step 2
Analysis of
richas into padas
Preparation for
stage 3
Analysis of
richas and padas
into syllables
12 richas (verses)
of the first sukta
48 padas of
the first sukta;
12 richas of the
second sukta
Recognizing the
mathematical
relationship
between the
syllables, padas,
and richas
331
Stage 3
Expansion of the
syllables of the
first richa into
the subsequent
padas, richas, and
suktas.
The 44 syllables
of the first richa
are elaborated by
the 44 padas of
richas 2-12 and
further by the 2
x 44 = 88 suktas
of the entire fith
mandala.
Mathematics of the fifth mandala
In order to make a correspondence between quantum field theory and
the fifth mandala, we need to first consider the mathematical structure
of the fifth mandala. The fifth mandala contains 88 suktas (hymns). The
first sukta contains twelve richas (verses). Each richa of the first sukta is
composed of four pada (feet) of eleven syllables (trishtubh meter). Each
richa of the first sukta therefore contains 44 syllables.
The mathematical structure of the fifth mandala matches in three
steps with the mathematical structure of quantum field theory. We
will analyze the fifth mandala mathematically on the level of richas,
padas, and then individual syllables. We will compare these three stages
of analysis of the fifth mandala with the three stages of development of
quantum field theory.
Upon first analyzing the fifth mandala, beginning with the first
sukta, one finds that the first sukta contains twelve separate richas.
These twelve richas match with the first stage of quantum field theory,
the formulation of the twelve separate fields of the standard model,
prior to unification.
On the next level of analysis, by examining the twelve richas of the
first sukta, one sees that each richa is comprised of four padas. Thus, the
entire first sukta contains 48 padas (twelve richas x four padas). These 48
padas match with the 48 matter fields of grand unification, the second
stage of quantum field theory.
In addition to the 48 matter fields, grand unification requires twelve
additional force fields. These twelve additional force fields match with
the twelve richas of the second sukta. These twelve richas of the second
sukta can be considered emerging from the gaps between the twelve
richas of the first sukta.
On the third level of analysis of the fifth mandala, by dividing the
padas into individual syllables, one finds all richas of the first sukta contain 44 syllables. These 44 syllables match with 44 right-moving modes
of the superstring, the third stage of quantum field theory.
One also finds that the mathematical structure of the fifth mandala
is similar to that of the first mandala, as laid out in Maharishi’s exposition on the apaurusheya bhashya. In the fifth mandala, the 44 syllables
of the first richa of the first sukta match with the 44 padas of richas
two through twelve, which then match in a one-to-two correspondence
332
with the 88 suktas of the fifth mandala. The structure suggests that the
44 syllables of the first sukta are elaborated by the 44 padas of richas
two through twelve, which are further elaborated by the 88 suktas of
the fifth mandala.
One might hypothesize that the 44 padas and the 44 gaps between
the padas of the first sukta together give rise to the 88 suktas of the
entire mandala. Another possibility is that the 44 padas of the first
sukta give rise to the first 44 suktas of the fifth mandala, while the 44
padas of the first eleven richas of the second sukta give rise to the final
44 suktas.
The last richa of the second sukta, which is written in a different
meter from the first eleven richas, contains 56 syllables and may correspond with a different group of vibrational modes of the superstring,
containing 56 separate modes of vibration.
In considering the 88 suktas of the fifth mandala, one might refer
to Maharishi’s explanation that for all the mandalas of Rig Veda, the
suktas can be considered as lying in sequence around a circle, with suktas on opposite side of the mandala complementing each other. Due to
this relatioship, the 88 suktas of the fifth mandala can be considered
two complementary sets of 44 suktas. (Maharishi has explained that
complementary suktas on opposite sides of the mandala attract each
other, which binds the mandala together, making it invincible.)
The expansion of the 44 syllables of the first richa into the remaining
padas of the first sukta (and perhaps the second sukta), and then into the
88 suktas of the entire fifth mandala can be compared in physics with
the embedding of grand unified theory into the higher dimensional
superstring.
In this regard, Dr. John Hagelin has pointed out 27 that one important factor in assessing the viability of a particular grand unified theory
(GUT) is whether the theory can be embedded into a larger structure
holding the 44 right-moving and 18 left-moving modes. Dr. Hagelin
also explained that flipped SU(5), the GUT that he and his collaborators developed, possesses this feature.
This development of a GUT that possesses the mathematical structure to be consistent with the superstring is represented in Figure 3 as
an intermediate stage between GUT (stage 2) and superstring theory
(stage 3). In the fifth mandala, the corresponding intermediate stage is
333
the mathematical correspondence between the syllables, padas, richas,
and suktas, as explained above.
In this correspondence between the f ifth mandala and quantum field
theory, we have so far only located correlations between a few of the
main mathematical features of quantum field theory and the fifth mandala. There are many other additional details of quantum field theory
that have yet to be correlated. The correlations we have found so far are
suggestive, but preliminary.
Sixth mandala: akasha
The sixth mandala expresses the value of akasha (space). Akasha represents the background space or arena where events occur. The correspondence in physics is space, and, as will be explained below, the
higher dimensional quantum field theories that unify gravity with the
other forces.
In identifying akasha with space, physics theories require that akasha corresponds with more than the Euclidean three-dimensional
space or coordinate system commonly considered space. First of all,
Einstein’s special relativity explains that space and time are linked.
Space becomes four-dimensional spacetime. Therefore, akasha needs to
encompass space-time.
Einstein realized that gravity is the curvature of space. Therefore,
the identification of akasha with space also necessarily associates akasha with gravity. Also, since mandala five is associated with quantum
field theory, the progression from mandala five suggests that mandala
six should encompass quantum gravity, which is both the quantum
mechanical treatment of gravity and also the space in which the interactions of quantum field theory occur.
In these quantum theories of gravity, space is recognized not as an
inert background but as a dynamic, oscillating, self-interacting entity.
In fully unified theories, all fields, waves, particles, and forces are
understood as modes of vibration or ripples in the fabric of space. Similarly Maharishi Vedic Science explains that akasha is not inert. Akasha
reverberates.
The physics parallel to the fifth mandala ended with superstring
theory. The physics parallel to the sixth mandala starts off where mandala five ended, at superstring theory, and then continues. Currently,
334
researchers are working to expand superstring theory into more general
and higher-dimensional quantum gravity theories, such as M-theory.28
M-theory describes objects more general than superstrings, such as
vibrating membranes, which are referred to as “branes.” Also, M-theory
unifies the different varieties of superstrings living in ten dimensions as
different expressions of one eleven-dimensional structure.
Another promising quantum gravity theory under development is
called loop quantum gravity or loop gravity.29 According to loop gravity, just as matter is built up in discrete units, space is built up from tiny
cubicles of space. However, since the building blocks of space are so
small, on the order of the Planck length (10-33 cm), spacetime appears
to be continuous on any observable scale.
In previous theories such as superstring theory, researchers found
that by probing finer than the Planck length, the laws of physics broke
down. Even fundamental premises such as causality, distance, and the
sequential flow of time could not be defined.
However, by asserting there is a smallest distance scale that cannot be breached, loop gravity avoids these problems. Loop gravity also
provides explanations for other fundamental questions such as the rapid
inflationary phase of the big bang, and the big bang itself, which it
describes as a big bounce.
Due to the complexity of quantum gravity, relying on arduous computer calculations, loop gravity is still in its infant stages. M-theory
and superstring theory are also still under development. As these theories develop, physicists speculate they may find that loop gravity and
superstring theory are not competing theories, but different perspectives on a broader picture that is unified by M-theory.
In any case, the picture in loop gravity of space being built up in
discrete units is intriguing. We are reminded of the structure of the Rig
Veda, also built up in discrete units (syllables and gaps), which gives rise
to all of creation, including the space element akasha.
In order to make a more detailed correspondence between the sixth
mandala and higher-dimensional physics theories, it would be necessary to present more details of both areas. The problem is that these
physics theories are still under development. However, we will still
present the overall mathematical structure of the sixth mandala. As the
335
physics theories become clearer, we will be able to check in detail for
correspondences with the sixth mandala.
Mandala six contains 76 suktas (hymns). Its first sukta is comprised of
thirteen richas (verses). Each of the thirteen richas contains four padas
of eleven syllables. The first verse therefore contains 44 syllables. Since
richas two through thirteen contain 48 padas (twelve richas of four
padas), the situation with the sixth mandala is not as simple as with the
fifth mandala. For the sixth mandala, there is not a clear correspondence between the 44 syllables of the first richa, the 48 padas of richas
two through thirteen, and the 76 suktas of the entire mandala. As the
corresponding areas of physics are developed, perhaps the relationship
between these different numbers and the structure of the sixth mandala will become clearer.
Mandalas seven to ten
The sequence from mandalas two to six and the progression from
prithivi (earth) to akasha (space) correspond with the full range of physics, from Newtonian mechanics to unified quantum field theories. Are
there any fundamental questions left that mandalas seven to ten could
provide insight on?
One aspect of quantum mechanics that even Einstein found quite
puzzling was the uncertainty principle, a very odd feature of quantum mechanics that limits our knowledge of a physical system. Can we
shed some light on the uncertainty principle, its origin and basis, and
whether there is any hope of predicting the exact outcome of a given
interaction? This question will be discussed below along with a more
detailed explanation of the uncertainty principle.
Another basic question is: What makes living matter different from
inert matter? Are there specific elements that plants and animals possess, allowing them to maintain life? Can physicists claim to be developing a “Theory of Everything” if their theory does not explain living
systems? We will next describe the three subjective prakriti elements—
manas, budhi, and ahamkhara—as well as purusha, and then discuss
whether these elements shed any light on these outstanding questions.
336
Seventh mandala: manas
The seventh mandala expresses the value of manas (mind). The mind
is the field of thoughts. Whether our thoughts are due to perceptions
from the current environment, memories from the past, or any kind
of intellectual analysis, our minds seem to be continually filled with
thoughts.
Plants and animals respond to their surroundings in order to maintain themselves. This ability of living organisms to internally process
information from the environment can be considered thinking. While
humans clearly display a much more advanced capacity to analyze and
manipulate their environment to fulfill complex needs, the quality of
mind can also be located in plants and animals.
Eighth mandala: budhi
The eighth mandala expresses the value of budhi (intellect). The intellect is the capacity of analysis, discernment, and decision-making. The
intellect analyzes the thoughts and ideas in the mind and then chooses
between them. The intellect analyzes every situation, identifies the
options and their consequences, and then selects the best choice.
In plants and animals, the budhi value is expressed in the ability
to distinguish and respond selectively to environmental factors. In
humans, the budhi value is developed to a greater level of sophistication than that of plants and animals, as humans can reason and make
independent decisions. Plants and animals respond more instinctively
to their environment.
However, even in humans the capacity for free will and independent
decision-making is expressed in varying degrees in different individuals. Psychological scales have been developed to assess the higher-order
reasoning ability of the individual and the capacity to make independent decisions. In the language of Maharishi Vedic Science, individuals
with a more developed decision-making capability possess a stronger
value of budhi.
Ninth mandala: ahamkhara
The ninth mandala expresses the value of ahamkhara (individual ego).
The ego is the sense of individuality that is maintained even while the
person engages in diverse activities. The mind entertains thoughts.
337
The intellect analyzes and decides between the different thoughts and
options. The individual ego is the sense of individual self maintained
throughout the entire process.
Tenth mandala: purusha
The tenth mandala expresses the value of purusha (cosmic ego or universal Self). Purusha is experienced as transcendental consciousness
during Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation program. Purusha is
the universal consciousness or pure being underlying all subjective and
objective phenomena. Therefore, in a general sense, purusha fulfills the
role of the unified field of physics, or a “Theory of Everything.”
Through the regular practice of Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs, individual self (ahamkhara) regularly
identifies with cosmic self, purusha. Over time, individual self expands
to become universal Self. Cosmic consciousness represents the highest
value of the ego, in which the purusha value of consciousness is permanently maintained throughout all experiences and states of consciousness.
Physics correlates for mandalas seven to ten
While physics as an objective science strives to be independent from
subjective influences, the subjective qualities of manas, budhi, and
ahamkhara can be located in one area of physics, quantum measurement
theory. Quantum measurement theory studies the process of observation in quantum mechanics, including the uncertainty principle, the
inability to precisely predict the result of measurement.
In classical physics, if the state of all incoming particles and forces is
known, the final state can be exactly predicted. However, in quantum
mechanics, even if the incoming particles states are precisely known,
many different outcomes are possible. A scientist can only predict with
probability the likelihood of any one specific outcome.
In quantum measurement theory, the superposition of all possible
final states is analogous to the mind, which entertains a multitude of
thoughts. The process of choosing one possible outcome is comparable
to the intellect, which selects between all possible thoughts.
We can be quite aware of the process by which our intellect makes
decisions. However, we are in the dark in understanding how, from all
338
possible outcomes, the specific outcome of a given particle interaction is
chosen. This lack of understanding is termed the uncertainty principle.
Can we trace the uncertainty principle in physics to the inability of
physics to operate at the budhi level of nature? Earlier, we found that
the full range of physics, from Newtonian mechanics to unified quantum field theories, corresponded with the five objective prakriti elements. Since physics does not extend to the budhi level, it appears that
physics is not privy to the decision-making level of nature.
Is quantum uncertainty inevitable? Or could physics proceed beyond
uncertainty by including technologies that extend to the subjective
levels of nature and specifically to the budhi level? Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program is designed to function
at these deeper levels of nature in order to create specific effects. As
individuals become increasingly proficient with this program, we may
be able to verify whether practitioners are able to circumvent quantum
uncertainty by operating from deeper levels of nature, including the
budhi level.
Physics correlates to ahamkhara and purusha
In our correspondence between physics and the subjective prakritis, we
have matched the mind with the superposition of all possible outcomes
and the intellect with the selection of one specific outcome. Is there an
area in physics that matches with ahamkhara, the sense of individual
self (individuality) maintained throughout the decision-making process?
In physics, the element that remains constant throughout the interaction process is the set of conserved quantities, such as the total
momentum, energy, and electric charge of the system. Total momentum, energy, and electric charge are three of the many conserved quantities, called quantum numbers, that remain constant throughout any
interactions. This set of quantum numbers, which defines the overall
nonchanging state of the system, matches with ahamkhara, the individual ego or self that maintains itself, unchanged, amidst all processes
and decisions.
Can we match the tenth mandala, expressing purusha, with an area
of physics? Purusha is the silence underlying all of creation, the unmanifest universal being of the entire cosmos. As we mentioned earlier,
339
purusha matches with the unified field in its most general sense, underlying subjectivity and objectivity. Since purusha is silent and unmanifest, it matches more closely with the vacuum state of the unified field.
The vacuum state is the ground state of the unified field, the source of
all excited or expressed states.
Conclusion
The correspondences in this article between the theories of physics and
the 10 mandalas of Rig Veda (expressing the 8 prakriti values) provides
insights for both physics and Maharishi Vedic Science.
In physics, the characteristics of deeper levels of matter and nature
are fundamentally different from characteristics of more surface levels.
For example, the progression to smaller distance scales leads to more
abstract level of reality, in which objects do not display concrete boundaries in space or time, can be created or annihilated, and can be even
considered ripples of spacetime itself. This situation is quite different
from the layers of a day-to-day object, such as an onion or geological
strata, whose layers differ only in physical position, material structure,
or chemical composition.
The detailed identification of the 10 mandalas and eight prakriti
values with these levels of physics indicates that the Vedic seers were
describing not just surface properties of matter, such as air or water, but
deeper levels of nature that are even now being understood by modern
physics.
If the Rig Veda is indeed the blueprint of all of creation, then as the
Rig Veda is understood in greater detail, both through mathematical
analysis and through direct cognition on the level of individual consciousness, we may be better able to sort out the different fundamental
theories of physics. Integration of the knowledge of the Rig Veda into
physics should provide a complete, comprehensive understanding of the
origin, evolution, and structure of our universe, subjective and objective.
From Maharishi Vedic Science, the placement of the subjective
qualities of manas, budhi, and ahamkhara on a deeper level than the
objective prakriti elements indicates that consciousness underlies matter, and that through fully developed consciousness, the mind can possess complete control over matter. This hypothesis will be verified if,
340
as proficiency in the TM-Sidhi program grows, individuals develop
mastery over matter.
Two very important areas of physics that were not discussed in the
article are dark matter and dark energy. While dark matter is five times
more abundant than normal matter, it cannot be seen because it does
not interact with light. Dark matter is known only through its gravitational attractive effects.
Dark energy is an even more mysterious entity, with repulsive properties that have been postulated to explain the accelerating expansion
of the universe. Once the properties and structure of dark matter and
dark energy are better understood, we will be better able to explore correlates within the structure of the Rig Veda.
Acknowledgment
Thanks to Dr. Peter Freund for pointing out the unique mathematical
structure of the fifth mandala, and the correspondence between the
44 syllables of the first richa, the 44 padas of richas 2-12, and the 88
suktas of the entire fifth mandala. Information on the structure of all
the mandalas is available at Dr. Freund’s website www.mum.edu/vedic
reserve (Select the link to Rig Veda.)
Thanks to Dr. Robin Ticciati for explaining the mathematical structure
of the superstring. Thanks to Dick Swinehart for his editorial assistance
and to Rod Eason for his helping with the references. Special thanks
to Dr. John Hagelin, whose ideas and papers provided the foundation
for this work.
Notes
1. Founder of the world-wide Transcendental Meditation movement
and of Maharishi University of Management (See www.tm.org
or www.mum.edu)
2. Maharishi’s Absolute Theory of Government, pp 404-405
3. Unmanifest Home of Creative Intelligence. Videotaped lecture by
His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, May 14, 1976 (MUM
Tape Library.) Also see Mechanics of Perception, TM, and
Refinement of Perception: Ritam Bhara Pragya. Videotaped lec-
341
ture by His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, February 7, 1971
(MUM Tape Library)
4. Chandogya Upanishad, Chapter 2, Section 12.
5. Celebrating Perfection in Education, pp. 139-148
6. Nader T. Human Physiology: Expression of Veda and the Vedic Literature. MUM Press. 2001
8. Celebrating Perfection in Education, pp.167-173.
10. Celebrating Perfection in Education, pp.167-173
12. Maharishi’s Absolute Theory of Government, pp. 369, 401-411
13. Maharishi Speaks on the Ten-Fold Structure of Brahm. Videotaped lecture by His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Nov. 25,
2007. (MUM Tape Library.)
14. Maharishi’s Inaugural Address on Trade, Commerce, and Communication. Videotaped lecture by His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi, Mar. 1, 2006. (MUM Tape Library.)
15. Eight Swaras of the Unified Field Equation. Videotaped lecture by
Dr. John Hagelin and Dr. Bevan Morris, July 18, 2006. (MUM
tape Library.)
16. Vedic Literature Reading Curriculum. doctoral dissertation, Peter
Franklin Freund, pp. 36-37 Dissertation Information Services.
(2006)
18. Hagelin J. Is Consciousness the Unified Field?: Five Arguments to
Convince Your Mother. In Foundations of Physics and Consciousness
(course syllabus for Physics 110), lesson 12, MUM Press (2008)
19. Hagelin J. Is Consciousness the Unified Field? A Field Theorist’s
Perspective. Modern Science and Vedic Science, 1(1), pp. 28-87
20 Hagelin J. Restructuring Physics from its Foundation in the Light
of Maharishi Vedic Science. Modern Science and Vedic Science, 3(1),
pp. 2-72
22. Maharish’s Absolute Theory of Defence, pp. 158-162
342
23. Hagelin J. Grand Unification: Awakening the Superheavies. In
Foundations of Physics and Consciousness (course syllabus for Physics 110), lesson 8, MUM Press (2008)
25. Hagelin J. Superstring Theory: Scientific Discovery of the Unified
Field. In Foundations of Physics and Consciousness (course syllabus
for Physics 110), lesson 11, MUM Press (2008)
27. Research Notes and News. MIU Physicist Develops New Grand
Unified Theory. Modern Science and Vedic Science 1 (3), pp. 378-379
28. Burgess C & Ouevedo F. The Great Cosmic Roller-Coaster Ride.
Scientific American, November 2007.
29. Bojowald M. Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe’s Birth. Scientific American, October 2008.
343
344
q u a n t u m m i n d : a n e xpl o r a t i o n
Part III
B
Quantum Mind:
An Exploration
345
346
m o d e r n p h y s i c s a n d s u b t l e r e a lm s : n o t m u t u a ll y e x c l u s i v e
Modern Physics and Subtle Realms:
Not Mutually Exclusive
■
347
about the author
348
abstr act
One facet of the change in worldview ushered in by the quantum mechanical
revolution was DeBroglie’s discovery that all particles are actually wavelike
and that because of this, a plurality of particles can occupy the same region of
space, at the same time. This well-accepted and empirically validated principle is explored in the context of the quantum field theory of force field/particle coupling. It is then shown that subtle (nonphysical) realms could readily
exist without being in any way contradictory to, or inconsistent with, modern physics.
Keywords: interactions—coupling—subtle realms—four forces—other universes
T
here is a common misconception, held by many scientists and
nonscientists alike, that the laws of physics preclude the existence of nonphysical entities and any concomitant metaphysical realms. This viewpoint, as it turns out, is a vestige of pre-quantum
mechanical scientific thinking and in no way represents a constraint
imposed on reality by the postclassical physics of our modern age.
A general pre-twentieth century scientific adage (even an axiom)
held that no two objects could occupy the same place, at the same time.
It was therefore implicit that apparitions and similar entities having the
property of coexisting in time and space with physical structures such
as doors and walls could not possibly exist.
DeBroglie’s discovery of the wavelike nature of matter changed that
perspective dramatically. Today, physicists regularly deal with wave
functions of leptons, quarks, photons, and the like, which overlap and
share identical regions of space and time. Just as two waves rolling over
the ocean heading in opposite directions can pass through each other
unscathed, though occupying for a time the same area of the water surface, so too can two subatomic wave/particles pass through one another
unaltered, coexisting for a time in the same space. Trapped particles
can, in fact, share a common “trap” indefinitely.
If two such wave/particles jointly occupy a particular region of
spacetime and do not interact with each another, then neither changes
in any way. Often, however, they do interact, and such interaction can
change their energies, momenta, charge, and other properties. Interac-
349
tions are mediated by force fields between the particles, and these force
fields carry properties such as energy, momentum, and charge from one
particle to the other.
In quantum field theory these force fields, the carriers of the properties between particles, are actually propagating waves. Because waves
and particles are essentially one and the same, we commonly refer to the
force fields as particles, or more precisely, as virtual particles. They are
called virtual (in contrast to the real particles whose interactions they
mediate) in part because they are singularly evanescent. For example, a
first real particle such as an electron can emit a virtual particle such as
a photon, which subsequently is absorbed by a second real particle such
as a second electron. The two electrons change energy and momenta
(i.e., each recoils from the other), and we can measure those changes.
The photon, on the other hand, exists only very briefly, long enough
for it to carry the appropriate amounts of energy and momentum from
electron one to electron two. We can never measure the photon physically and so distinguish it from the real particles by calling it virtual.
According to our current understanding, all forces are mediated by
such virtual particles.
But particles are really waves, and these “wavicles” make up the entire
universe. The reason our universe isn’t simply an uninteresting collection of independent waves continually passing through one another
unimpaired and immutable is that the various waves are coupled to one
another via interactions (forces). The wavelike particles making up your
hand do not pass through an object such as a door because the electrons
(waves) in your hand and the electrons in the door interact; that is, they
continually exchange copious numbers of virtual photons that effectively push the door away when the hand “touches” it. Without this
interaction (the coupling of particles in the hand to other particles in
the door), the hand would simply pass directly through the door, never
feeling the sensation of touch and in fact never knowing the door was
there.
It turns out that there are four interactions, or forces, known to
modern physics. Two of these—the electromagnetic and gravitational
interactions—are familiar in our macroscopic world, and two—the
strong and weak forces—are predominantly subatomic. We presently
believe that a different type of virtual particle mediates each of these
350
four forces. The photon mediates the electromagnetic force; the graviton, the gravitational force; the gluon, the strong force; and intermediate vector bosons, the weak force.
It is important to recognize that we know a particle exists (actually
that anything at all exists) only because of the coupling (interactions)
between particles. For example, an electron interacts with an electron
detector by exchanging virtual photons with that detector. A detection
signal occurs only because the electron being detected is coupled via
the electromagnetic force to the electrons in the electronic circuitry
of the detector. Similarly, if we feel a door with our hands, or perceive
through any of our senses, it is only because the particles in our sense
organs are coupled to the particles transmitting particular properties
(information) from the object we perceive. If there is no coupling, there
is no perception.
A real-world exemplar of this principle is the neutrino, a particle that
has no electric charge and that therefore is not coupled to any charged
particle via the electromagnetic force. A human skin cell or a particle
detector that responds to virtual photons (i.e., is coupled to the electromagnetic force) could have many neutrinos passing through it but
would never register a thing. Similarly, neutrinos have no coupling with
the strong force. So a detector that might be sensitive to virtual gluons
would likewise be transparent to, and unable to detect, neutrinos.
The various particles in creation are coupled in different ways via
different combinations of the four forces. For example, the electron has
electromagnetic, gravitational, and weak coupling, but not strong coupling. Quarks are coupled to all four forces. Neutrinos, because they
are massless, or extremely close to massless, have gravitational coupling
that is far too small to measure, and hence they effectively possess only
weak coupling.
This singular characteristic of neutrinos makes them not only interesting but also particularly relevant to the theme of this article. Note
that the only way we can detect neutrinos is via the weak force. But the
weak force is so named because it is feeble. In fact, it is so extremely
feeble that more than 200 billion neutrinos have passed through your
thumbnail in the time it has taken to read this sentence, yet you felt
nothing. The weak force (the only way your nervous system could have
detected the neutrinos’ presence) is so slight that none of those neu-
351
trinos interacted with a single atom in your nail. In fact, the only way
neutrinos are actually detected in experiments is by using huge volumes
of matter over long periods of time. In typical experiments, a mere
handful of actual interactions is detected over many months.
This near imperceptibility of weakly interacting neutrinos makes
them almost ghostlike. They pass through matter virtually without
our being aware of their presence. More remarkably, another property
of the weak force may make certain neutrinos even more tenuous and
even less a part of what we consider our universe.
The weak force is restricted to particles physicists designate as having “left-handed chirality.” In oversimplified terms, one can think of
an electron, neutrino, or quark as spinning, typically with the spin
aligned in the direction of travel (velocity). Consider that the spin can
be thought of as either clockwise (right-handed) around that direction
or counterclockwise (left-handed). Peculiar as it may seem, only lefthanded neutrinos couple with the weak force. Right-handed ones are
immune, and hence transparent, to its effects. So only a left-handed
neutrino could interact via the weak force with another particle such as
a quark, electron, or other neutrino.
The key point is this: Right-handed electrons and quarks exist. We
know because they have been detected via the electromagnetic force.
But we cannot detect right-handed neutrinos in such a way because they
do not interact electromagnetically. Because we cannot detect righthanded neutrinos weakly, there is essentially no way to know if these
particles even exist. Yet there could be untold trillions of them passing
every minute through each of us and through every known detector. If
left-handed neutrinos are almost ghostlike, then right-handed neutrinos are fully so.
Consider then that conscious beings in our universe are aware of
each other, the rest of the universe, and at least some aspects of their
own selves only because of interactions between the particles/waves of
which physical objects are made. As noted, these interactions, as far as
we know, are limited to four.
Consider further the possible existence of a new family of diverse
particles, similar to right-handed neutrinos in that none of them interacts via any of the four forces dominating our reality. This new family could consist of a limited number of types, each of which fills our
352
known universe in immense numbers leading to significant densities.
Consider further that this family might have three or four or five different interactions of its own, coupling its members in various ways.
This family and its set of interactions could then behave in generally
similar fashion to our own family of particles and force fields, although
it would have unique types of interactions manifesting as a complexity and chemistry all its own. It might evolve, grow, and perhaps even
produce intelligent beings.
And it would never be detected by any of us—at least through our
physical senses. We would coexist in the same space and time, yet
because all quantum waves in that system would pass unperturbed
through, and without perturbation of, our system, we would live our
lives oblivious to this other independent cosmos.
If there is one such other family, why not many? In fact, why not a
great many? The universe certainly favors unimaginably large numbers.
If, as we suppose, there are an uncountable number of galaxies (including those beyond our horizon of visibility) and as many theorists propose, an uncountable number of other possible universes, then why not
an uncountable number of other independent particle families? In the
very place where you now sit, there may now also sit a plethora of other
sentient beings, some of whom might also be pondering the sensory
limitations of their particular version of quantum field theory.
In this context, the proposition that a heaven or hell coexists in space
with us might start to seem rather plausible. So might reports of close
UFO encounters in which alleged advanced civilizations seem capable
of manipulating and moving between physical and nonphysical realms.
The list readily expands to near-death tunnels, spirits, angels, auras,
astral planes, other “dimensions,” and various other concepts relegated
by many mainstream scientists to the arena of fantasy. When certain
individuals assert they perceive such things, perhaps the proper scientific response should be investigation, rather than the more common
practice of disparagement and dismissal. Something in these peoples’
physiologies may be somehow coupled, in presumably delicate fashion, to one or more otherworldly force fields. We know individual consciousness and its attendant physical body interact in ways we still do
not fully understand. Could that same consciousness not also interact,
353
in still less understood ways, with all but impalpable, but nonetheless
equally real, trans-physical bodies?
In concluding, we note that we certainly have not proven that subtle
realms actually exist. Yet we must bear in mind that in the long history
of mankind’s numerous metamorphoses in paradigm, the universe has
repeatedly surprised us by being far more extraordinary and expansive in every regard than we had previously imagined (or even, as some
have said, than we can imagine). Given such a history, it would seem
prudent to proceed carefully and without prejudice in matters of purported metaphysical nature and draw conclusions based on empiricism
alone. In particular, no proponent of materialism should ever denounce
as scientifically indefensible claims made by others regarding the possible existence of nonphysical realms. As we have seen, modern physics
imposes neither a limit on the probability for existence of such transcendental worlds, nor restrictions on their nature, total number, or
ultimate extent.
354
s u p e r s t r i n g m e c h a n i s m s f o r q u a n t u m n e u r o n a l b e h av i o r
Realistic Superstring Mechanisms
for Quantum Neuronal Behavior
(Abstract)
■
355
about the author
expert.
356
s u p e r s t r i n g m e c h a n i s m s f o r q u a n t u m n e u r o n a l b e h av i o r
abstr act
The abundance of “ hidden sector” matter in the world today is a nearly inescapable conclusion of realistic superstring theories. Hidden sector matter provides a natural mechanism for macroscopic quantum coherent phenomena in
biological systems, where characteristically high temperatures normally preclude such quantum behavior. String theory thus provides a plausible solution
to the central challenge in quantum-mind research, namely, “ how can the
quantum-mechanical mechanisms one would naturally associate with consciousness possibly be supported by the human brain?”
Many have speculated that aspects of conscious experience have their physical origin in quantum mechanical mechanisms. The most challenging associated question has been “How does the brain—a predominantly macroscopic
organ immersed in a high-temperature, high-entropy environment—support quantum-mechanical mechanisms? “Whereas intracellular quantum
mechanisms have been proposed, it is probably essential that a complete
quantum-mechanical understanding of consciousness will require quantum
correlations that are inter-cellular, i.e., collective correlations among multiple
neurons separated by macroscopic distances. Until now, fully viable quantum
mechanisms have been elusive. We propose a plausible explanation for stable,
large-scale quantum-mechanical coherence based on new physical mechanisms predicted by the superstring.
All realistic string models contain “ hidden sector” particles and forces, typically including a meson. Whereas it had been previously assumed that these
hidden sector particles interact only gravitationally with normal (“observable
sector”) fields, it now appears more likely that there is a weak electromagnetic coupling between the two worlds of matter. The hidden sector world is
spatially and temporally coincident with ours, but due to its weak coupling,
is only dimly observable through dedicated EM detectors currently under
development. Also due to its weak coupling, hidden sector matter does not
equilibrate thermally with ordinary matter, and thus the hidden sector ambient temperature is calculated to be a few degrees Kelvin—similar to the cosmic neutrino background. This has two important physical ramifications: 1)
Hidden sector matter, despite its weal coupling, clings eletrostatically to normal matter—especially to carbon-based biological matter. Its concentration
in the cellular interior is predicted to the high. 2) Due to its low ambient temperature, hidden sector particles are expected to exhibit macroscopic quantum
coherent effects, and provide a viable mechanism for short-circuiting synaptic
357
communication and for sustaining large-scale quantum correlation among
distant neurons.
In this talk, we present what is currently known about hidden sector matter and its potential relevance to quantum-machanical biological functioning, and suggest avenues of future empirical and theoretical research. We also
present published experimental evidence for long-range “field effects” of consciousness that provide empirical support for the aforementioned quantum
effects, and that help to discriminate among competing quantum-mechanical
models of consciousness.
358
a n i n t erv i e w w i t h joh n h agel i n
Hidden Sector Matter:
An Interview with John Hagelin
■
Cate Montana
359
abstr act
Virtually all superstring theories predict the presence of hidden sector matter,
which in many respects is similar to familiar matter, comprised of particles
and forces, although in other minor respects it may be different. In conventional understanding, hidden sector matter is hidden because it interacts with
normal matter only via its gravitational influence. But this early assumption
is usually false. Hidden sector matter may have, and often does have, a weak
electromagnetic influence on us—and even a weak electromagnetic influence
is billions of times more powerful than gravity. Hidden sector matter in this
case would be a very good candidate for a world of thought due to (1) its
detailed properties and (2) our need for a physical explanation for thought—
one that can connect the physical brain with the unified field of consciousness.
W
Introduction
ow is all we can say about this interview, which combines
information on the most recent developments in string
theory with far-flung, but deeply scientifically grounded
speculations into the nature of thought, the subtle human bodies, astral
travel and more.
In the last two issues of this magazine, we have peered into the
unseen realms, exploring the mysterious world of dark matter and
dark energy, “a completely transcendental, unmanifest form of energy
and matter” which can be equated to the biblical Void. Now, as a final
interview in the series, we will investigate something in the manifested
realms called hidden sector matter.
How hidden is hidden sector matter? Ah… pretty hidden. You have
to be well versed in string theory to have even heard about it. Fortunately, as we were sifting through the hundreds of pages of transcripts
we compiled for the new movie, we ran across a brief mention of hidden sector matter as a potential “thought universe” in one of Dr. John
Hagelin’s interviews. It peaked our interest enough to get back to him
to ask some more questions—and are we ever glad we did!
This interview is a little technical starting out. But hang in there. It
definitely goes to some interesting places.
360
Interview
WTB – Is hidden sector matter the same thing as dark matter? Is it
related to dark energy? Or is it entirely different?
Hagelin – They are three totally unrelated things.
WTB – So how does superstring theory open up the possibility of a
domain of thought, which I gather is called hidden sector matter?
Hagelin – Well, I must say from the start that this exploration of hidden sector matter being related to the world of thought is speculative
and is principally my work. Having said that, virtually all superstring
theories predict the presence of hidden sector matter—which in many
respects is similar to the familiar matter comprised of particles and
forces, and in other minor respects may be different. But what makes
hidden sector matter hidden, at least in the conventional understanding, is that it only interacts with observable sector matter, or normal
matter, via its gravitational influence.
If this were really the case, hidden sector matter would be almost
irrelevant to our world of ordinary matter, because gravitational interaction is ordinarily too weak to be of any interest. There are exceptions
to that statement, based on quantity: for example, if hidden sector matter aggregates into planets and stars, these could have a strong gravitational effect on us. Or if hidden sector matter clustered around the sun
because of the sun’s own gravitational pull, or clustered around galaxies
because of the galaxies’ own gravitational pull, that hidden sector matter would add to the gravity of the sun and of the galaxies.
So there are circumstances in which the interaction of ordinary matter with hidden sector matter through gravity might be of interest. But
apart from those cases, hidden sector matter really becomes of interest
when we recognize that the early assumption—namely, that it interacts
with us only gravitationally—is usually false. In addition to its gravitational interaction, hidden sector matter may have, and often does
have, a weak electromagnetic influence on us. And even a weak electromagnetic influence, perhaps a thousand times weaker than the normal
electromagnetic influence, is still billions of times more powerful than
gravity. In the presence of electromagnetic interactions between hidden
361
sector matter and normal matter, hidden sector matter becomes much
more intriguing.
WTB - Why did you call it the domain of thought? Or refer to it as the
domain of thought potentially?
Hagelin - Hidden sector matter provides a very good candidate for a
world of thought due to 1) its detailed properties, a major topic we can
return to, and 2) our need for a physical explanation for thought, one
that can connect the physical brain with the unified field of consciousness. And the unified field of consciousness exists at the superunified
scale of 10-33, far beneath the nuclear dimension.
WTB - You’re referring to the Planck scale?
Hagelin - Yes. And if the unified field, at the Planck scale, is the
domain of consciousness—and there’s mounting research to suggest
that it is the ultimate seat of consciousness —we need something to
connect consciousness to our physical brain and physical neurons. We
need to provide a link between a very macroscopic organ—the brain,
and even its neurons and the DNA within the neurons—and the
microscopic Planck scale.
WTB – Are you referring to Roger Penrose’s work with Stuart Hameroff?
Hagelin - There is a link, yes because Roger Penrose was among the
first to suggest that the phenomenon we call consciousness may ultimately be a Planck scale phenomenon. He’s been working on some
mechanisms to help make that plausible. I don’t know that he’s aware of
superstring theory and hidden sector matter; he might get quite excited
about it. Hidden sector matter provides, in many ways, a link between
consciousness and the physical brain, and again this idea will require
some discussion. The properties of hidden sector matter make it a very
natural link between the physics of the very small, the domain of consciousness, and the macroscopic physics of the brain.
362
Such a link is essential because consciousness is intimately involved
with sensory perception, our organs of action, and the activity of the
human brain. And yet consciousness fundamentally isn’t created by the
brain. It may be reflected by the brain, modulated by the brain, but not
created by the brain—not according to my understanding of consciousness, and not according to the direct experience of what consciousness
is, as described throughout the ages and especially now in this generation with the renaissance of meditation. The abundance of research
on meditation, on the experience of consciousness, suggests that it is
fundamental in creation and has its ultimate source in this unified field
of intelligence at the basis of mind and matter. That’s the direct experience.
A growing body of evidence strongly supports that fundamental role
of consciousness in the physical universe. Now that we understand consciousness as the unified field, we have to understand mind. We have to
understand thought, which is the link between pure abstract consciousness and the physical brain.
Hidden sector matter has marvelous properties that lend themselves
to providing such a link between the very small domain of consciousness and the more macroscopic domain of the brain. One key property
to achieve this link is called scale invariance. Scale invariance basically
means that size doesn’t matter. That’s not true of ordinary physics, and
it’s not true of massive particles in general.
Anything made of normal matter is not scale invariant. You can take
us human beings and blow us up to 10 times our height, 10 times our
width and 10 times our depth, and you might think, “How would we
ever know it happened?” Provided we expanded the trees and our house
and our beds, how could we ever know we were 10 times larger? Well,
we would know. The bottom line is we would crush ourselves under
our own weight because our weight grows as the cube of our length,
but the strength of our bones only grows as the square of the length of
the bone and width of the bone. So things don’t scale that way. Human
beings have their characteristic size. We couldn’t be much larger, and
we couldn’t be much smaller—we just wouldn’t work. The same is true
for insects. They have a characteristic size, and you can’t just make a
giant insect in our macroscopic world like you could in a horror movie
in the 1950s and expect the poor bug to survive.
363
So things have a natural size or scale in our world of massive particles.
But in the hidden sector world, that’s not the case. Hidden sector physics, mechanisms and mechanics are all scale invariant—which means
the size of things just is irrelevant. So you could have a mechanism or
phenomenon in the hidden sector that interacts with the brain, and is
of brain size or neuron size. You could have an interaction between that
hidden sector matter and brain matter. That same mechanism could literally, and indeed it would, shrink itself to nearly point size. That same
mechanism could occur at point size, as opposed to a more macroscopic
size, and provide this sort of scale-invariant bridge between large-scale
physics in the brain and the microscopic physics of the Planck scale.
Hidden sector matter can provide a natural link between the large and
the small by transcending scale completely. This description is a little
technical, but it makes an important point about hidden sector matter:
it helps explain why size doesn’t matter.
And the other point is this: as meditators and others know who have
experienced it or even experience it regularly, we have a special subtle
physiology. Sometimes it is called a mental body, sometimes a subtle
body, sometimes an astral body. But we do have a subtler physical vehicle attached to us that can move independently of the body under certain circumstances. And that vehicle holds our consciousness. It’s like
a vessel of consciousness—a vessel or vehicle of thought. And you can
travel in it. You can learn to develop this ability of leaving behind your
physical body and moving into your subtle body. I don’t recommend
doing this; it’s not a particular skill that’s worth culturing, and it does
even have its own slight risks. It’s something that typically happens
spontaneously under certain circumstances. But it is a widespread experience, and certainly an experience of my own as well. And that’s why I
can talk with empirical confidence based on experience, or experiment,
that there is a body subtler than what we call the physical body that
is intimately associated with what we call thought, or mind. And the
moment you have that experience, especially if you’re a physicist or an
engineer, you’ve got to ask yourself, “What is this made of?”
You can quickly rule out the conventional possibilities. Is it made of
light? No. That would be a natural first guess because that vehicle is, in
a sense, luminous and translucent. But light doesn’t hold together. You
can’t have a sticky ball of light; light just flies off in every direction. It
364
doesn’t have the ability to bind itself together into what’s called a soliton, or lump, or vehicle of any kind. So that subtle body can’t be made
of light—and certainly not gravity, and certainly not the strong or weak
nuclear force, because those are very, very short-range forces. And you
quickly run out of possibilities and realize that we need something new.
And something new: that’s pretty complicated. It’s probably not just
one type of particle or one type of force, but a bound state of forces
and particles… just like atoms are bound states of photons of light and
electrons and protons and neutrons and particles.
So a relatively elementary examination of the basic features of this
subtle body, or thought body, reveals that it is made of unconventional
matter. And at that point, physics steps in and limits the possibilities to
one. That possibility is hidden sector matter—because it can’t be anything else. When it comes to observable sector matter, the world of
forces and particles that comprise observable matter, we know what
these are. And we know there are no more.
Fundamental to this explanation of hidden sector matter being
related to thought, or perhaps even being the substance of our thought
bodies, is the need for that thought body to interface and be interactive
somehow with our physical brain. How does that happen? How do you
enhance that connection, or even exploit that connection to develop
rare abilities?
Well, hidden sector matter is electrically charged, although weakly
so. Let’s call it fractionally electrically charged—it doesn’t have the
electric charge of an electron or proton, but something about a thousandth of that. So hidden sector matter will cling loosely, electrostatically, to normal matter, just as a piece of plastic charged up by static
electricity will cling to your hand or sweater.
We eat foods that are filled with organic matter. This organic matter
itself will probably have clinging to it small amounts of hidden sector
matter. And the body could accumulate hidden sector matter. It might
even concentrate hidden sector matter in different organs within the
brain. This is speculative, but I’m suggesting, possibly, that what we
call subcortical structures or basal ganglia, structures like the pituitary
gland, hypothalamus, etc., could easily concentrate quantities of hidden sector matter that could cling to our DNA, or perhaps even tothe
neural synapses.
365
Once we have hidden sector matter caked onto, or incorporated into,
or concentrated in our pituitary gland, for example, that hidden sector
matter will peer directly into the hidden sector world. Being made of
hidden sector matter, which contains hidden sector charges analogous
to the electric charge, it will interact electromagnetically. But it won’t
interact with the normal photon of our observable world—particles,
light, the force of electromagnetism—but with a hidden sector photon,
which is an analogous force in the hidden sector world which we know
is there and must be there.
It’s another type of light. And it is essentially exactly like our light,
but not relevant to our world. It is a different type of light that is relevant to this world of thought, relevant to the hidden sector world. And
if we have hidden sector matter caked onto our brains somewhere, then
again, hidden sector matter can peer directly into the hidden sector
world through the hidden sector photon, which can see anything in the
hidden sector world as easily as our physical eyes can see things in our
world. So provided our nervous system concentrates and accumulates
hidden sector matter, then our nervous system, through that hidden
sector matter, has a window into this world of thought.
WTB - So in essence, we would be resonating at its frequency? Because
we have it imbued in our own system at that point?
Hagelin – Yes, that’s well said. Technically, the frequencies may be the
same as the frequencies in our world. But it’s not so much the frequency
of the photon, it’s the identity of the photon—what kind of photon. A
photon that sees normal electric charge? Or the hidden sector type of
photon that sees only hidden sector charges?
So, what you said is correct, but “frequency” may not be exactly the
right word. If our hidden sector bodies were simply attached to our
physical bodies through an electrostatic link, you could easily break the
link, just as you can peel off a piece of the static-y plastic from your fingers. And then it could move independently, and it could certainly reattach. You could essentially take your mind with you and bring it back.
These ideas are very much in development, and are consistent with
what we know about physics and about the world of thought. And one of
the great motivators for this research is the process of elimination. We
366
lack an alternative understanding of what thought is, fundamentally;
how to connect the underlying world of consciousness with the Planck
scale, and with the physical world of the brain and cognitive processes;
what this universally experienced thought body is made of; and how we
could have a vessel that carries our subjectivity or consciousness with it
that can move separately from the physical body—an experience that
has been reported in every region and in every culture throughout the
world. But if you look into these sorts of experiences, you cannot ignore
them. They force a rethinking of what thought is. You can’t sweep these
anomalies under the rug forever, although there is a natural tendency to
try to do that. And if you want to undertake this project—if you want
to understand what thought is in the context of what we feel we deeply
understand to be the laws of physics, including the latest developments
in superunification based on the superstring—you’re really forced in the
direction of hidden sector matter.
One reason the progress has been so slow in this field is that there are
really so few string theorists—that is, people who are actually familiar
with what’s happened in physics, particularly in the last decade—and
people who are interested in phenomena such as consciousness. The
overlap of those two communities—let’s call it the consciousness community and the physical community—is so small. By physical community I mean the subset of scientists working in the cutting-edge areas of
understanding of how the universe fundamentally functions and what
it’s made of. That overlap is so small that progress in this field has certainly been hampered. You maybe have a few very good people like
Bill Tiller who are among this set. Unfortunately, very few have a current understanding of the universe as it’s known today. Most of what
we know about the universe today has really been learned in the past
decade. So there are not many collaborators and not much progress in
this area now.
This article is an edited version of “An Interview with John Hagelin”
by Cate Montana (2005). The Bleeping Herald. What the Bleep Do We
Know!? www.whatthebleep.com/herald8/articles.shtml
367
368
m a k i n g r o o m f o r m e n ta l s pa c e
Making Room for Mental Space
■
369
about the author
370
abstr act
According to the consensus cosmological theory of the inflationary big bang,
the universe originated about 14 billion years ago with no initial conditions,
inherent nature, order, or purpose—from literally nothing. Instantaneously
it was randomly fluctuating quantized gravity and Higgs fields that through
spontaneous symmetry breaking formed into four fundamental particleforces. The forces congealed into atomic structures, elements, stars, planets,
organic molecules, living cellular organisms, and eventually humans with
complex enough nervous systems to generate higher-order conscious mind
with apparent causal control of its lower-order parts. How the closed physical causal chain unlinked and inserted a causally efficacious conscious mind at
some stage of neural complexity is inexplicable; there is no room for it in the
physicalist view—it must be epiphenomenal and a fundamental misperception. A coherent alternative is developing in quantum and quantum gravity
theories of a proposed information space or nonlocal mental space underneath
the physical. The progression of theories is overviewed with respect to the
nature of space, and are shown to be increasingly consistent with holistic
interpretations of the ancient Vedic tradition that make room for a causally
efficacious conscious mind.
Key words: nonlocality, quantum gravity, nonconventional space, mental space, unified field
M
Introduction
odern science views the universe as structured in levels
from tangible macroscopic to microscopic and more abstract
atomic, nuclear, subnuclear, and quantum levels. Increasing unification has been uncovered at more fundamental levels. The
universe is now theorized to be fluctuations of four quantized particleforce fields (electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear, gravitational).
The “Standard model” in physics unifies them into three (electroweak,
strong nuclear, gravitational), and the “Grand Unification model” into
two (strong-electroweak and gravitational).
However, the gravitational field has resisted all attempts to be
expressed within the framework of quantum mechanics and to connect
it to the other three fields. Mathematical models attempting to integrate quantum theory and relativity theory concern quantum gravity,
generally considered a key step toward a coherent theory of one single
371
field as the source of everything—unified field theory. A viable unified
field theory will be a monumental achievement, but remains a most
daunting challenge. This is due in significant part to different views of
space in the theories, the focus of this article.
A progression of views of space from Newtonian, relativistic, quantum, quantum gravity, and cosmological to unified field theories is outlined in the search for room to place a causally efficacious conscious
mind. These views point to an emerging holism or unified framework
with direct relevance to the mind-body problem that is a core issue in
quantum theories, as well as in contemporary cosmological theories.
The progression can be viewed as toward the holistic view in the ancient
Vedic tradition of knowledge that can be interpreted as describing three
domains of nature: the infinite eternal unified field, the subtle relative
nonlocal field generally associated with nonmaterial information space
and mental space, and the gross relative local field of particulate matter.
Classical Newtonian space and time
In classical Newtonian physics, space and time constitute an absolute, infinite eternal background in which physical objects interact. In
this classical view, eventually two forces were identified to account for
change in this nonchanging background—gravity and electromagnetism. All change takes place in space and time; thus it is characterized
as background dependent. Also, all observers have the same perspective
of motion. There is an instantaneous “now” everywhere that is the same
for all observers, and measurement of distance and time is not affected
by an observer’s perspective, characterized as observer independent. This
view fits ordinary everyday experience and has been incredibly successful in accounting for macroscopic time and distance scales. But as
research advanced into more extreme scales, it could not account for
the findings.
To add sociocultural relevance to the abstract theories of space discussed in this paper, the Newtonian classical view was associated with
popular beliefs in an absolute basis of nature, providing an ethical and
moral foundation for daily life. When different views emerged in relativity and quantum theories, they were misinterpreted in popular social
thought, contributing to deconstruction of ethical and moral founda-
372
tions (Boyer, 2008). The sociocultural impact of theories of space and
time in physics will be noted briefly as we proceed in this article.
Einstein locality and relativistic spacetime
Whereas Newtonian physics related to ordinary macroscopic time and
distance scales, Einstein’s general theory of relativity focused more on
ultramacroscopic cosmology such as the motions of planets and galaxies and overall shape of the universe. The theory is a quite different view
in which space and time are background independent and observer dependent—opposite of the Newtonian view for these characteristics. In relativistic theory space and time are relative, cannot be taken separately,
and are integrated into one field of spacetime. Generally a smooth and
continuous four-dimensional geometry, it can curve, twist, and fold
back onto itself; extreme curvature can produce black holes, in which
nothing escapes the gravitational pull of immense mass densities. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, not a separate force that functions in
it. In this theory there is nothing outside of the spacetime gravitational
field. Space and time do not constitute a nonchanging substrate in
which objects interact. Spacetime is background independent; there is
no substrate of any kind. Spacetime can expand or shrink, but questions of what exists outside of it—such as what it expands into or what
remains where it shrinks from—are generally considered meaningless
because there is no background.
Also the theory is observer dependent in the sense that the measurement of spacetime differs across observers in different frames of motion
relative to each other. The observer is assumed to be in spacetime and
subject to its nature. When observers have practically the same frames
of motion, their measurements will be practically the same, and the
results also will match calculations in the Newtonian view. But significant differences show up if relative motion were to become extremely
different (approaching light-speed). For example, if you left your friends
and took off in a spaceship to a nearby star traveling almost at lightspeed, when you returned to Earth you would find that time slowed
down for you from their perspective and sped up for them from your
perspective. If your friends were your age when you left, they actually
would be older than you when you returned.
373
In Einstein’s theory of relativity all motion is limited to light-speed:
objects with mass cannot travel faster, and mass-less objects “travel”
at light-speed. Space and time are not absolute, but their combination as the spacetime interval is absolute. Also light-speed does not
change with different observer perspectives. This is sometimes called
Einstein locality or Einstein causality, the view that all causal relations
are localized within light-speed. The speed of light and the perspective
of an observer are core to the concept of the light cone. Because nothing can travel faster, there is no possibility of one object or event causally influencing another outside of the range of light-speed. The past
light cone includes everything that could have influenced the particular
observer from the past, and the future light cone expands at light-speed
the range of potential influence into the observer’s future. In general
relativity theory, the notion that something exists “now” outside of the
light cone for a particular observer is undefined and cannot be known.
For example it takes light photons about eight minutes to travel from
the Sun to the Earth, so the sunlight we “see” at this moment was emitted about eight minutes ago from the Sun. But we cannot know for sure
whether the Sun is emitting light this very moment, because what may
be happening on the Sun now, if it is still there now, is outside our light
cone and cannot be known right now. In relativistic spacetime theory,
the concept of there right now is undefined.
In the Newtonian view, space was sometimes conceptualized as an
intangible substance subtler than any object in it, associated with the
ancient concept of ether. In some ways, relativistic spacetime sounds
even more like a subtle ethereal substance or medium. However, Einstein made strong arguments against this notion. It also was found that
light did not change its speed relative to an observer moving in either
the same or opposite direction in empty space, not expected if light
existed in ether. The notion of ether was rejected, but later was revived
due in part to quantum theory, as noted by physicist Brain Greene
(2004, p. 76):
Indeed, since 1905 when Einstein did away with the luminiferous
aether, the idea that space is filled with invisible substances has waged
a vigorous comeback. . . . . [K]ey developments in modern physics have
reinstituted various forms of an aetherlike entity, none of which set an
absolute standard for motion like the original luminiferous aether, but
374
all of which thoroughly challenge the naïve conception of what it means
for spacetime to be empty.
Einstein apparently also accepted the notion of ether, but not in the
way it was interpreted in classical Western thought, exemplified in the
following quote:
Space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only
would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for
standards of space and time…nor therefore spacetime intervals in the
physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
the qualities of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be
tracked through time… (Isaacson, 2007, p. 318).
Again with respect to sociocultural influences, relativity theory was
popularly misinterpreted as supporting views that there is no absolute
objective or subjective grounds for ethical and moral behavior; everything is relative. The point that this was inconsistent with Einstein’s
own beliefs is made in the following excerpt from a new biography of
Einstein by Walter Isaacson (2007, pp. 278-280):
Indirectly driven by popular misunderstanding rather than a fealty to
Einstein’s thinking, relativity became associated with a new relativism
in morality and art and politics. . . . In both science and moral philosophy, Einstein was driven by a quest for certainty and deterministic laws.
If his theory of relativity produced ripples that unsettled the realms of
morality and culture, this was caused not by what Einstein believed but
by how he was popularly interpreted. . . . Whatever the causes of the
new relativism and modernism, the untethering of the world from its
classical mooring would soon produce some unnerving reverberations
and reactions.
With the tremendous accomplishments of integrating the concept of
gravity into the concept of spacetime, and also establishing the equivalence of energy and mass (E=mc2), Einstein was encouraged to pursue
unification of all matter and energy with spacetime. He spent much
of his later life on unified field theory, but was unable to complete it—
challenged further by quantum theory that he helped develop. He had
great concern for the assertion among prominent orthodox quantum
theorists such as Neils Bohr that it is a complete theory.
375
Space and time in quantum theory
Whereas the general theory of relativity focused more on ultramacroscopic scales, quantum theory focused more on ultramicroscopic scales.
It developed in the framework of the classical Newtonian view of space;
however, important additions emerged in the search for the fundamental constituent of matter that led to quantum theory. For historical context, the objective approach in modern science has prominently applied
a reductive strategy of probing smaller and smaller time and distance
scales, and higher energy and temperature. In earlier physical theories,
microscopic atoms were the “uncuttable constituents” of nature. Eventually atoms were theorized to be made of much tinier subatomic particles surrounded by comparatively vast areas of empty space—about
99.999999999999% of the space within atoms was described as empty.
It was later theorized that the comparatively vast areas of empty space
between sub-atomic particles are suffused with invisible energy or force
fields in space. Further research and theory proposed that subatomic
particles are made of even more elementary particles (e.g., gluons,
quarks), and subsequently to be fluctuations of more abstract quantum
fields of potential energy.
The concept of a quantum embodies the discreteness of particle-like
packets of energy and also the wave nature of unbounded potential
energy fields. The mathematical properties of quantum wave functions
are basically the same as ordinary waves such as sound or ocean waves.
But a key issue is the difference between mental concepts and physical
reality. The quantum wave function is a mathematical amplitude distribution, conceptualized as waves of possibility that are mental concepts in mathematical, conceptual, or imaginary space rather than real
waves like sound or ocean waves. Infinite quantum wave potentia are
conceptualized to superpose on each other as abstract tendencies to
exist, proxy waves, or imaginary clouds or packets of potential energy.
The abstract waves are quantized in the sense that they fluctuate only at
certain intervals as mathematical wave packets of potential energy that
somehow result in real particles and objects in ordinary space and time
when measured. The pattern of fluctuation of the quantum field determines its role as either a particle or a force. Stable patterns of quantum
potential are theorized to relate to the particle quality, and transient or
“virtual” patterns to the force quality. The abstract field also can be in a
376
least excited ground state, or vacuum state. This is not zero energy with
no fluctuations, but rather “zero point energy”—quantum vacuum fluctuations—hypothesized to be an inherent dynamic quality of quantum
field potentia.
The most fundamental of the four quantum fields is the gravitational
field, and spacetime also is hypothesized to be quantized. The inherently dynamic quality of the potential quantized gravitational field
relates to the concept of spacetime foam, sometimes likened to a soupy
froth of virtual particles randomly created and destroyed at an incredible rate at the most basic scale of space and time. Classical Newtonian
and relativistic theories view space as a continuum (analogue); but in
quantum theory it is a bit more like a discontinuum (digital). This can
be likened to a photo in which objects look continuous, but when magnified can be seen as tiny dots. In quantum theory the quantum is the
fundamental unit and smallest possible size of ordinary space and time,
the Planck scale (10-33 cm, 10-43 sec), at which the notion of smaller scales
is frequently held to be meaningless. Energy states of the quantized
packets of potential energy are multiples of the Planck scale.
Because of the unbounded quality of the potential quantum wave
as a mathematical amplitude distribution in Hilbert space, sometimes
identified as infinite possibility space, there is at least some probability,
even if extremely low most everywhere, of a physical object appearing almost anywhere in ordinary space and time when it is measured.
This is sometimes interpreted to mean that a physical object on one
side of a wall possibly could appear on the other side, without “traveling” through the wall. This phenomenon—quantum mechanical
tunneling—is described as a common process at very short distances,
such as in nuclear radioactive decay. On a macroscopic level it has been
described as decomposing at one location and recomposing elsewhere.
This is the basis for speculations about teleportation, likened to slipping
into the spacetime foam and reappearing in another part of the universe. This theoretical possibility contrasts with Einstein locality and
causality which view all motion as limited by light-speed and the light
cone. The notion of locations that could be instantaneously “ported”
to even outside the light cone implies a “now” outside the light cone,
which in relativity theory is undefined—one of the challenges in reconciling relativity and quantum theories.
377
Mathematical space vs. physical space
Quantum theory itself contains fundamental dilemmas about space
and time. A core notion in orthodox quantum theory is that a conscious
observer is essential for the transition from indeterminate quantum
possibilities to classical deterministic objects observable in ordinary
space and time. The mathematical model of quantum possibilities—
the Schrodinger equation or quantum wave function—needs to get
from abstract random, unbounded mathematical possibility space to
the discreteness of sensory actualities as causally interacting physical
objects in ordinary space and time. According to orthodox quantum
theory this occurs via instantaneous collapse of the quantum wave function
into classical discreteness upon observation by a conscious observer.
However, the theory neither explains how and where the interaction
of the observed with the conscious observer actually occurs, nor what
a conscious observer is. Quantum theory importantly places subjective
conscious mind as crucial even to objective physical reality. But also it
tacitly assumes that conscious mind is in the classical discrete world
and thus inaccessible to be examined and modeled quantum mechanically. In quantum theory there is no way to formulate a quantum wave
function that includes the observer.
For example, a researcher measures the amplitude of an acoustic signal using a dB meter, which indicates 60 dB. It might be said that the
observation occurred when the sound waves contacted the dB sensor,
or the indicator pointed to 60, or photons reflected off the indicator into
the researcher’s eye, or the retina was activated, or the optic nerve was
activated, or the visual cortex was activated, or subcortical and frontal cortical neural groups were activated, or neural microtubules were
activated, and so on. All of these events are describable theoretically
in terms of quantum wave functions. No matter how far this chain
theoretically is traced, until a conscious observer experiences the object
there is no observation, no observer, and no relationship between the
observed and observer. The observer, interacting with the object, in
some sense creates what is observed. As fundamental time and distance
scales are probed, it is increasingly apparent that objectivity is not independent of subjectivity. The theory that wave function collapse requires
a conscious observer implies that the basic scientific premise of the
independence of observer and observed, applied so successfully in clas-
378
sical physics, is an inadequate description in quantum theory. It implies
that conscious mind has power to collapse the quantum wave function
that no other object has, which makes subjectivity a core component.
As Greene (2004, p. 11) explains:
[Q ]uantum mechanics describes a reality in which things sometimes
hover in a haze of being partly one way and partly another. Things
become definite only when a suitable observation forces them to relinquish quantum possibilities and settle on a specific outcome. The outcome that’s realized, though, cannot be predicted—we can predict only
the odds that things will turn out one way or another.
The probabilistic quantum model and the deterministic classical
model are not easily reconciled; but neither adequately account for the
world. This entails a major quandary: the two fundamental and most
successful theories in modern science—quantum theory and relativity
theory—do not bridge the gap between observed and observer, objectivity and subjectivity. But the most fundamental theory emerging in
modern science—unified field theory—logically necessitates that the
gap be bridged completely if nature is unified. These and related issues
have deeply challenged even the most eminent scientists. Einstein, for
one, argued strongly that quantum theory is incomplete, against the
positions of many of his colleagues. He believed that there must be
unknown information or hidden variables that eventually will allow an
objective deterministic account of nature. As Einstein asserted:
The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is
the basis of all natural science. (Herbert, 1985, p. 201)
To the notion of quantum wave function collapse upon observation,
Einstein said:
I cannot imagine that a mouse could drastically change the universe by
merely looking at it. (Herbert, 1985, p. 199-201)
Collapse of the quantum wave function and the Schrödinger’s cat
paradox
Some of these core dilemmas are illustrated in the well-known thought
experiment Schrödinger’s cat paradox. A cat is in a box equipped with a
Geiger counter and a piece of radioactive material with 50% chance of
one of its atoms decaying within an hour. If the decay is recorded by
379
the Geiger counter, it will trigger release of a lethal gas. If there is no
decay, presumably the cat will still be alive. From the perspective of an
observer who cannot look in the box, the cat is both alive and not alive
at some probability. From the deterministic classical view, the cat is not
in a smeared out state covering both possibilities; but there is no way
for the observer to know what state the cat is in until an observation
is made. According to the theory, the state of the cat is indeterminate
until a conscious observation instantaneously collapses the wave function. Thus the cat is accurately described as alive and not at some probability, until observed.
Considering the reasonable assumption that the cat is conscious,
however, wouldn’t the cat be aware of its own classical state of being
alive, and thus the wave function would have collapsed even when the
outside observer had not opened the box to observe it? This brings up
the issue of what happens when the cat loses consciousness (such as by
falling asleep or expiring due to the lethal gas according to common
meanings of consciousness) and thus is no longer able to collapse the
wave function, but the observer has not yet opened the box. Would the
cat return to a probabilistic quantum state of being alive and not until
the observer opened the box, which again would collapse the quantum
wave function into a discrete state?
Of course this is a thought experiment. The issue is that in quantum theory all observations are from an outside perspective, and the
discrete state of the world cannot be known apart from an observation.
In orthodox quantum theory there is no collapse without a conscious
observer. It seems useful to recognize further, however, that without
a conscious observer there would be no sense of radioactive material,
Geiger counter, box, laboratory, or way to ask either a classical or quantum question. It would seem that according to the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory nothing discrete can happen without conscious
observers (apparently not even evolution of a physical brain that supposedly generates conscious mind). How can any quantum wave function collapse occur in order to get a classical conscious observer when
the classical observer is first required for the collapse?
More recently the probabilistic model associated with the quantum
wave function is given the alternative explanation that if we were to
take 32 boxes with a cat in each one and wait for five half-lives of the
380
radioactive material, upon opening the boxes we would find on the
average only one live cat. Even though the theory is that the wave function collapses upon observation, it is now sometimes explained that
the observations would show on the average that one cat survived. In
this view, what really happened inside the boxes when they could not
be observed is a “classical” question that is not appropriate because the
answer to it cannot be known. Importantly, this explanation tacitly
separates wave function collapse from an observation by a conscious
observer, and also from the discrete state of the cat. It points toward
recent quantum theory interpretations that offer a potential resolution
of the paradox.
In the early orthodox interpretation the quantum wave function
was not thought of as physical or existing objectively in the world; it
was only an abstract mental concept in mathematical possibility space.
The discrete objective world was real, and quantum possibilities were
only mathematical concepts. As Bohr asserted, “[T]here is no quantum
world… [T]here is only an abstract quantum description” (Herbert,
1985, p. 22). But at the same time, the conscious mind was the only
thing with the power to get from mathematical possibility space of
the quantum wave function to the objective classical world of discrete
objects in ordinary space and time. Through quantum theory there has
been important recognition of the role of conscious mind in nature.
But how the mind works, where it exists, and what the world is like or
even whether it exists in-between observations have not been addressed
in the theory.
Again with respect to sociocultural influences, in a similar manner
that relativity theory was misinterpreted in terms of cultural relativism,
quantum theory was misinterpreted in terms of existential views associated with fundamental randomness and the meaninglessness of life.
These views were espoused especially in intellectual, literary, and artistic communities, associated with devaluation of human existence and
even nihilism. They have contributed to psychological angst, lack of
fundamental grounding in daily life, erosion of traditional values, and
a deep tear in the psychosocial fabric of modern and post-modern life
fueling reactionary hedonism and overt hostility. However, views are
emerging from recent advances toward unified field theory with poten-
381
tial to change societal trends to a more hopeful, positive understanding
of nature. As physicist Henry Stapp (2007, p. 142) recently noted:
Science in the first quarter of the twentieth century had not only eliminated materialism as a possible foundation for objective truth, but
seemed to have discredited the very idea of objective truth in science.
But if the community of scientists has renounced the idea of objective
truth in favor of the pragmatic idea that “what is true for us is what
works for us,” then every group becomes licensed to do the same, and
the hope evaporates that science might provide objective criteria for
resolving contentious social issues. . . . This philosophical shift has had
profound social and intellectual ramifications. But the physicists who
initiated this mischief were generally too interested in practical developments in their own field to get involved in these philosophical issues.
Thus they failed to broadcast an important fact: already by mid-century,
a further development in physics had occurred that provides an effective
antidote to both the “materialism’”of the modern era, and the ‘relativism’ and “social constructionism” of the post-modern period.
Interpretations beyond orthodox quantum theory present different
views of the interaction of objectivity and subjectivity, as well as where
conscious mind fits, which entail new views of space and time. One
progressive interpretation is that quantum wave collapse is an objective
reduction not dependent on subjective observation; and others eliminate entirely the notion of instantaneous collapse of the quantum wave
function upon observation. These interpretations imply that quantum waves are not just a mathematical model of nature (the quantum
wave function), but relate to a deeper ontological reality. This has major
implications for views of space and time. For the first time in modern
science, theories are moving toward making room for a logically consistent causally efficacious conscious mind.
Exemplified using again the Schrödinger’s cat paradox, ontological
distinctions can be made between levels of nature associated with the
classical discrete state of the cat and the mathematical concept of the
quantum wave function in the observer’s mind. This is anticipated in a
quote by physicist Christopher Fuchs:
When a quantum state collapses, it’s not because anything is happening physically, it’s simply because this little piece of the world called a
person has come across some knowledge, and he updates his knowl-
382
edge… So the quantum state that’s being changed is just the person’s
knowledge of the world, it’s not something existent in the world in and
of itself. (Folger, 2001, p. 42)
This quote can be interpreted as consistent with the view that the
“collapse of the wave function” refers to a change in knowledge state
in the mind of the observer when an observation is made—with little
if any influence on the cat. In this interpretation the cat is in a real,
classical state composed of discrete particles whether observed or not;
when observed, the observer’s knowledge changes from probabilistic
to definite, but the cat does not instantaneously change from a probabilistic imaginary cloud or mathematical probability to a real, discrete
state of being in which it is either alive or not. This interpretation suggests that the discrete, real, classical level is underlain by real quantum
waves at a deeper subphenomenal level. The quantum wave function
can be viewed as a mathematical concept in the mind, different from
the ontologically real particle and real wave levels of nature. Not recognizing these levels has led to the measurement problem in quantum
theory. Orthodox interpretations of instantaneous wave function collapse, fundamental randomness, and the meaninglessness of space and
time beyond the Planck scale contributed to a psychological ‘inviolable
wall.’ In the orthodox view quantum theory is complete and no levels
underlie the physical. But recent interpretations are going under the
“inviolable wall” to theorized real levels of space that are more fundamental than the physical.
Interpretations progressing beyond orthodox quantum theory
The continuous spontaneous localization interpretation of quantum theory
describes the collapse of the quantum wave not clouded by the vagaries
of subjective measurement. The collapse is theorized to be a real, objective process occurring spontaneously as objects move through time.
The quantum wave evolves deterministically, but contains a probabilistic stochastic perturbation insignificant in very small systems. When
the small stochastic perturbations add together across large systems or
objects, it becomes significant enough to collapse the wave function
into discrete, localized position and other dynamic attributes typical of
ordinary macroscopic objects—absent a subjective observer. If quantum “objects” spontaneously turn into real physical objects in ordinary
383
space and time, as in this interpretation, clearly they are not just imaginary mathematical concepts in possibility space. It implies that the
uncollapsed quantum wave state and the collapsed particle state are
both ontologically real levels of nature.
A more advanced variant further suggestive of the ontological reality of the quantum wave level is the consistent histories interpretation
associated with the concept of decoherence. It concerns interactions
between an abstract but real quantum object and its complex physical environment, with many small influences that don’t substantially
change the object but do limit its possibilities. These limits spontaneously narrow down quantum possibilities into an allowable consistent
set of discrete physical states. The wavelike nature of objects moving in
space and time is exhibited in the pattern of quantum wave interference
effects, prominent when the wave pattern is coherent and not disrupted
by environmental influences. Interactions with typical complex natural environments produce a decoherent effect that suppresses quantum
interference. Physicist Brian Greene (2004) explains:
Once environmental decoherence blurs a wave function, the exotic
nature of quantum probabilities melts into the more familiar probabilities of day-to-day life. . . . If a quantum calculation reveals that a cat,
sitting in a closed box…has a 50 percent chance of being alive…decoherence suggests that the cat will not be in some absurd mixed state of
being dead and alive. . . . [L]ong before you open the box, the environment has already completed billions of observations that, in almost no
time at all, turned all mysterious quantum probabilities into their less
mysterious classical counterparts. . . . Decoherence forces much of the
weirdness of quantum physics to “leak” from large objects since, bit by
bit, the quantum weirdness is carried away by the innumerable impinging particles from the environment. (pp. 210-211)
The wave function of a grain of dust floating in your living room, bombarded by jittering air molecules, will decohere in about a billionth of a
billionth of a billionth of a billionth (10 -36) of a second. . . . [F]loating
in the darkest depths of empty space and subject only to interactions
with the relic microwave photons from the big bang, its wave function
will decohere in about a millionth of a second. . . . For larger objects,
decoherence happens faster still. It is no wonder that, even though ours
is a quantum universe, the world around us looks like it does. (p. 514)
384
This interpretation not only emphasizes the context dependence of
objects but also, importantly, their consistency through time from the
perspective of an observer. The observer does not cause the collapse of
the quantum wave. But the change from the quantum state to the classical state needs to be consistent in time and space from the perspective
of an observer. The contextual environment serves as a selection process
that narrows down quantum possibilities; and from the perspective of
an observer these processes are consistent through time. Decoherence
in a consistent histories framework is a start toward addressing the issue
of the consistency of phenomenal experiences of actual observers. Sets
of questions about nature related to observations are identified as decoherent if specific answers are not superpositions of answers to other
questions. Physicist Lee Smolin (2001, p. 43) explains:
This approach lets you specify a series of questions about the history of
the universe. Assuming only that the questions are consistent with one
another, in the sense that the answer to one will not preclude our asking
another, this approach tells us how to compute the possibilities of the
different possible answers.
The observer is included in this interpretation of quantum theory,
but not in the same manner as wave function collapse due to observation in orthodox interpretations. There is one world with many different
perspectives or minds in it. The world we get depends on the questions about it we ask, such as the measurement choices and historical
contexts. Definite answers emerge from initial questions in a highly
context-dependent manner.
Decoherence is a key principle that clarifies to some degree how infinite initial abstract possibilities spontaneously narrow down to definite
concrete actualities. It seems consistent with the important principles
of the asymmetric direction to time—arrow of time—and the second
law of thermodynamics of increasing entropy in nature. Importantly,
the association of initial conditions with initial observational questions
implies initial order, and even an initial role for an observer. These
become key issues when actual observers are considered. The consistency suggests that change in nature may not be fundamentally random, whether independent of an observer or not, and is consistent for
an observer who experiences it.
385
These more recent interpretations of quantum theory can be viewed
as major steps toward the ontological reality of the quantum level of
nature. If quantum “objects” and classical objects causally interact,
then it suggests both are ontologically real. The quantum level seems
no longer to be just a mathematical model of nature, but rather to be
a theorized actual level of existence. These interpretations address the
role of the observer quite differently than the notion of instantaneous
wave function collapse upon observation. They further are beginning
to address the ontological reality of conscious mind. A corresponding
expanded view of space and time also is needed, and has become essential with the empirical validation of nonlocality that goes beyond spacetime as defined by Einstein locality and causality based on light-speed.
The nonlocal fabric of spacetime
One major concern for Einstein about quantum theory was that it posits
a fundamental random component or indeterminacy at the very heart
of nature that challenges the central scientific pillar of deterministic
cause-effect relations. Reflecting on quantum uncertainty and probabilism, Einstein made his famous assertion, “I cannot believe that God
plays dice with the universe” (Herbert, 1985, p. 199).
After years of debate, crucial experiments were designed to test
whether there is an indeterminate component at the core of nature
or there are as yet hidden variables that can explain the indeterminacy as argued by Einstein and colleagues in their well-known EPR
paradox. Actual experiments were conducted in the 1980s based on
Bell’s theorem. Key assumptions in this theorem include that nature is
deterministic, exists objectively independent of the observer, and lightspeed sets an absolute speed limit for anything including any form of
information. Without going into details of the experimental setup,
when the predictions based on quantum theory and on Bell’s theorem
were compared in actual experiments, quantum theory was supported.
The results validated quantum entanglement, the phenomenon of highly
correlated behavior of elementary particles after they interact and separate—even when the limitations of light-speed would have disallowed
them from exchanging any form of information or having any causal
effect on each other. It turns out, however, that the results are not
understood to be a test of whether nature is fundamentally random or
386
deterministic. Rather, the results are understood to be a definitive test
of Einstein locality, demonstrating that the belief that objects in nature
interact only locally within light-speed is inaccurate. Greene (2004, p.
113) notes:
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were proven by experiment—not by theory, not by pondering, but by nature—to be wrong. . . . But where could
they have gone wrong? Well, remember that the Einstein, Podolsky,
and Rosen argument hangs on one central assumption...since nothing
goes faster than the speed of light, if your measurement on one object
were somehow to cause a change in the other…there would have to be
a delay before this could happen, a delay at least as long as the time
it would take light to traverse the distance between the two objects.
. . . We are forced to conclude that the assumption made by Einstein,
Podolsky, and Rosen, no matter how reasonable it seems, cannot be how
our quantum universe works.
The classical relativistic view was that all action is mediated by a
continuous chain of mechanistic physical events that are local interactions within light-speed. In dramatic contrast experimental tests of
Bell’s theorem showed that nonlocal interconnections must be a common feature of how the universe is built. This means that spacetime is
not adequately characterized by Einstein locality. An adequate view
needs to account for nonlocality, allowing relationships more fundamental than those limited to the known forces that diminish with the
square of the distance from their source within light-speed. Physicist
Nick Herbert (1985, p. 19) describes this nonlocal interconnected level:
Undoubtedly we are all connected in unremarkable ways, but close
connections carry the most weight. Quantum wholeness, on the other
hand, is a fundamentally new kind of togetherness, undiminished by
spatial and temporal separation. No casual hookup, this new quantum
thing, but a true mingling of distant beings that reaches across the galaxy as forcefully as it reaches across the garden.
Space and time in quantum gravity theories
Quantum theory interpretations incorporating the principle of decoherence that posit quantum wave collapse as an objective reduction
involving interaction with the classical environment imply an expanded
387
ontology; and this also is implied by nonlocality. Further developments
in this direction are evident in recent quantum gravity theories.
String theory
In both relativity and quantum theories, particles are treated mathematically as dimensionless points. The concept of a particle is represented mathematically as a point with no internal structure—no
extension in space—and only the capability of motion through space.
Mathematical attempts to integrate relativity and quantum theories
using the point-particle framework repeatedly resulted in the inconsistency of infinite quantities of energy, indicating that the approach
was untenable. A major relevant development in recent decades is string
theory, based on the mathematical principle of supersymmetry. String
theory replaces the mathematical model of the dimensionless point
with a filament or string about the Planck size. A string has extension in space, and thus an internal structure with potential for complex
higher-order fluctuations which add explanatory power to the theory.
The higher-order fluctuations are significant at the ultramicroscopic
scale; otherwise strings have much the same mathematical properties
as dimensionless points.
In this theory strings may be the “uncuttable constituents” of nature.
There is generally one type of string, although M-theory, which integrates some string theories, proposes a range called branes (short for
membranes). Strings and branes can fluctuate in a multitude of patterns theorized to produce the particles that make up all objects in
the entire physical universe. One of the patterns matches the hypothesized supersymmetric graviton, which connects strings with gravity,
and cancels the meaningless infinite quantities that had prevented a
consistent finite theory of quantum gravity (Greene, 1999).
String and M-theories require mathematical dimensions in addition
to the ordinary three spatial dimensions plus time. The extra dimensions—usually six or seven—are imagined as enfolded or curled up
in the string, called spacetime compactification. Although extra dimensions are mathematical degrees of freedom in imaginary mathematical space used to model string motion, they also are conceptualized as
higher-order spatial dimensions (Greene, 1999, 2004; Randall, 2005).
Mathematical geometric strings and branes in compactified higherdimensional space are theorized to be the source of physical objects in
388
ordinary space. This seems to imply causal interactions between material objects and geometric mathematical “objects,” suggestive that these
geometric conceptual, mathematical “objects” may refer to real objects
in nature.
This again reflects the key issue of the relationship between mental concepts and physical reality, interpretable as a new variant of the
old mind-body problem that is core to quantum theory. In the same
way that quantum theories are moving toward the ontological reality of
quantum waves, these new theories are moving toward the ontological
reality of geometric “objects” in mathematical, conceptual, or imaginary space and time—blurring a little more the distinction between
ordinary space and conceptual, mathematical space. A model of an
underlying ontologically real level of nature is emerging that is fundamentally different from ordinary space and time, and that has features
of conceptual or mental space.
Although attempting to integrate quantum theory and gravity,
string theories share generally with quantum theory the nonrelativistic
framework of background dependent Newtonian space and time. A
consistent theory of quantum gravity that integrates fully the relativistic spacetime continuum, such that there is no separate background
dependent field, has not yet been achieved. Also, string theory and
supersymmetry are based on mathematical consistency and elegance;
actual experimental evidence is yet to be found. These and other key
issues need to be addressed in viable string theories of quantum gravity.
A new direction in M-theory explores a more fundamental nonconventional space underlying strings and branes that is theorized to produce ordinary space and time and all matter. It includes the concept
of zero-branes, which Greene (1999, pp. 379-387) describes as existing
. . . possibly in an era that existed before the big bang or the pre-big bang
(if we can use temporal terms, for lack of any other linguistic framework). . . . [A] zero-brane . . . . may give us a glimpse of the spaceless and
timeless realm. . . . [W]hereas strings show us that conventional notions
of space and time cease to have relevance below the Planck scale, the
zero-branes give essentially the same conclusion but also provide a tiny
window on the new unconventional framework that takes over. Studies with these zero-branes indicate that ordinary geometry is replaced
by something known as non-commutative geometry. . . . In this geometrical framework, the conventional notions of space and of distance
389
between points melt away, leaving us in a vastly different conceptual
landscape. . . . [I]t gives us a hint of what the more complete framework
for incorporating space and time may involve. . . . Already, through
studies in M-theory, we have seen glimpses of a strange new domain of
the universe lurking beneath the Planck length. . .
This glimpse of a potential field underneath ordinary or conventional
space and time limited to the Planck scale reflects another step toward
an expanded ontology. Unlike background independent relativity theory, however, conventional space and time would be dependent on a
background. In addition, although the general theory of relativity is
described as observer dependent and assumes the observer is inside the
theoretical system, quantum, string, and M-theories don’t yet address
how a conscious observer fits into them.
Loop quantum gravity theory
The theory of loop quantum gravity attempts to incorporate the
observer, in a manner similar to the observer dependent general theory
of relativity. But like string theories and unlike relativity theory, it
develops further the view of a background underneath ordinary spacetime. It draws more on cosmological research, as well as black hole
thermodynamics. It also posits that spacetime is quantized. However,
it attempts to relativize quantum theory by emphasizing the relational,
observer-dependent nature of consistent decoherent events inside the
spacetime continuum. The relativistic frame of reference is a partial
consistent history of the universe from a particular observer perspective. In this theory, space is generated from topological relationships
in a dynamically evolving network of intersecting loops, called a spin
network. Smolin (2001, pp. 130-138) explains:
Translated into the loop picture of the gravitational field . . . the area
of any surface comes in discrete multiples of simple units. The smallest
of these units is about the Planck area. . . . A spin network is simply a
graph . . . whose edges are labeled by integers. These integers come from
the values that the angular momentum of a particle are allowed to have
in quantum theory, which are equal to an integer times half of Planck’s
constant. . . . The volume contained in a spin network, when measured
in Planck units, is basically equal to the number of nodes of the network. . . . A very large network can represent a quantum geometry that
390
looks smooth and continuous when viewed on a scale much larger than
the Planck length. . . . In the spin network picture, space only seems
continuous—it is actually made up of building blocks which are the
nodes and edges of the spin network. . . . The spin networks do not live
in space; their structure generates space.
A spin network of dynamic nonlocal processes is theorized to generate curved relativistic spacetime and localized particles, sometimes
called spin foam—somewhat similar to spacetime foam. It is a mathematical theory of a deeper, abstract, nonmaterial functional structure
or pure geometry that is the source and generator of conventional fourdimensional spacetime. Adding principles from black hole thermodynamics, the spin network links the concept of bits of quantized pure
geometry to bits of nonphysical information in a formal mathematical
relationship—the Bekenstein’s bound. Accordingly, the smallest possible surface area of space has an inherent mathematical limit to the
amount of information it can contain.
This represents an additional step toward the ontological reality of an
abstract field underneath conventional space, in this case a nonmaterial
information space. Matter has been reduced to fundamental quantized
units of space, then to a nonmaterial pure geometry more abstract than
conventional space, and then further to quantized information space.
This is said to provide a direction for linking string theory, loop quantum gravity, and black hole thermodynamics. A level of nature is posited that is an ontologically real underlying pure geometry of quantized
information space, upon which conventional four-dimensional space is
background dependent, a little closer to mental space.
Concerning the other characteristic of spacetime in the general theory of relativity of observer dependence, loop quantum gravity theory
attempts to place the observer into the complex system of changing
causal events by proposing one universe with a multitude of observers
in it. It is a complex causal network of interacting light cones built of
the smallest possible events or bits of information, with an unlimited
number of separate but overlapping consistent perspectives of separate
observers. Importantly, quantum superposition is held to be at the level
of the mind in terms of overlapping observer perspectives, drawing
upon notions from the “many worlds” (many mind-worlds) interpretation of quantum theory. Superposition of histories that are independent
391
of each other, each associated with a different observer perspective,
allow for agreed-upon outcomes when there are the same initial conditions and similar consistent histories.
However, the concept of an observer in this system remains restricted.
The observer still experiences a unitary state from outside the system, as
in quantum theory. Also, core aspects of the observer—especially selfobservation as an integrated functional self—are left out too. Smolin
(2001, pp. 47-48) explains:
The quantum description is always the description of some part of the
universe by an observer who remains outside it. . . . If you observe a system that includes me, you may see me as a superposition of states. But I
do not describe myself in such terms, because in this kind of theory no
observer ever describes themselves. Rather than trying to make sense
of metaphysical statements about their being many universes—many
realities [for example, the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory]—within one solution to the theory of quantum cosmology, we are
constructing a pluralistic version of different mathematical descriptions,
each corresponding to what a different observer can see when they look
around them. Each is incomplete, because no observer can see the whole
universe. Each observer, for example, excludes themselves from the
world they describe. But when two observers ask the same questions,
they must agree. . . . One universe, seen by many observers, rather than
many universes, seen by one mythical observer outside the universe.
Loop quantum gravity theory attempts to be background independent in the sense that gravity is integrated as the curvature of spacetime
and does not function in spacetime. But at the same time it goes beyond
relativistic spacetime to a deeper ontological substrate of information
space, to which conventional spacetime is background dependent. The
only place for an underlying information space that could generate conventional spacetime would seem to be underneath or subtler than the
Planck scale, as implied by Greene (2004, pp. 350-351):
[W]hen you get down to the Planck length (the length of a string) . . .
“going smaller” ceases to have meaning once you reach the size of the
smallest constituent of the cosmos. For zero-sized point particles this
introduces no constraint, but since strings have size, it does. If string
theory is correct, the usual concepts of space and time, the framework
within which all of our daily experiences take place, simply don’t apply
on scales finer than the Planck scale. . . . As for what concepts take over,
392
there is yet no consensus. One possibility…is that the fabric of space on
the Planck scale resembles a lattice or grid [loop quantum gravity], with
the “space” between the grid lines being outside the bounds of physical
reality. . . . Another possibility is that space and time do not abruptly
cease to have meaning on extremely small scales, but instead morph into
other, more fundamental concepts. Shrinking smaller than the Planck
scale would be off limits not because you run into a fundamental grid,
but because the concepts of space and time segue into notions for which
“shrinking smaller” is meaningless. . . . Many string theorists, including
me, strongly suspect that something along these lines actually happens,
but to go further we need to figure out the more fundamental concepts
into which space and time transform.
Mathematician and physicist David Bohm (1980, p. 244) also points
to the possibility of a level of nature underneath the Planck scale:
[T]he current attempt to understand our “universe” as if it were selfexistent and independent of the sea of cosmic energy can work at best
in some limited way. . . . Moreover, it must be remembered that even
this vast sea of cosmic energy takes into account only what happens on
a scale larger than the critical length of 10 -33 cm [Planck scale]. . . . But
this length is only a certain kind of limit on the applicability of ordinary
notions of space and time. To suppose that there is nothing beyond this
limit at all would indeed by quite arbitrary. Rather, it is very possible
that beyond it lies a further domain, or set of domains, of the nature of
which we have as yet little or no idea.
These quotes exemplify theoretical progress toward a field or space
of some kind, not yet articulated, that underlies and is subtler than
conventional space and time. These are major developments with many
important implications. They point to an expanded ontology of space,
fundamentally different from conventional space and time but that permeates it and is its underlying source.
Further, loop quantum gravity theory begins to address key issues
of the consistency of experience of an observer and consensus across
observers, based on the notions of consistent histories and initial conditions. These issues are fundamental to a logically consistent and consensually validated science. However, although the theory is said to be
observer dependent inside the relativistic system, core aspects of the
observer still remain outside.
393
A viable unified theory needs to account for everything emerging
from it, without anything outside of it, including all aspects of the
observer. It needs to account for the ability of the observer to selfobserve, presumably for the observer to cause change in the system,
and for consciousness itself. There still seems to be no place for a causally efficacious conscious mind in loop quantum gravity theory. But at
least it recognizes the necessity of addressing these issues, which other
approaches don’t yet do.
The concept of an abstract nonmaterial information space that generates conventional space can be viewed as another major step closer to
a nonlocal mental space, through which these issues potentially can be
addressed. Philosopher Colin McGinn (2000, p. 103) brings out the
need for a new conception of space to account for conscious mind:
[I]n order to solve the mind-body problem we need, at a minimum, a
new conception of space. . . . We need a conceptual breakthrough in
the way we think about the medium in which material objects exist,
and hence in our conception of material objects themselves. That is the
region in which our ignorance is focused: not in the details of neurophysiologic activity but, more fundamentally, in how space is structured
or constituted. That which we refer to when we use the word “space” has
a nature that is quite different from how we standardly conceive it to be;
so different, indeed, that it is capable of “containing” the non-spatial (as
we now conceive it) phenomenon of consciousness.”
Mathematician and cosmologist Roger Penrose (1994, p. 420) further points to the need for a new approach in order to address the causal
efficacy of conscious mind:
[W]ithout . . . opening into a new physics, we shall be stuck within the
strait-jacket of an entirely computational physics, or of a computational
cum random physics. Within that strait-jacket, there can be no scientific role for intentionality and subjective experience. By breaking loose
from it, we have at least the potentiality of such a role. . . . Many who
might agree with this would argue that there can be no role for such
things within any scientific picture. To those who argue this way, I can
only ask that they be patient. . . . I believe that there is already an indication, within the mysterious developments of quantum mechanics, that
the conceptions of mentality are a little closer to our understanding of
the physical universe than they had been before.
394
To summarize the quantum gravity theories introduced above, space
and time are proposed to be background dependent in the sense that
there is a more abstract underlying field, possibly information space,
that generates conventional spacetime. This is like background dependent Newtonian theories and unlike background independent Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Attempts also are being made to
conceptualize how this underlying field is observer dependent, like
Einstein’s theory and unlike Newtonian theories. But core aspects of
the observer—self-observation and causal efficacy of mind—remain
outside. If these aspects of the observer exist, they also possibly could
be in the theorized abstract information space below conventional spacetime, inasmuch as there seems to be no room for them in a supposedly closed causal physical nexus of conventional spacetime (Stapp,
2007; Boyer, 2008).
Space and time
in the neorealist interpretation of quantum theory
One other interpretation of quantum theory, sometimes called neorealism, is outlined in a little more detail because it explicitly contains an
expanded ontology of space applying nonlocality that has room for a
causally efficacious conscious mind. Proposing the radical addition of a
subquantum reality, the theory is primarily from David Bohm, who had
extensive talks with Einstein in the last few months of Einstein’s life
which could have influenced Bohm’s ideas, as noted by science writer
Michael Talbot (1991, p. 39):
[Neils] Bohr and his followers…claimed that quantum theory
was complete and it was not possible to arrive at any clearer understanding. . . . This was the same as saying there was no deeper reality beyond
the subatomic landscape. . . . Inspired by his interactions with Einstein
. . . [Bohm] began by assuming that particles such as electrons do exist
in the absence of observers. He also assumed that there was a deeper
reality beneath Bohr’s inviolable wall. . . . [By] proposing the existence
of a new kind of field on this subquantum level he was able to explain
the findings of quantum physics as well as Bohr could. Bohm called
his proposed new field the quantum potential and theorized that, like
gravity, it pervaded all of space. However, unlike gravitational fields,
magnetic fields, and so on, its influence did not diminish with distance.
395
Bohm’s neorealist interpretation has been described as a deterministic reformulation of quantum theory that doesn’t invoke the subjectivity
of the observer in wave function collapse. It can be understood to be a
realization of the hidden variables approach favored by Einstein (Talbot, 1991; Bohm & Hiley, 1993). It is sometimes mischaracterized as
a return to classical physics because it models elementary particles as
ordinary classical objects with intrinsic dynamic properties. But a major
change is that it posits an ontologically real, nonlocal wave field that
mediates nonlocal effects—the quantum potential or psi wave—neither
in classical relativity theories nor in other interpretations of quantum
theory (Bohm, 1980). In this interpretation the ordinary physical world
is the same whether measured or not, which means there is no collapse
of the wave function upon observation as theorized in the orthodox
interpretation. The notions of determinism and objectivity independent
of conscious observers extend beyond quantum mechanics. Like other
approaches, such as string theory, major mathematical issues remain
unresolved; but it is much more integrative than other quantum and
quantum gravity theories.
Bohm’s interpretation of quantum theory is a mathematical theory of the motion of particles in which the path of a real particle is
guided by a real nonlocal wave—sometimes described as a resolution
to the dilemma of wave-particle duality. The quantum entangled particles don’t influence each other directly; rather they are guided by the
extremely subtle nonlocal quantum potential or psi wave. To match the
behavior of objects according to classical and quantum mechanics, the
psi wave must be connected to every particle in the universe, classically
invisible, superluminal, and a common aspect of nature. A vastly more
encompassing landscape is proposed that incorporates the relativity of
spacetime in terms of two levels, domains, ethers, or mediums with
different defining properties.
In this interpretation the wave behavior of quantum processes is due
to the psi wave. It doesn’t collapse upon observation, and is accounted
for objectively in terms of decoherence effects. Quantum indeterminism
is accounted for deterministically in terms of the path of a particle as a
combination of the guiding psi wave and the myriad local and nonlocal
contextual influences that include about everything and everywhere in
the universe. Together these influences are unfathomable and produce
396
a jittery, complex path of motion that cannot be predicted exactly: it is
both deterministic and probabilistic. Also in the sense that all components of the experimental setup influence the results, discrete classical
reality can be said to be created in the process of measurement; any
change in the experimental setup would alter the influences and thus
the results. This accounts for the notion in orthodox quantum theory
of quantum wholeness, based on nonlocality. Further, the psi wave carries nonrandom information through which it causally influences the
motion of particles, but not via the strength of the forces as in the
mechanics of the four known quantum fields. However, is it possible
to guide the path of particles from the deeper level of the psi wave
through intentional information? In other words, is this proposed subtler level of nature a field of causally efficacious mind?
Bohm has speculated that the nonlocal psi wave is a mental space
or mindlike field that functions with extreme subtlety to allow sensitive but systematic information transmission. He has proposed this as
a general framework for how mind influences matter (Bohm, 1980;
Bohm & Hiley, 1993). At this theorized level, nature functions via
highly interconnected nonlocal processes in mental space, which brings
into this expanded version of the natural world and its causal chain the
possibility of a causally efficacious mind. A causally efficacious mind
is not epiphenomenal, not a fundamental misperception; and further,
the closed physical causal chain does not mysteriously unlink to insert
conscious mind at some stage of evolutionary complexity. The mind
is nonlocal and causally influences physical events via an underlying
subtler level.
This interpretation reflects further the disembedding of classical
physical reality from the notion that it appears due to an unmediated
instantaneous collapse of the quantum wave function. Adding an ontological level of nonlocal information or mental space underlying the
classical physical world, it thus might be classified as a type of dualism rather than classical realism or monistic materialism. But not in
the sense of Cartesian dualism that described mind as not spatially
extended: rather the underlying psi wave field is in nonlocal nonconventional space, much more extended than local conventional space.
This also is quite distinct from Einstein’s relativistic spacetime theory
397
of gravity. Bohm and Hiley (1993, pp. 347-348) describe it as a subrelativistic level of nature:
[W]e say that underlying the level in which relativity is valid there is
a subrelativistic level in which it is not valid even though relativity is
recovered in a suitable statistical approximation as well as in the large
scale manifest world. . . . Although there is no inherent limitation to the
speed of transmission of impulses in this subrelativistic level, it is quite
possible that the quantum nonlocal connections might be propagated,
not at infinite speeds, but at speeds very much greater than the speed of
light. . . . As the atomic free path quantum indeterminacy or randomness is the first sign of a “subcontinuous” domain in which the laws of
continuous matter would break down at the quantum level, so the free
path in our trajectories would be the first sign of a subquantum domain
in which the laws of quantum theory would break down. . . . The next
sign of a breakdown of the quantum theory would be the discovery
of some yet smaller dimension whose role might be analogous to the
dimension of an atom in the atomic explanation of continuous matter [the classical microscopic level]. We do not as yet know what this
dimension is, but it seems reasonable to propose that it could be of the
order of the Planck length, where, in any case, we can expect that our
current ideas of spacetime and quantum theory might well break down.
To summarize, Bohm’s interpretation posits a subtle ontologically
real nonconventional mental space underlying and generating conventional four-dimensional spacetime. It is characterized as nonlocal,
unbounded as in quantum fields, apparently undiminished by distance,
deterministic, quantized (in the sense of individual waves, not Plancksize particles), relative (in the sense of interconnected and entangled
but not defined by Einstein locality), nonphysical (not matterlike), a
pure, nonphysical geometry of information or mental space (mind-like),
a background for conventional spacetime underneath the Planck scale,
and a mixture of observer dependent and independent properties. It
can be associated variously with terms such as hyperspace, superspace,
higher-dimensional space, nonconventional space, mental space, and
also quantum mind (though somewhat of a misnomer inasmuch as it
is not quantized in the sense of Planck-size quanta). The difficulty of
integrating relativity and quantum theories into quantum gravity may
be because both are incomplete and don’t account for a subtle, underlying, nonquantized, nonlocal background of mental space.
398
Carrying this interpretation further, the ether of classical relativistic
spacetime can be characterized as a quasi-closed physical system limited to Einstein locality (light-speed and spacetime gravity per relativity
theory) and Planck-size quantization (per quantum theory), containing
the particle-wave force fields associated with ordinary physical existence and classical particle interaction (billiard ball-like) local causality.
This includes the relativistic spacetime continuum from the ultramicroscopic Planck scale to the ultramacroscopic cosmos, the quantized particle-force fields, and all material objects in it. This physical domain or
ether of conventional spacetime is now theorized to be permeated by a
subtler domain—analogous to how earth, water, and air are permeated
by ordinary space. The subtler level is characterized by nonlocal interactions with more object interdependence and less object independence,
individualized but more wave field-like than discrete particle-like and
not characterized by particle interactions or thermodynamics—involving superluminal motion, but not ‘instantaneous.’
Elaborations of this interpretation identify the theorized subtler
field of nonlocal mind as the implicate order (Bohm, 1980; Bohm &
Hiley, 1993), contrasting it with the classical level of the explicate order.
In distinguishing a grosser, local, classical explicate order and a subtler,
nonlocal, non-classical implicate order, however, both are described as
aspects of an ultimate holism, which seems consistent with unified field
theory as well as, according to Bohm (1980), nondual Vedanta in the
ancient Vedic tradition. In the following quote Bohm and his colleague
B. J. Hiley (1993, pp. 385-386) summarize how the undivided wholeness of the implicate order relates to physical and mental phenomena:
One may then ask what is the relationship between the physical and the
mental processes? The answer that we propose is that there are not two
processes. Rather, it is suggested that both are essentially the same. This
means that that which we experience as mind, in its movement through
various levels of subtlety, will, in a natural way ultimately move the
body by reaching the level of the quantum potential and of the “dance”
of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any
of these levels. Rather, at each stage some kind of information is the
bridge. This implies that the quantum potential acting on atomic particles, for example, represents only one stage in the process. . . . It is thus
implied that in some sense a rudimentary mind-like quality is present
399
even at the level of particle physics, and that as we go to subtler levels,
this mind-like quality becomes stronger and more developed.
While this view posits two causally determinate relative levels of spacetime with different degrees of interconnectedness, it also emphasizes
their causal seamlessness, and in this sense is a nondual or monistic
account. In the following quotes Bohm (1980) elaborates by describing
the explicate order as embedded in the implicate order, both arising
from the superimplicate order, plenum, or universal flux—which would
seem to have affinity with the notion of the unified field as the source
of everything:
So we are suggesting that it is the implicate order that is autonomously
active while…the explicate order flows out of a law of the implicate
order, so that it is secondary, derivative, and appropriate only in certain
limited contexts. Or, to put it another way, the relationships constituting the fundamental law are between the enfolded structures that interweave and interpenetrate each other, throughout the whole of space,
rather than between the abstracted and separated forms that are manifest to the senses (and to our instruments). (p. 235)
[T]here is a universal flux that cannot be defined explicitly but which
can be known only implicitly, as indicated by the explicitly definable
forms and shapes, some stable and some unstable, that can be abstracted
from the universal flux. In this flow, mind and matter are not separate
substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement. In this way, we are able to look on all aspects of existence as not divided from each other, and thus we can bring to an end
the fragmentation implicit in the current attitude toward the atomic
point of view, which leads us to divide everything from everything in a
thoroughgoing way. (p. 14)
This neorealist interpretation of quantum theory represents another
significant step toward the ontological reality of mind and its place and
role in nature even beyond the theorized ontologically real quantum
level of nature. This level is also attributed to be the causally efficacious intentional level. Thus it is theorized that there are real particles,
underlain by real waves, associated with an even deeper, more abstract
real information or mental space, all ultimately seamless and unified
in the universal flux or plenum. In this interpretation mind is nonlo-
400
cal, and not just in the physical head as a product only of local neural
activity. To restate, the theories of space can be viewed as progressing toward three domains of nature: the infinite eternal unified field,
the subtle relative nonlocal field generally associated with nonmaterial
information space and mental space, and the gross relative local field of
particulate matter.
Again with respect to sociocultural influences, physician and science
writer Larry Dossey (1989, pp. 1-7) comments on the significance of a
potential nonlocal mind:
[S]omething vital has been left out of almost all the modern efforts to
understand our mental life—something that counts as a first principle,
without which everything is bound to be incomplete and off base. . . .
This missing element is the mind’s nonlocal nature. . . . If nonlocal mind
is a reality, the world becomes a place of interaction and connection, not
one of isolation and disjunction. And if humanity really believed that
nonlocal mind were real, an entirely new foundation for ethical and
moral behavior would enter, which would hold at least the possibility
of a radical departure from the insane ways human beings and nationstates have chronically behaved toward each other. And, further, the
entire existential premise of human life might shift toward the moral
and the ethical, toward the spiritual and the holy.
Space and time in holistic unified field theory
A helpful strategy for envisioning the much more expansive view of
spacetime that is unfolding in these cutting-edge quantum and quantum gravity theories is to disembed from the reductive approach in
which everything is brought down through smaller scales apparently to
nothing with no space or time. The reductive approach involves starting with ordinary sensory experience and analyzing material objects to
their most fundamental constituents. Applying this strategy, theories
in modern physics are finally going beyond it to glimpse an expanded
ontology underneath and permeating the material domain. For a long
time such holistic concepts had been quite challenging, rendering the
mind-body problem unanswerable. From the more expansive view, the
reductive perspective has things upside down—or outside in. Instead
of the universe narrowing down to an infinitesimal black hole or noth-
401
ing, the theories can be seen as advancing toward the opposite view of
subtler, more extended levels of nature toward an all-inclusive superimplicate order, plenum, or unified field. As mathematician C. J. S.
Clarke (2000, p. 174) notes:
First we need to turn round physics, so that we could see the local Newtonian picture as a specially disintegrated case of the fundamentally
global reality. . . . Second we need to turn round our whole approach by
putting mind first. We would be in a position to understand how it was
that mind could actually do something in the cosmos. . . . We have to
start exploring how we can talk about mind in terms of a quantum picture which takes seriously the fundamental place of self-observation; of
the quantum logic of actual observables being itself determined by the
current situation. Only then will we be able to make a genuine bridge
between physics and psychology.
In other words the principle that the whole is greater than the sum of
the parts needs to be supplemented with the principle that the parts
emerge from the completely unified (prior existing) whole, rather than
the whole emerging from a collection of parts (Boyer, 2008). Bohm
(1980, pp. 226-227) elaborates:
What distinguishes the explicate order is that what is thus derived is
a set of recurrent and relatively stable elements that are outside of each
other. This set of elements (e.g., fields and particles) then provide the
explanation of that domain of experience in which the mechanistic order
yields an adequate treatment. In the prevailing mechanistic approach,
however, these elements, assumed to be separately and independently
existent, are taken as constituting the basic reality. The task of science is
then to start from such parts and to derive all wholes through abstraction, explaining them as the results of interactions of the parts. On the
contrary, when one works in terms of the implicate order, one begins
with the undivided wholeness of the universe, and the task of science is
to derive the parts through abstraction from the whole.
In the reductive physicalist view, consciousness and mind can be
said to emerge from matter—here characterized as the matter-mindconsciousness ontology. If the conscious self is causally efficacious, in this
view it would have to enter at some point of evolutionary complexity,
break the physical chain of cause and effect, and somehow assert superordinate causal control over the fundamentally random bits of inert
402
matter. Such views in which mind and consciousness are emergent
properties of neural functioning in the physical brain are now being
challenged by more expanded and integrated views. The brain is one
kind of instantiation of an abstract information processing function,
as is a computer—both of which are physical. But as deeper levels of
physical structure are probed, concepts of nonphysical networks of pure
geometry, information space, and nonlocal mental space are developing. An abstract field of higher dimensional space or pure geometry of
functional information space that underlies and generates conventional
spacetime is certainly leading beyond models of any object—including
the brain—as just a highly localized material structure. In this view
brain and mind are no longer just in the head, because brains, heads,
and other ordinary objects are no longer just localized physical matter.
As Clarke (2000, p. 174) succinctly puts it, “Mind breaks out of the
skull.” Astrophysicist Piet Hut and evolutionary psychologist Roger
Shepard (2000, p. 319) elaborate:
Our conclusion is that attempts to embed consciousness in space and
time are doomed to failure, just as equivalent attempts to embed motion
in space only. Yes, motion does take place in space, but it also partakes in time. Similarly, consciousness certainly takes place in space and
time, but in addition seems to require an additional aspect of reality…
in order for us to give a proper description of its relation with the world
as described in physics.
McGinn (2000, p. 103) further points to the need for a new understanding of the nature of space to account for conscious mind:
Consciousness is the next big anomaly to call for a revision in how
we conceive of space—just as other revisions were called for by earlier
anomalies. And the revision is likely to be large-scale. . . . Clearly the
space of perception and action is no place to fund the roots of consciousness! In that sense of “space” consciousness is not spatial; but we
seem unable to develop a new conception of space that can overcome the
impossibility of finding a place for consciousness in it.
In contrast to the reductive physicalist view, the holistic view begins
with unity, and sequentially unfolds the parts of nature within that
unity. The parts emerge from and within the whole, rather than the
whole emerging from combining the parts. The whole creates the parts
403
(Boyer, 2008). This subtle change in perspective seems fundamental
to a more inclusive and logically consistent science. A contemporary
holistic approach that incorporates this view is the interpretation of
the ancient Vedic tradition called Maharishi Vedic Science (Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi, 1997). Implications of this approach will be discussed
briefly in the context of recent cosmological big bang and unified field
theories because it presents a more inclusive view of spacetime that has
room for mental space and a causally efficacious conscious mind.
Big bang cosmology: everything from nothing
In standard big bang cosmological theory, the universe and spacetime
apparently began from literally nothing, instantaneously becoming
random quantum fields that through spontaneous sequential symmetry breaking formed into the four known quantum force fields and
all physical matter. To explain symmetry breaking into particles with
mass, the theory of an additional fundamental field has developed in
recent years, the Higgs field, considered to be one of the most important
concepts proposed in the past century in theoretical physics (Greene,
2004).
This theory proposes that in the third phase of symmetry breaking
into the weak and electromagnetic forces, a Higgs field condensed to a
nonzero value when the temperature of the universe dropped to about
1015 degrees, creating a Higgs ocean—analogous to steam condensing into water. The Higgs ocean can be described as a kind of viscosity (ether or medium) throughout space that resists change in motion,
giving the property of mass to particles. A second Higgs field—grand
unified Higgs—was proposed to explain the earlier second phase of
symmetry breaking of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and another
Higgs field was proposed to explain the first phase of symmetry breaking when gravity emerged (Greene, 2004).
Einstein’s formulation of general relativity predicted that space,
as well as the entire universe, could either shrink or stretch. Because
this contrasted with his belief in a static universe, he added another
term—the cosmological constant. This allowed the equation to contain a
negative value, meaning that gravity could be repulsive rather than just
attractive. If carefully chosen, repulsive and attractive forces could balance out, resulting in a static universe. When evidence showed that the
404
universe is expanding, however, Einstein withdrew the cosmological
constant, reportedly identifying it as his greatest blunder. However, it
was later revived, associated with Higgs fields and the modification of
the standard big bang model called inflationary big bang theory.
According to this theory, for an extremely brief time period of 10-35
seconds at the outset of the big bang, gravity became a repulsive force
that drove the emerging universe into a colossal expansion. This inflationary event involved a Higgs field—the inflaton field—contributing a
uniform negative pressure to space that produced a repulsive force so
strong that the universe expanded by a factor as much as 1090. This is
much faster than light-speed but is thought not to be inconsistent with
it, because light-speed applies to motion through space whereas inflationary expansion refers to inflation of space itself. This also implies
speeds faster than light-speed but not instantaneous, as in Bohmian
mechanics (Bohm, 1980; Bohm & Hiley, 1993). Importantly, it seems
to support a potential fundamental distinction between the inflationary field of space compared to relativistic spacetime as equivalent to
the gravitational field limited by light-speed. The estimate of the age
of the universe is about 14 billion years, but the estimated radius of the
universe is about 48 billion light-years. This is further suggestive that
the field of space is not the same as the spacetime gravitational field,
consistent with theories of a nonconventional level of space underlying
the ether or medium of conventional spacetime of ordinary gravity and
light-speed.
Inflationary big bang theory posits a total amount of matter and
energy in the universe that is considerably more than the tally of visible
objects, which contribute about 5% of the total. Astronomical research
suggested that additional matter is needed to hold galaxies together,
which led to the theory of dark matter based on principles of symmetry, estimated to account for an additional 25%. Observations that the
universe is expanding based on measurements of the recession rates of
supernova led to revival of the cosmological constant, associated with
dark energy and supersymmetry. It was estimated that the rate of expansion requires a cosmological constant associated with an amount of dark
energy that contributes about 70% of the total, which fits the remaining amount in inflationary theory. This theory is sometimes called the
consensus view in contemporary cosmology, additionally strengthened
405
because it is said to provide an explanation for how matter formed into
stars and galaxies.
But what triggered inflationary expansion? How did nothing blast
out? An elaboration of inflationary theory proposes that the big bang
emerged from a pre-inflationary period, in which the gravitational field
and the Higgs field were bumpy, chaotic, and highly disordered; and
eventually a random fluctuation produced the values needed for inflationary expansion. But this certainly doesn’t sound like everything
came from nothing. Astronomer David Darling (1996, p. 49) points
out the issue clearly:
What is a big deal is how you got something out of nothing. Don’t let
the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue
either. . . . “In the beginning,” they will say, “there was nothing —no
time, space, matter, or energy. Then there was a quantum flutter from
which. . . . ” Whoa! Stop right there. . . . First there was nothing, then
there was something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with
a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all . . . and
before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of
their quantum hats. . . . You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum
mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, no pre-geometric
dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can
effect change from nothingness to somethingness, or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.
The unified field as the lowest entropy, supersymmetric state of order
In quantum field theory space is not empty nothing; it is more like ether
with specific properties, in that it at least contains vacuum fluctuations.
With the advent of unified field theory the universe is more appropriately viewed as manifesting from something—even from the source of
everything—as reflected in the following quote from Bohm (1980, pp.
241-243):
As we keep on adding excitations corresponding to shorter and
shorter wavelengths to the gravitational effects, we come to a certain length at which the measurement of space and time becomes
totally undefinable. . . . When this length is estimated it turns
out to be about 10-33 cm [Planck length]. If one computes the
amount of energy that would be in one cubic centimeter of space,
with this shortest possible wavelength, it turns out to be very far
406
beyond the total energy of all the matter in the known universe.
. . . In this connection it may be said that space, which has so
much energy, is full rather than empty. The two opposing notions
of space as empty and space as full have indeed continually alternated with each other.. . . . Thus, in Ancient Greece, the School
of Parmenides and Zeno held that space is a plenum. This view
was opposed by Democritus, who was perhaps the first seriously
to propose a world view that conceived of space as emptiness (i.e.,
the void). . . . . Modern science has generally favored this latter
atomistic view, and yet, during the nineteenth century, the former
view was also seriously entertained, through the hypothesis of
ether that fills all space. . . . It is being suggested . . . that what we
perceive through the senses as empty space is actually the plenum,
which is the ground for the existence of everything. . . .
As described earlier, a key component of supersymmetric unified
field theory is that the fundamental force fields emerged through spontaneous sequential symmetry breaking as the universe expanded and
temperature dropped (Greene, 1999). This can be likened to phase transitions of H 2O condensing from steam to water to ice as temperature
drops; at each stage, symmetry is reduced. In this view the fundamental
forces potentially pre-existed in the perfectly symmetric superunified
state. But as the source of continuously occurring vacuum fluctuations,
random jitters, zero point motion or inherent dynamism, the unified
field continues along with the symmetry breaking. If it continues even
after the fundamental forces differentiated, then it would seem to be
more than only unification of these forces. The underlying unity and
perfect symmetry apparently doesn’t vanish with the diversity of symmetry breaking—relevant to theories of the source of order in nature.
The quantum mechanical principle of the unbounded quantum wave
as a coherent state that decoheres through interaction with the classical
environment suggests that fundamental fields reflect increased symmetry, and also order (Greene, 2004). Further the unified field as the
source of everything and thus the origin of the laws of nature suggests
that it may be a field of perfect order. As well, the understanding that
time is unidirectional (past to present to future, the “arrow of time”)
and the second law of thermodynamics which states that change is
from low entropy to higher entropy suggest that the source of change is
a state of lowest entropy (Greene, 2004). These points support the view
407
that order emerges from the theorized supersymmetric unified field,
not from fundamental randomness.
If the universe were fundamentally random, any outcome would
have equal possibility at every moment, making any consistency practically impossible. There would be no basis for continuity—no memory
whatsoever—for tying things together to make one moment consistent
with the next. But “when” the theorized big bang “began,” an orderly
temporal sequence also began. At least in the world as we understand
it through science, an event manifests in an orderly manner from the
previous event, which implies that the source of the universe may be
a state of lowest entropy. Greene (2004, p. 271) also suggests that the
universe was not initially random, but rather highly ordered:
[I]f the universe started out in a thoroughly disordered, high-entropy
state, further cosmic evolution would merely maintain the disorder…
Even though particular symmetries have been lost through cosmic phase
transitions, the overall entropy of the universe has steadily increased. In
the beginning, therefore, the universe must have been highly ordered.
If the unified field is the lowest entropy supersymmetric state, then
pre-inflationary theory that holds low entropy came from inflationary expansion would seem to suggest the puzzling inconsistency that
something existed prior to the unified field. Also of concern is how
the pre-inflationary period reconciles with quantum gravity theories
that posit information space, not characterized as just bumpy chaotic
random fluctuations. It suggests considerable order, in that it generates
the functional structure of spacetime and all matter. A more integrative view might consider pre-inflationary theory to be another angle in
the attempt to understand the theorized subtle nonmaterial, nonlocal,
nonconventional level or domain underlying the Planck scale. This subtle level as a pre-inflationary period of “pre-conventional” space would
include the order that creates the gravitational field, Higgs field, and
inherent dynamism—the immediate source of spacetime and quantized fields, again underlain by the unified field. In this more integrative view, dark matter and energy also might be understood as initial
attempts to characterize this subtle nonlocal field.
Again, taken together, the theories of space described in this articlecan be viewed as developing toward a model of three ontological levels
of nature, which is consistent with the ancient Vedic tradition albeit
408
using different terminology: 1) conventional, local physical spacetime;
2) nonconventional, nonlocal information or mental space, and 3) the
lowest entropy, supersymmetric unified field (Boyer, 2008). This fundamental trinity provides a basis for reconciling the contrasting views
of space in relativity and quantum theories. In relativistic spacetime.
motion is limited to light-speed, and the notion of time and place
existing right now outside of the light cone is undefined. This can be
related to the conventional local level, or gross ether. In nonrelativistic quantum theories, quantum mechanical tunneling anywhere in the
quantum field is possible. This can be related to the nonconventional
nonlocal level or subtle ether, not limited by light-speed but still not
instantaneous. The notion of instantaneity can be related to the unified
field, the infinite eternal source of nonlocal and local spacetime.
From this perspective string and loop quantum gravity theories can
be understood as attempts to explain how the nonlocal wave field becomes
quantized into particles. In the reductive perspective the Planck scale is
where spacetime is compactified or enfolded and conventional spacetime becomes unfurled. But the opposite view may be more appropriate:
quantization is the compactification of an unfurled nonlocal wave field
into discrete localized enfolded particles appearing as independent in
relativistic conventional spacetime.
Levels of spacetime as limitations within the unified field
From the holistic view the unified field would be beyond any form or
relative conception of spacetime—infinite and eternal. However, these
descriptors also might be thought of as applying to nothing. Conceiving
of the unified field as nothing is from a reductive perspective, whereas
the unified field as everything is from a holistic perspective. These perspectives can be related to the “dual nature” of the ultimate singularity, unity, wholeness, or oneness described in Maharishi Vedic Science.
The ultimate wholeness, or completely unified field prior to any parts,
can be likened to mathematical concepts of empty set, or zero, or one
(Oneness). It also is reflected in the contrasting terms of the eternal
Void (emptiness) and eternal Being (fullness).
From the holistic view of unity beyond all diversity, phenomenal
levels of nature can be described as ether-like mediums or fields with
degrees of subtlety, density, viscosity, or limitation within infinite eter-
409
nal spacetime. Space and time are relative to each other, but may fundamentally concern degrees of the textural interconnectedness or fabric
of ethereal fields—relative degrees of the simultaneity of infinity and
point, eternity and instant. The levels also can be thought of as concentric, one completely permeating the other—from infinite eternal to
subtle nonlocal to gross local. The gross relative local domain would be
the conventional spacetime field or ether limited by Einstein locality,
Einstein causality, light-speed, and ordinary gravity—within which
the point value rather than the infinite value of spacetime would be
most prominent, and objects would appear to have local independent
existence.
As the source of everything the unified field would contain all
potential, all order, all phenomena; it would not be a static ground state
needing something else to express it. All phenomenal realities would
be partial reflections of the total reality of the unified field, the ultimate infinite eternal. The infinite eternal totality would limit itself into
increasing levels of localization, discreteness, and mass—limitations of
the infinite eternal that is already present everywhere. From that perspective spacetime would not have to begin at a point and expand out
in all directions from an almost infinitely dense singularity, a Plancksize quantum, or nothing blasting out in a big bang (Greene, 1999).
Rather infinite space and eternal time would phenomenally condense
many “points” simultaneously (everywhere) within the unified field.
The subtlest finite space would be the closest to the infinite eternal.
In gross conventional spacetime the infinite would appear completely
hidden such that discrete, independent, localized finite objects are the
predominant phenomena (Boyer, 2008).
In the holistic view in Maharishi Vedic Science, the phenomenal
universe and the capacity to experience it correspond to each other. No
new dimensions of space and time would be needed to account for the
origins of local matter or even nonlocality if they are limitations within
the unified field. Deeper nonlocal levels would not be hidden because
they are enfolded spatial dimensions, but rather because they are subtler, unfurled, and permeate the grosser localized levels—again, like
ordinary spacetime permeates concrete objects in it. What makes for
subtle or gross domains would not be hidden extra spatial dimensions,
in that they would be limitations of the infinite eternal already existing
410
everywhere. Each grosser level would be permeated by, built of, background dependent upon, and emerge from, its subtler underpinning.
Four-dimensional spacetime could be viewed as sufficient to provide
the experiential framework for the senses of perception at all levels of
phenomenal experience.
This view also is consistent with the contemporary model of space
as flat, in the sense of extending in all three directions without being
curved. As Greene (2004, pp. 249-50) notes:
Normally, we imagine the universe began as a dot . . . in which there is
no exterior space or time. Then, from some kind of eruption, space and
time unfurled from their compressed form and the expanding universe
took flight. But if the universe is spatially infinite, there was already an
infinite spatial expanse at the moment of the big bang. . . . In this setting,
the big bang did not take place at one point; instead, the big bang eruption took place everywhere on the infinite expanse . . . as though there
were many big bangs, one at each point on the infinite spatial expanse.
After the big bang, space swelled, but its overall size didn’t increase
since something already infinite can’t get any bigger. What did increase
are the separations between objects like galaxies (once they formed)
. . . An observer like you or me, looking out from one galaxy or another,
would see surrounding galaxies all rushing away, just as Hubble discovered. . . . Bear in mind that this example of infinite flat space is far more
than academic. . . . [T]he flat, infinitely large spatial shape is the frontrunning contender for the large-scale structure of spacetime.
Infinite space can be thought of as flat and infinitely extended in all
directions. With respect to finite levels, however, space can be thought
of as curved—such as into a sphere. In the holistic view in Maharishi
Vedic Science, the mechanics of manifestation at all levels are characterized as the self-interacting dynamics of the unified field curving back
upon itself (Boyer, 2008). At the unified level it can be associated with
infinite self-referral, infinity in each point. At the ultramacroscopic level
it can be associated with a mandala form (like a circle or sphere) as in
the concept of Hiranya garbha or cosmic egg, the manifest nonlocal cosmic expanse within infinite eternal spacetime. At the ultramicroscopic
level it can be associated with curving back into discrete units such as
point particles, quanta, and atoms which comprise the microscopic and
macroscopic phenomena of our ordinary physical world. As described
411
in the Vedic text Bhagavad-Gita 9.8 (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1997,
p. 103):
Prakritim swam avashtabhya visrijami punah punah,
Curving back upon My own Nature, I create again and again.
Spacetime as the infinite eternal would not blast out.
In unified field theory everything would condense from within the unified field. The wholeness of the unified field would be prior to any of
the parts of nature. There would be no outside of the unified field, if it
is the eternal infinite that includes everything. The whole creates the
parts, and the parts would remain within the whole. Both reductive
and holistic perspectives are needed to get a sense of these proposed
ultimate dynamics of nature involving both point value of nothing and
infinite value of everything simultaneously. As stated in Katha Upanishad 1.2.20 (Nader, 2000, p. 18), the whole is both smaller than the
smallest and bigger than the biggest—which can be described as point
and infinity in one, beyond ultimate reductionism and holism.
From that ultimate perspective there might be individual big bangs
with respect to specific black holes within conventional spacetime and
ordinary gravity. With respect to the entirety of existence, however,
the big bang would not be an explosion to something outside the unified field, because everything resulting from it would remain inside it.
It would not create spacetime but rather be a limitation of the infinite
eternal unified field—perhaps a “big condensation” but not a “big bang”
creating spacetime from literally nothing (Boyer, 2008).
Conclusion and Outlook
This article outlined a progression of views of space and time from
Newtonian, relativistic, quantum, quantum gravity, and cosmological
to unified field theories in the search for room to place a causally efficacious conscious mind. The progression can be viewed as toward a
holistic view of three ontological domains: the infinite eternal unified
field, the finite subtle relative nonlocal field generally associated with
information or mental space, and the finite gross relative local field of
matter. These three theorized domains, consistent with the ontology
drawn from Maharishi Vedic Science, can be characterized as infinite
412
self-interaction, nonlocal wave interaction with object interdependence
(entanglement), and local particle interaction with object independence.
Scientific psychology and neuroscience have had great difficulty in
trying to locate mind and consciousness in the physical structure of
the brain/body. This research is now progressing into the more reductive quantum level underlying ordinary biophysical processes. Concurrently, theories of an ontologically real quantum level of nature and
an underlying information space or field of nonlocal mind have been
developing in quantum physics. This is suggestive that an expanded
ontology underneath conventional spacetime and beyond the physical
is needed in which to place conscious mind. In this more expanded
holistic view, mind is theorized to be nonlocal and causally efficacious
via subtle wave fields in nonconventional spacetime that influence
phenomenally inert particles in conventional spacetime. For the first
time in modern science a coherent rational framework may be emerging from which to address the historical mind-body problem and the
causal efficacy of mind. The more holistic views of nature outlined in
this article, although in a quite promising direction, require extensive
careful examination for their unprecedented implications for modern
science and society.
References
Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.J. 1993. The undivided universe. London:
Routledge.
Boyer, R.W. 2008. Bridge to unity: Unified Field-based science & spirituality. Malibu, CA: Institute for Advanced Research.
Clarke, C.J.S. 2000. The Nonlocality of Mind. In Shear, J. (Ed).
Explaining consciousness—the hard problem. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Darling, D. 1996. On creating something out of nothing? New Scientist, 151 (2047) 14 Sept.
Dossey, L. 1989. Recovering the soul: a scientific and spiritual search.
New York: Bantam Books.
Fuchs, C. quoted in Folger T. 2001. Quantum schmantum. Discover
Sept. 2001.
413
Greene, B. 1999. The elegant universe: superstrings, hidden dimensions,
and the quest for the ultimate theory. New York: Vintage Books.
Greene, B. 2004. The fabric of the cosmos: space, time, and the texture of
reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Herbert, N. 1985. Quantum reality: beyond the new physics. New York:
Anchor Books.
Hut, P. and Shepard, R. 2000. Turning the ‘Hard Problem’ Upside
Down and Sideways. In Shear, J. (Ed.) Explaining consciousness—
the hard problem. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Isaacson, W. 2007. Einstein: his life and universe. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 1997. Celebrating perfection in education: dawn
of total knowledge. India: Age of Enlightenment Publications
(Printers).
McGinn, C. 2000. Consciousness and Space. In Shear J. (Ed.)
Explaining consciousness —the hard problem. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Nader, T. 2000. Human physiology: expression of Veda and Vedic Literature, 4th edition. Vlodrop, The Netherlands: Maharishi Vedic
University.
Penrose, R. 1994. Shadows of the mind: in search of the missing science of
consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.
Randall, L. 2005. Warped passages: unraveling the mysteries of the universe’s hidden dimensions. London: Penguin Books.
Smolin, L. 2001. Three roads to quantum gravity. New York: Basic
Books.
Stapp, H.P. 2007. Mindful universe: quantum mechanics and the participating observer. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Talbot, M. 1991. The holographic universe. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc.
414
ENHANCED EEG ALPHA TIME-DOMAIN PHASE SYNCHRONY
Enhanced EEG Alpha Time-Domain Phase Synchrony
During Transcendental Meditation:
Implications for Cortical Integration Theory
■
Russell Hebert, Ph.D.
Dietrich Lehmann, Ph.D.
Gabriel Tan, Ph.D.
Frederick Travis, Ph.D.
Alarik Arenander, Ph.D.
415
About the Lead Author
Russell Hebert received his M.A. in psychophysiology from the University of Texas at Austin in 1967 and his Ph.D. in neuroscience from
Maharishi University of Management in 2008. He is currently a
research associate in psychophysiology at the Veterans Administration
Medical Center in Houston, Texas, where he reviews research protocols and conducts psychophysiological experiments in a clinical setting.
His most recent research explores the associations among pain, posttraumatic stress disorder, and heart rate variability in veterans of the
Iraq war.
416
Abstr act
Information transfer and integration in the brain that leads to high-level
cognitive processes requires neuronal coordination. High phase synchronization (zero-lag) in fast frequencies is implicated in integrating sensory events.
Alpha EEG activity, long regarded as a passive ‘‘idling’’ frequency, is now
being implicated in this integrative function. As an example, in brain pathology decreased alpha phase synchrony is correlated with a decline in cognitive
function. The Transcendental Meditation technique provides an interesting
starting point to study neuronal coordination because the ‘‘transcending’’
experience is a baseline state of consciousness, a condition of restful alertness
without cognitive activity. Previous work on the Transcendental Meditation technique, reported to increase numerous indices of mind–body health,
has been shown to increase neural coherence in the alpha band. In this study
15 subjects practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique were investigated for changes in alpha phase synchrony. A time-domain method was
used to measure millisecond phase shifts in 19 electrodes in long-term practitioners of Transcendental Meditation in two conditions: eyes-closed resting
and meditation. Significant reductions in millisecond phase lag were found
during the meditation condition as compared to the eyes-closed resting condition in 30 of 49 long-range electrode pairings between frontal and occipitoparietal areas. Under the same conditions, twelve control subjects without
meditation experience showed no change in alpha phase synchrony over the
same time period. It is proposed that enhanced phase synchrony in the alpha
frequency during meditation may improve functional integration and may
have implications for performance and mind–body health. A short proposal
for a phase synchrony model of consciousness is included.
Keywords: Phase synchrony; Alpha EEG; Ground state; Meditation;
Brain integration; Binding
S
Introduction
ignal processing methods generated by physicists, mathematicians
and electrical engineers are accelerating and transforming the
field of neuroscience. With the EEG findings arising from ‘‘borrowed’’ signal analysis methods, phase synchronization is emerging as
the dominant paradigm used for modeling neuronal coordination in
the brain [1]. With such investigative tools important issues such as
417
learning, multimodal functional integration or ‘‘binding’’, discontinuous perceptual frames and the neural ‘‘comparator’’ necessary for perception are being tied together experimentally to structure a complete
theory of consciousness. These aspects have been discussed in a comprehensive theory described as the ‘‘neurophysics of consciousness’’ [2].
Much of the content in the discussion section of the present article
follows the structure of this theory. Zero-lag phase synchronization
events in the brain are of central importance in the theory.
Some neuroscience theorists who were originally trained in the
physical sciences have described the difficulty ‘‘for researchers with different backgrounds to communicate subtle ideas or even to form wellposed questions about brain information processing’’ [3]. Even with
this, researchers from different perspectives are gradually integrating
disparate methods and discoveries to comprehend the machinery of the
mind. Neuroscientists are using concepts borrowed from physics in an
attempt to describe neural behavior and ‘‘to engage the interest and
active participation of physicists and mathematicians in the study of
brain dynamic.’’ [4]. In the present article, some ancient understandings and technologies of consciousness associated with meditation
practices are added to the diverse mix of conceptual formulations [5].
Background
Synchronization in the brain is ubiquitous. The mean zero phase coherence at all frequencies in the brain is between 40% and 65% [6]. The
duration, growth rate, frequency and strength of neural coupling are
important aspects in the study of performance and brain pathology
[1,7]. Neuroimaging methods show “hotspots” of localized brain activity whereas EEG connectivity measures such as synchrony and coherence reveal more direct evidence of functional integration of distant
brain activities. Phase synchronization may thus be viewed as a mechanism to accomplish complex cognitive tasks by recruiting spatially distributed neural populations [8].
Historically, the word ‘‘synchrony’’ has been used to describe highamplitude events reflecting large neural populations firing within the
same cortical areas such as in seizures, midline anterior theta bursts [9]
or in “hedonic hypersynchrony” in children described in early research
[10]. Phase synchrony terminology, as referenced here, is independent
418
of amplitude. It is common to see low-amplitude events that have a
high value of phase synchrony. Different phase synchrony analysis
methods are used to quantify the degree of precise timing of oscillations
arising from separate or contiguous brain areas [11].
Phase synchrony as used here describes quantitatively the degree
to which two signals are ‘‘in phase.’’ The earliest published method of
measuring phase synchrony was a simple voltage averaging method
published in 1965 [12].
Phase synchrony measures have been utilized to discover the occurrence of zero-lag ‘‘gamma’’ frequency events (around 40 cycles/s)
between widely separated brain areas [13–15]. The discovery of gamma
activity in perfect phase (with ‘‘zero-lag’’) over distributed neural regions
presents scientists with a phenomenon that is inconsistent with traditional understanding of traveling waves whose speed is determined by
nerve conduction velocities and synaptic transmission time. Zero-lag
is of particular research interest because it represents a mechanism to
account for brain integration or ‘‘binding.’’
Phase synchrony and phase coherence are related measures. Phase
synchrony reflects the degree of leading or lagging relation between
EEG signals from electrode pairs; phase coherence reflects stability of
phase relationship between electrode pairs, independent of leading and
lagging relationships. One advantage of phase synchrony over coherence is that phase synchrony can detect zero-phase lag events and thus
it may be more meaningful in the investigation of information transfer
and integration in the brain.
Several methods have been developed to measure phase synchrony.
The method chosen for the present study calculates the millisecond
time delay between two signals by counting the number of digitized
steps between oscillatory peaks based on a ‘‘best fit’’ sliding comparison. Also included in the category of time-domain analysis is the Hilbert transform [8] that measures the amount of time two signals are in
phase. Frequency-domain methods based on the Fourier transform are
also used [16]. Other methods include Morlet wavelet analysis [7,17]
and various methods of phase-locking to stimulus [18]. The advantages and limitations of phase synchrony methods have been discussed
recently [19] and a highly readable summary of the relationship of phase
synchrony and coherence has been published [11].
419
2.1. Alpha phase synchrony in the integration of brain function
Low frequency cortico–cortico interactions serve to integrate multiple
simultaneous brain activities [20,77]. Increased synchrony and coher
ency in the alpha frequencies has been found during cognitive and creative tasks [21–23,76]. During I.Q. and mental rotation tests, greater
connectivity is found between frontal and central [24] and frontal and
parietal [25] brain areas in induced upper alpha frequency.
Besides synchrony in spontaneous EEG and during tasks, some
research recently has looked at “phase locking” of alpha in relation to a
stimulus. The research suggests that a re-setting of phase occurs at the
onset of a stimulus. Though phase locking is not a measure of phase
synchrony, it does appear to ‘‘initialize’’ alpha to sensory input and
may have implications for information transfer in the brain. The “phase
locking index” has been developed to quantify the phase resetting of
alpha in response to a word or picture. Good memory performers show
a greater magnitude of phase locking in alpha during recognition in the
time window of the evoked potential [26–28].
Enhancement of synchrony has also been seen during attention
and vigilance [29]. Cortical synchrony in alpha is enhanced by such
influences as learned associations with a stimulus and the actual behavioral context and expectancy [30].
Deficiencies in long-range phase synchrony have been tied to
pathology in mania and seizure patients [11]. Low levels of long-range
(frontoparietal) alpha “synchronization likelihood” have been associated with mild Alzheimer’s dementia involving memory loss and disorientation [31]. In a large-scale study, patients with varying degrees
of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s dementia were analyzed using
Global Field Synchronization (GFS), a measure of global EEG synchronization. GFS reflects the global amount of phase-locked activity
at a given frequency. Decline in patients’ performance correlated with
decreased phase synchrony in alpha, beta and gamma frequencies [32].
Deficiencies in phase synchrony in clinical populations confirms the
general hypothesis of a neural ‘‘disconnection syndrome’’ [33].
2.2. Enhancing alpha phase synchrony
Since healthy phase synchrony may be associated with improved cognitive performance and normalized clinical symptoms, it is important to
420
investigate methods that may enhance phase synchrony. These methods
include transcranial magnetic stimulation and meditation practice.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) induces a
strong magnetic field into the brain at close range at different stimulation rates.
Subjects stimulated at the alpha rate with rTMS showed improvements in performance [34] in a mental rotation task. The rTMS procedure has shown promise in improving several disease categories
including pain and depression [35] and Parkinson’s [36]. Transcranial
magnetic stimulation given to patients with various movement and
psychiatric disorders was found to increase alpha coherence [37]. The
authors suggest that rTMS modulates inter- and intra-hemispheric
connectivity. The clinical improvement through rTMS is usually transient.
Practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique like rTMS
results in elevated levels of alpha EEG coherence, and could also
result in increases in phase synchrony. The occurrence of heightened
alpha EEG coherence during Transcendental Meditation practice
was first published almost 30 years ago [38]. Since that report, alpha
phase coherence during Transcendental Meditation has been reported
to (1) increase within two weeks’ Transcendental Meditation practice
compared to the eyes-closed baseline session [39]; (2) correlate with
improvements in cognitive and emotional parameters such as moral
reasoning, emotional stability and anxiety [40]; (3) increase within
the first minute of Transcendental Meditation practice compared to
eyes-closed rest in the same subjects, and remain at that high level
throughout the session [41]; (4) increase during computer tasks, outside
of meditation, with regular Transcendental Meditation practice [42];
and (5) associate with positive outcomes in a broad range of patient
categories including schizophrenia and depression [43]. Except for a
brief mention in an early paper [44] and a recent abstract [45], no Transcendental Meditation research has quantified phase synchrony—only
EEG coherence has been analyzed.
2.3. A model of brain–mind functioning and meditation
Current theoretical articles have suggested the study of low-cognitiveactivity states in order to gain insights in the experimental analysis of
421
consciousness. One article on neocortical dynamics defines a separate
role for global (3–16 Hz) and local (above 16 Hz) EEG frequencies [3].
Global frequencies are proposed to unify events over the whole cortex,
whereas local frequencies represent isolated sensory activity. States of
minimum cognitive activity often exhibit global (widespread), spatially
coherent EEG data. The model suggests testing the brain states that
are close to the extreme ends of the local-global EEG frequency gamut,
i.e., a ‘‘pure global state’’ [3, p. 385]. Some meditative states such as
‘‘transcending’’ represent the far extreme of global states involving
minimum cognitive processing.
Another theoretical framework specified in meditation theory as
well as neuroscience theory is the conceptualization of a ‘‘ground state’’
of consciousness as a basis for understanding active mental states in the
brain. The neurophysics of consciousness theory [2] uses this framework. Some authors have designated the sleep state as the ground state
[46]; others have selected eyes-closed resting [2] or waking up in a dark
room [47] as the ground state.
To describe how the Transcendental Meditation program minimizes cognitive activity and creates a ‘‘ground state of consciousness,’’
we place it in a model of brain/mind functioning1 from the ancient oral
and written texts of the Vedas [5]. From this perspective the mind is
modeled with a vertical dimension—from active thinking and planning on the surface to more silent field properties at its depth, to a
baseline of the mind, a state of pure wakefulness—alertness without
activity of thoughts and feelings [40,41]. This state is called ‘‘restful
alertness’’ [78,79] and is associated with heightened EEG coherence
and periods of spontaneous breath quiescence [41,75].
Much attention has been given to the study of ‘‘contents’’ of consciousness and ‘‘process’’ of consciousness, but now through the meditation model the study of ‘‘consciousness itself ’’ is feasible. This model
of consciousness delineates three aspects of experience: knower (con1 The use of full mental potential. ‘‘The art of bringing the transcendental Being to the level of
the mind simultaneously enlarges the conscious capacity of the mind and enables the full mind
to function. It has the advantage of bringing to action all the potentialities of the mind: nothing remains hidden, nothing remains subconscious, everything becomes conscious. This makes
every thought a very powerful thought. Again while dealing with the cosmic law we have seen
that when the mind comes to that field of the Being, it is naturally set in the rhythm with all the
laws of nature and in tune with the process of cosmic evolution.’’ Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1966,
The Science of Being and the Art of Living, Signet Press, George, Allen and Lunwin, London.
422
sciousness itself), known (contents of consciousness) and process of
knowing (process of consciousness, connecting knower and known).
The meditation model1 emphasizing the three-in-one nature of con
sciousness suggests that during meditation the three (the knower, the
known and process of knowing) become unified in a state of I-ness,
Amness or Being [48]. This meditative state is thus completely selfreferral as opposed to object-referral [40]. Activity arising from the
meditative ground state is represented as contents and process of consciousness; that is, specific sensory and cognitive processing can be
viewed as activation of the ground state.
In a recent journal article a prominent Indian physiologist calls for
research into this self-referral state of thoughtless awareness or ‘‘turiya
avastha’’:
It has been common knowledge to oriental thinkers for many centuries,
that there are many further states of the human mind, culminating in
the state of thoughtless awareness; the fourth state of consciousness.
This state must have a physiological basis. The complicated structure of
the brain, the extravagant abundance of neural and glial elements in the
brain, the infinite possibilities of synaptic junctions and synaptic transmission, and the multitude of neurotransmitters and neuromodulators;
all these point to the definite possibility of a much greater level of performance and achievement for the human brain than has been apparent
so far. Not only the theories but also the experience of Eastern seers
have shown that the brain can transcend the boundaries of logic and
reason, and experience states of awareness, commonly unrecognized. In
the past few decades, knowledge about the functioning of the human
brain has been growing exponentially and scientists of diverse disciplines are concentrating on unraveling its mysteries. It is necessary for
scientists to investigate this state with all available tools and find the
neurophysiological basis of this state [49].
2.4. EEG theta and meditation research
Enhancement of alpha and theta activity has been historically tied to
meditation and attributed to increased brain ‘‘idling.’’ Lately, rhythmical frontal midline theta has been tied to specific cognitive states such
as during numerical tasks [50] and internalized attention and positive
emotional experience during meditation [51]. Though alpha and theta
are considered to involve overlapping and similar brain networks [52],
there is increasing evidence from evoked potentials and memory stud423
ies [28] that they must be dealt with separately. Early in the process of
narrowing the topic for the present research it was decided to limit the
focus to the alpha frequency for the sake of clarity. Theta topics will be
addressed in a separate study.
3. Purpose
The purpose of the present research is to investigate the effects of the
Transcendental Meditation technique on EEG alpha phase synchrony.
4. Methods
We have chosen here a time-domain method that measures the millisecond time delay between two signals.
4.1. Subjects
Experimental Group: Fifteen individuals (9 males and 6 females)
responded to an advertisement in the Transcendental Meditation center to participate in a study of the EEG dynamics during Transcendental Meditation practice. The subjects had at least 25 years of regular
practice of Transcendental Meditation twice a day (average 27.2 years).
Their age ranged from 46 to 63 years and averaged 54 years. An EEG
experiment was performed on an additional long-term meditator who
was also analyzed for experiences in Transcendental Meditation associated with respiration suspension.
Control Group: Twelve volunteers (7 males and 5 females) with no
experience with meditation of any type served as controls. They were
friends and
colleagues of the Transcendental Meditation study participants.
These subjects were of the same gender mix, education and age as the
Transcendental Meditation group (45–61 years, average age 55). Most
participants in both groups had advanced college degrees. All subjects
were free of psychotropic drugs, and had no history of medical problems or brain injury that might affect the EEG.
4.2. Procedures
This was a within-subjects design. The experiment began with a 3-min
eyes-open habituation period. The EEG was then recorded during a
424
3-min eyes-closed rest condition that was followed by a 20-min Transcendental Meditation session and a 15-min rest period for the controls.
Transcendental Meditation subjects were instructed:
Please sit quietly with eyes closed without meditating for a three minute
control period.
Then they were instructed to begin their Transcendental Meditation
practice. At the end of Transcendental Meditation the subjects were
asked to end the meditation and to keep the eyes closed for an additional 3-min transition period.
Controls were given a 3-min eyes-closed period. Then they were
asked to ‘‘not practice any mental technique but merely to sit comfortably, keep the eyes closed and think about nothing in particular, just
ordinary thinking’’ for an additional 15-min period.
4.3. Test apparatus and data acquisition
All subjects are tested using Lexicor Neurosearch 19 channel EEG
equipment with auxiliary channels. EEG was filtered by anti-aliasing
filters (high pass 2 Hz, low pass 64 Hz) with a cut-off frequency of
256 samples per second (gain setting 32 K and a 60 Hz notch filter).
In a sound-attenuated room subjects were seated comfortably for scalp
preparation and electrode application using the ECI International electrode cap with elastic band cap with conventional 10–20 placements.
Electrode locations included Fp1, Fp2, F3, F4, F7, F8, Fz, C3, C4, Cz,
T3, T4, T5, T6, P3, P4, Pz, O1, O2 with a ground between Fz and Cz.
Reference was linked ears built into the cap. Electrode impedance is
lowered to below 10 k Ω at each electrode site.
In one additional Transcendental Meditation subject, a respiration
recording was made along with the EEG in order to monitor substages of meditation as seen in the respiratory patterns. The pneumograph manufactured by J & J Equipment was integrated through the
auxiliary channels of the EEG unit and respiration was recorded and
visually monitored in the lower part of the data screen.
4.4. Data analysis
Data was artifacted by experienced EEG technicians to remove data
segments contaminated by muscle or eye-movement activity. Excur-
425
sions of greater than 100 mV due to artifact were excluded. EEG editor
software EEG32 allows editing on the computer screen. Utilizing a
standard data selection protocol [32] the first 40 seconds of artifactfree data segments were selected within each subject under eyes-closed
resting conditions. Subsequently, the first 40 seconds of artifact-free
data was edited from periods beginning after 10 min of Transcendental Meditation (for the Transcendental Meditation group) and after 10
min of EC rest (for the Controls).
Data was originally sampled at 256 data points per second and automatically re-sampled at 100 Hz in the Neurorep quantitative EEG
analysis software (Grey Matter Inc. of San Rafael, California). In this
program data is processed with a two-stage (4 pole) Butterworth band
pass filter into frequency bands according to the following demarcations: delta .5–3.5 Hz, theta 3.5–7 Hz, alpha 7.0–13 Hz; beta 13–22
Hz. Data epochs are of 1-s duration. The 171 possible pairs are analyzed for millisecond phase lag.
The Neurorep software calculates the millisecond time delay in each
pair of electrodes in each frequency band. This is accomplished by taking two signals aligned with alignment bars so that the two signals
are locked in time the way they were when they were recorded. There
are 100 time points end to end in the one second of data. One signal
is shifted systematically one digitized step in relation to the other with
the signal being shifted in both directions for 31.2 ms. At each time
point a correlation coefficient for the paired signal values is calculated.
The highest correlation point is thereby determined. The difference of
that point and the original position gives the time lag. In each 1-s of
data there may be a delay, or the two signals may be exactly at the
original position (zero-lag). For an example the highest correlation is
one digitized step out of phase, then the delay would be 10 MS (1000
ms divided by 100 samples/s). The value ‘‘10’’ would be one of 40 values averaged for each subject to get an average ms delay. That number
which is the mean of 40 s of data was used in the statistics.
4.5. Statistical analysis
The Neurorep analysis of the 40 s of data yields 171 raw scores representing the average millisecond delay in each of 171 electrode pairs.
Four sets of data were generated: (1) Transcendental Meditation sub-
426
jects with eyes closed; (2) Transcendental Meditation subjects after 10
min of meditation; (3) Control group during EC; and (4) Control group
after 10 min of an additional EC recording period. The Control experiment was a test to see if the passing of time under these conditions
would create phase-lag changes.
In the first stage of statistical analysis we performed multiple t-tests
on the difference in phase synchrony between the two periods-eyesclosed and Transcendental Meditation practice in the experimental
subjects and eyes-closed and eyes-closed in the control subjects. This
resulted in 342 t-tests—171 electrode pairs within each group of subjects. Also, a correlation analysis was performed to examine trends in
the anterior–posterior (A–P) phase lag changes as compared to left–
right (L–R) activity during TM. The raw tracings of the records were
visually inspected to observe nonstatistical trends in the behavior of
phase patterns. Additionally, the mean value of phase synchrony from
the sum of the 171 electrode combinations was compared within-conditions.
5. Results
The analysis method yielded an orderly and consistent depiction of
phase activity.
Traveling waves showed proportional phase lag increases across the
scalp. Millisecond phase lags typically increased from a few milliseconds at Fp1-F3; then ~14 ms at Fp1-C3; ~29 ms at Fp1-P3; and ~48 ms
at Fp1-O1. The results showed three distinct global patterns of phase
topography: traveling waves (type A), an anti-phase zero-lag pattern
where front and back brain areas were out of phase (type B) and a zerolag condition over the whole cortex (Type C). Statistical results show
increased long-range A–P phase synchrony during Transcendental
Meditation, and this is attributed to increases in the global zero-lag
pattern. The low time lags of Type C, averaged with the intermediate
and high phase lag values of types A and B, yielded lower lag values
during Transcendental Meditation as compared to eyes closed.
Previous Transcendental Meditation studies have primarily found
changes in alpha coherence in frontal regions, especially F3–F4 derivations. This study presents a new category of findings, namely, strong
increases in A–P connectivity.
427
A number of significant A–P changes in phase lags were noted in the
Transcendental Meditation group. Table 1 shows the electrode pairings
and levels of significance for EC vs. the Transcendental Meditation
group. There were 31 electrode pairs that showed significant decreases
in phase lag from eyes-closed to Transcendental Meditation practice.
The significance threshold was set at 0.05 however, some pairings
reached 0.004. There were no significant differences in phase lag in
the control group. Just sitting for 15–20 min did not result in phase lag
changes.
Thirty of the Transcendental Meditation related-changes were longrange A–P connections. One of these (Fz-F3) was a short-range (adjacent) connection. Also, two posterior connections (T6-O2 and P4-T5)
showed increases in phase lag during Transcendental Meditation practice. Figure 1 shows the brain areas with significant phase lag changes:
Figure 1A shows phase lag reductions and Figure 1B shows phase lag
increases.
428
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and significance levels of differences in alpha phase synchrony in 30 long-distance electrode
pairings (values are averages of 15 subjects)
Left column: Areas of the brain showing significant changes in EEG alpha
phase synchrony during Transcendental Meditation as compared to rest (P <
0.05). Note: three short-range exceptions at bottom of table.
429
The analysis of A–P, L–R difference in phase synchrony showed that
the level of significance increased with distance in A–P connections,
but not in the contralateral (L–R) connections (P < 0.01). The correlation coefficients are presented in Table 2. The difference (of phase
difference between channels) comparing EC vs. Transcendental Meditation correlated significantly positive with the A–P distance between
the electrodes of the 171 pairs of channels (i.e., the larger the distance
between paired channels/electrodes, the larger was change in phase
synchrony), but, none of these 4 parameters correlated with the R–L
distance between the electrodes of the 171 pairs of channels.
An additional test was a subgroup analysis of averaged difference in
phase synchrony across all sensor pairs during the eyes-closed and Transcendental Meditation period. This was an overall phase synchrony
measure that was determined by finding the mean of the 171 phase lag
values in each Transcendental Meditation subject under both conditions EC and TM period. We compared the averages between the two
conditions by a within subjects paired t-test. This calculation yielded
a significant difference between the two conditions (t(14) = 3.03, P <
0.008; mean of EC = 7.91 (S.D. = 5.43) and a mean of TM = 6.44
(S.D. = 4.20). This is a global measure of phase synchrony changes during Transcendental Meditation practice and suggests there is an overall
reduction in millisecond phase lag, indicating an enhancement of phase
synchrony in the brain as a whole.
Long-range connections, TM Group: Long-range connections
showed shorter phase lag in 30 of 49 A–P connections during Transcendental Meditation as compared to rest at the P < 0.05 level or better. The areas affected were T5-F1, T5-F7, T6-F4, O2-F3, O2-F4,
Fz-F3, Fz-T5, Fz-P3, Fz-T5, Fz-P3, Fz-P4, Fz-O1, Fz-O2, Pz-F1,
Pz-F7, Pz-F8, Pz-F3, Pz-F4, P3-F1, P3-F2, P3-F7, P3-F8, P3-F3,
P3-F4, P4-F1, P4-F2, P4-F7, P4-F8, P4-F3, P4-F4, O1-F3, O1-F4.
The highest significance values (better than P < 0:004) were P3-F7
and O2-F3. One short-range connection in the frontal cortex (Fz-F3)
showed significant decreases in phase lag. The connection between
right parietal (P4) and left temporal (T5) was the only intrahemispheric
L–R pairing that showed significant increase. Also, one adjacent pairing (O2-T6) showed phase lag increase from EC to TM.
430
Figure 1. (A) Long-range anterior-posterior connections showing higher
EEG phase synchrony in Transcendental Meditation compared to rest. p <
0.05. (B) Posterior areas showing decreases in alpha phase synchrony in TM.
p < 0.05.
To get a better idea of what EEG activity was occurring on a
moment-to-moment basis, we visually examined the edited segments
of the records. We found evidence of phase shifts that appear in the
raw unfiltered tracings indicating near zero-lag over the whole cortex.
There were three classes of these occurrences: the largest group (9 subjects) showed posterior alpha developing into phase alignments that
appeared uniformly among all electrodes. This gives the appearance
of neat columns of peaks and valleys that are aligned vertically (as in
Figures 2B and 2D).
431
A smaller group of three subjects showed an increased incidence of
frontally dominant alpha spreading to the back (as in Figures 2A, 2C,
and 2E). In a third group of three subjects, alpha appeared out-of-phase
in front an back and then came into phase abruptly. These subjects
showed short periods when all channels were in phase alternating with
short periods when the anterior electrodes were 180 [degrees] out of
phase with posterior electrodes (antiphase, as in Figure 2F). This gives
a “butterfly” appearance to the tracing at the midpoint between Cz and
Pz. In one subject monitored with a respirometer, this type of phase
alignment consistently occurred within the 5-s preceding suspension of
respiration, a marker of maximum depth of Transcendental Meditation
[75].
Table 2. Correlation analysis of electrode distances and phase lag in milliseconds indicates that anterior–posterior connections were affected more than
left–right connections
The raw scores for each 1-s data epoch were not available; only the
mean of 40 s of data was evaluated. The 40 s average phase lag score
for most of the Transcendental Meditation subjects during EC vs. TM
practitioners showed a range of 10–60% reductions in phase lag in the
long-range connections. It is assumed that the phase shifts toward
zero-lag located visually in the EEG records accounted for the reductions in phase lag.
432
Figure 2. Incidence of whole-head zero-lag alpha during TM. Vertical lines
added to highlight phase events. Maximum amplitudes 60 microvolts. (A)
Alpha developing simultaneously over all leads. Examples are from four different Transcendental Meditation subjects. (B) Frontally dominant alpha
spreading to anterior regions. (C) Anti-phase and in-phase alpha patterns
in the same subject.
6. Summary of findings
Compared to rest periods, the practice of Transcendental Meditation
produced an increase in alpha phase synchrony primarily between anterior and posterior regions. Control subjects tested under the same conditions did not show increases. Because of the control group results, the
findings in the Transcendental Meditation period are not likely to be
attributed to passage of time from eyes-closed to meditation.
433
Patterns in the raw EEG were interpreted as showing an increased
incidence of zero-lag alpha events in the brain during the Transcendnetal Mediation period. Linked-ear reference was discounted as a source
of zero-lag through a comparison with linked left and right nostril reference that yielded the same patterns. The prominent feature in the
records was episodic phase coordination in the form of vertical columns
of peaks. The high incidence of visibly increased phase coordination
likely contributed to the A–P time lag reductions.
Some evidence of laterality was seen in the left temporal (T5) area
extending to frontal leads. This may be accounted for by the fact that
Transcendental Meditation involves the use of Vedic sounds that may
activate phononic-semantic processing areas underlying T5 location
[14]. The millisecond time-lag measures in the right hemisphere at T6
were also lower during TM as compared to EC, though the changes
did not reach significance.
7. Interpretation of results: implications for enhanced cortical integration
Zero-lag events are important for the understanding of binding and
functional integration in the brain. The following discussion will suggest how increases in alpha phase synchrony found here could have
implications for functional integration.
7.1. Explanation of zero-lag events
Neuroscientists have used physics and mathematical concepts to lure
more technically-minded researchers into finding explanations of how
zero-lag can occur. One extraordinary effort to understand zero-lag
phase synchronization events uses terms like ‘‘chaotic itinerancy,’’ ‘‘selforganized criticality,’’ ‘‘anomalous dispersion’’ and ‘‘phase transitions’’
to account for zero-lag neural events in human and animal experiments
[4,13,53]. As an example, the author describes how anomalous dispersion is ‘‘ . . . a well-defined concept from physics that can provide a
scaffold for the experimental exploration of a phenomenon that might
otherwise be overlooked or explained away.’’ The author then describes
how with anomalous dispersion ‘‘The high velocity of spread of phase
transitions can synchronize the oscillations in the beta–gamma range,
434
which in turn express their structure in amplitude modulation patterns.’’
This intriguing theory suggests that the brain maintains a state near
a critical recognition point (self-organized criticality) and that a low
neural input can create a massive state change in the brain across large
distances. The author describes abrupt changes in analytic phase over
distances up to 20 cm in humans [4]. These brain state changes create
phase locking or zero-lag through a process resembling phase transitions in physical systems. Though the evidence for self-organized criticality is compelling, the nature of this state-change phenomenon is still
unknown in neurobiological processes.
With good results, some have used simulations based on neuroanatomy to decipher zero-lag [54]. Simulations of triplets rather than pairs
of reciprocally connected areas in the cortical hierarchy showed zerolag emerging naturally from their three-way interactions. This model
may help interpret data involving interactions of top-down vs. bottomup interactions among different cortical layers.
Others have proposed the physics of standing waves as a mechanism
for the creation of zero-lag [55]. Standing waves create a stationary
environment in the brain favorable for the formation of information
fields and nonlocal binding processes.
7.2. Traveling and standing waves
Owing to the temporal and spatial structure of the alpha patterns found
here and concurrently elsewhere [24], the area of physics theory known
as traveling and standing waves is chosen as the favored explanation for
zero-lag. This aspect has been described by recent EEG publications
[3,55].
Traveling waves occur in the alpha frequency during sensory, perceptual and memory processing [22]. Typically, sensory processing is
described as bottom-up or feed-forward processing, and perception and
cognition are described as top-down or feed-back processing. Feed-forward activity travels from the back to the front of the brain and feedback activity moves from front to back. Traveling waves appear to carry
sensory information but they do not qualify conceptually as a binding
mechanism. Only zero-lag or phase-synchronized EEG events have
been implicated in multimodal binding.
435
A recent research article on spatial and temporal aspects of spontaneous alpha phase activity has described two EEG patterns in the
eyes-closed resting condition [56]. One alpha pattern (pattern A) was a
traveling wave, predominantly front to back (and also to a lesser extent
back to front). The direction of the traveling waves was attributed
mainly to imagery controlled by top-down influences in eyes-closed
conditions.
The other pattern found (pattern B) was an anti-phase condition
where the front and back of the brain were out of phase by π radians. In
this pattern, the anterior region is in zero-lag in alpha and the posterior
area is in zero-lag in alpha but the front and back are out of phase 1801.
This condition qualifies as a zero-lag condition though it is divided into
two regions, anterior and posterior. Anatomical, functional and topographic studies have agreed with this dual-compartment determination
of sensory (posterior) and anterior non-sensory-specific regions [57].
Anesthesia studies have placed the seat of consciousness in the anterior
regions. Communication (coherence) between anterior and posterior
regions breaks down dramatically under anesthesia [2].
When waves are traveling during sensory events they propagate
from sensory to nonsensory specific areas. Conversely, when waves are
traveling front to back, the cognitive areas extend an influence to sensory areas (see [22]).
Pattern B was first described and attributed to a neural ‘‘dipole’’ distribution of electrical charge [58]. This anti-phase condition also occurs
in steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEP) [55] and is described
as a ‘‘standing wave’’. This SSVEP condition also showed a front/back
difference of π radians with a node at the midline. Our millisecond
delay phase analysis technique used in the present study confirmed the
finding of pattern B and is attributed to standing wave dynamics.
In several subjects in the eyes-closed condition, the front compartment was at zero-lag up to the midline and the back compartment was
also in zero-lag. The two areas were approximately 50 ms out of phase.
This suggests that every half-cycle of alpha (approximately 50 ms for
a 10 Hz wave) the polarity changes, creating an anti-phase condition.
Combining the results of the time lag and radian methods of phase
analysis yields a conclusion that the traveling speed of an alpha wave
allows a half cycle of alpha (π radians) to be in place over the whole cor-
436
tex every 50 ms. Yet there was a phase shift at the midline. The explanation most likely is attributed to the dynamics of a fixed-end standing
wave [56]. In a fixed-end standing wave the alternating phase behaves
like a reverberating wave. This would mean that a wave traveling from
the back of the brain would reverse its traveling direction when it
reached the front. The reverberating interference in the bi-directional
waves would create standing wave patterns like fixed-end strings on a
guitar (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Graphic representation of time sequence in the development of a
fixed-end standing wave in 10 Hz alpha. Wave begins from the back of the
brain and after 50 ms it reaches the front of the brain and begins traveling
in the opposite direction and interacts with the negative component of the
first oscillation (A). Constructive/destructive interference creates a standing
wave pattern with two antinodes and one node in the middle (B).
One author has suggested that the boundary conditions of the cranium, the speed of the traveling waves and the dynamics of firing
sequences involved in perception set up a robust mechanism for zero
phase lag [3]. Apparently, because of interference of propagating waves
on the cortical surface, only certain discrete wavelengths of standing
437
waves can persist, as in analog physical systems such as musical instruments. Because of the speed of propagation, the wavelength of alpha,
and the size of the cranium, the alpha frequency favors the development of standing waves in humans.
7.3. Zero-lag anti-phase alpha may represent the two limbs of a comparator
The segregation of function of anterior and posterior brain areas suggests a role in the comparator process in the brain. A vast body of evidence recently reviewed [2, p. 11] shows that in order for perception
to occur there must be an interface between new sensory information
and the context of previous experiences. Within 1–500 ms from the
point of stimulus, information must be taken in and evaluated for cognitive meaning. The standing wave between the front and back of the
brain can provide such a mechanism for inducing long-distance synchrony that relates ‘‘content’’ (posterior sensory information) to ‘‘context’’ (anterior representations of past experience). Bi-directional alpha
can create a standing wave setting up two fields, a subject field and an
object field—the two limbs of a comparator. Evidence suggests that
nothing happens experientially until the comparison finds meaning in
the new stimulus [2, p. 8]. The neurophysics of consciousness theory
suggests that ‘‘sensation’’ becomes ‘‘perception’’ when sufficient overlap
of the two fields of information occurs. This identification of new sensory input with related past experience creates a loss of ambiguity and
a collapse of the two ionic wave functions. These processes are likely
reflected in the late components of the evoked potential [59].
It is interesting to note that different cortical layers show phase reversal at different depths in animal implant studies [60]. Thus the different
layers of the cortex provide a reasonable framework for interaction of
phase in comparator processing. An understanding of the informationcarrying properties of antiphase conditions in the brain may also be
gained from studying the properties of antiphase lasers [61].
Although quantum models have been suggested for the field ‘‘collapse’’ of the two information fields [2, p. 4], evidence of how this
hypothetical comparator occurs has not been presented. It is proposed
here that the two anti-phase fields changing polarity every 50 ms constitutes the mechanism of the comparator.
438
7.4. Zero-lag alpha standing waves may promote gamma binding through
‘‘phase-coupling’’
Zero-lag gamma oscillations have been implicated in the binding of
information in the cortex.
How does this relate to the proposed alpha anti-phase comparator
activity? Recent studies have shown phase coupling between slow frequencies (alpha, theta and delta) and fast frequencies (beta, gamma)
during information processing [30,62,63]. The zero-lag in the slow
frequencies (set up by standing waves) combined with phase coupling
suggests a mechanism for phase synchrony of gamma. Through phase
coupling, low frequencies including alpha EEG rhythms would bind
gamma frequency oscillations over long distances, thus forming a
unified mental construction.
Information fields may be set up for ‘‘content’’ and ‘‘context’’ that
are compared every 50 ms until recognition of meaning is established.
These time elements are a good fit for early components of sensoryevoked potential studies. Anterior–parietal bursts of gamma occur
during face recognition on the point of 200 ms [15]. Based on train
duration studies [64] it is suggested that perception may occur at 300–
500 ms post stimulus.
This is depicted in the scenario where subthreshold gamma oscillations are pushed into firing by slow-wave activity [60]. Gamma oscillations may be enhanced by slow oscillations [30,65]. This is supported
by the finding that gamma activity occurs at alpha and theta rates in
humans [53].
The findings in the present study suggest that during eyes-closed
periods traveling waves and fixed-end standing waves occur as information is perceived and evaluated. This time frame corresponds to power
peaks of EEG microstates lasting 100–200 ms that correspond to perceptual frames or ‘‘atoms of thought’’ [66] and to link-rate analysis [1].
7.5. Zero-lag in alpha over the whole cortex
Besides the traveling waves and the anti-phase pattern, the present
study also found a third type of temporal structure in the alpha frequency (Type C) associated with Transcendental Meditation practice.
This was not described in the recent work by others [56]. The dominant
pattern in some long-term Transcendental Meditation practitioners
439
was a zero-lag condition over the whole cortex without a nodal line of
phase reversal in the middle. This means that every 50 ms the whole
cortex reverses polarity (Fig. 4).
These global zero-lag events accounted for the results of the study
that showed an increase A–P phase synchrony (a decrease in phase time
lag) during the Ttranscendental Meditation period. A condition of
zero-lag over the whole cortex suggests an open-end standing wave that
results from two perfectly timed waves of the same frequency traveling in opposite directions. This kind of wave is not structured through
reverberation.
7.6. Alpha global zero-lag condition parallels meditation experience
Standing wave type C may be created when content of consciousness
is absent. In the contentless state of the deepest point of Transcendental Meditation, there is no object of attention. The three elements of
knower, known and process of knowing (described in Section 2.3) dissolve into a three-in-one structure of ‘‘knowingness.’’ The whole cortex
in zero-lag alpha represents the total unification and integration of consciousness. Phenomenological studies of Transcendental Meditation
[48] agree with ancient descriptions of meditative states. These descriptions include evenness, wholeness, unification, and peacefulness.
It is proposed that through the procedure of Transcendental Meditation practice, the signal-to-noise ratio of alpha and gamma oscillations is altered so that gamma firing is decreased along with ‘‘content’’
of consciousness. The alpha is allowed to flow unrestrictedly in both
directions without eliciting sensory processing. This agrees with the
high alpha/gamma ratios seen in advanced meditators [42]. These
distinctions are further supported by the findings of Transcendental
Meditation cognitive research identifying a shift from ‘‘object referral’’
to ‘‘self referral’’ in advanced practitioners [40].
8. A proposed phase-synchrony model of cortical integration
The findings of the present study suggest a phase synchrony model that
has explanatory value in several important components of consciousness theory—multimodal binding, perception, cognition, comparator
and discontinuity of consciousness that are described as follows:
440
A signal is received in the posterior sensory cortex, ongoing alpha
activity is reset to zero (phase-locking to stimulus) and begins traveling
across the cortex to anterior regions (P–A direction). This takes about
50 ms, and this is the time it takes for the full positive phase of the
alpha wave to occur. (A complete cycle of 10 HZ alpha occurs every
100 ms). As the information is received in frontal regions and recognized or compared to previous impressions, a reaction or responsive
wave begins traveling in the opposite (A–P) direction. At this instant
the P–A wave begins its negative cycle still traveling in the P–A direction. The two waves intersect and through destructive/constructive
interference create an anti-phase standing wave condition with a nodal
boundary across the midline. At this point, the anterior regions and
posterior regions are undergoing phase reversals with opposite polarity every 50 ms. The front of the brain is in zero-lag and the back of
the brain is in zero-lag with the anterior and posterior compartments
180°out of phase.
The positive phase component of the alpha wave enhances subthreshold gamma modulations and creates a burst of gamma activity
alternately in the anterior and posterior compartments at the alpha rate.
The process of comparison occurs. In the environment of zero phase lag
in both regions, the information field of the sensory-specific region is
compared to the information field of the nonsensory-specific anterior
brain region, and if the object is recognized then the two fields interact and a moment of cognitive experience occurs. Sensation becomes
perception. This is a nonlocal cooperative integration occurring across
spatially distributed local processes [2, p. 2]. The zero-lag environment
resembles a holographic information field. This process represents a
mechanism of binding and accounts for zero-lag events in the gamma
frequency.
It is during this time of reverberation, interaction and comparison
that the early components of the sensory evoked potentials occur. If the
stimulus is perceived as significant, then late nonsensory components
of the evoked potential arise. At about 230 ms a burst of gamma occurs
between frontal and parietal regions during face recognition. This corresponds to the late component of the evoked potential. In a related
finding during insight, ‘‘aha’’ or Eureka experiences, a burst of gamma
441
occurs over the right temporal cortex following an alpha burst in the
parietal association cortex [67].
Figure 4. Model of how open-end standing wave might occur over the human
cortex. Two alpha waves of the same frequency (1 and 2) travel in opposite
directions to intersect and create a standing wave stationary over the whole
cortex (9 + 2).
The time frame of 1–200 ms corresponds to the duration of a microstate [66] described as an ‘‘atom of thought.’’ Microstate subtype structure supports this model with sensory (posterior) and frontal global
442
power peaks alternating and then also a uniform waveform occuring
front-to-back. Microstate episodes have been described as perceptual frames and may correspond to the timing of phase synchronized
gamma bursts occurring at alpha and theta rates that are called ‘‘cinematic frames’’ [53]. Gamma activity appearing at alpha and theta rates
confirms the current hypothesis of phase coupling of alpha and gamma.
The phase coupling of zero-lag alpha and fast frequencies may thus perform like an orchestra where the alpha is the conductor and the gamma
binding represents the collective functioning of the parts—the different instruments of the orchestra. This may correspond a global resonant
state [68] occurring during the ‘‘unity of visual experience.’’
9. Implications for mind-body health and performance
In Section 2.1, we reviewed experiments showing that the integrity of
phase synchrony is important for mental health and performance. In
particular, A–P alpha connections are important for cognitive integration. In Section 7.5, we have described a phase model of consciousness
showing how zero-lag A–P alpha standing waves might generate functional coupling and binding of gamma frequencies.
In light of the findings of increased A–P synchrony with Transcendental Meditation practice, the performance/clinical significance of
Transcendental Meditation is highlighted.
Transcendental Meditation specifically enlivens long-range neural
mechanisms necessary for ‘‘tight functional binding’’ [from Ref. 22].
The A–P areas and EEG frequencies enlivened in Transcendental
Meditation are the same areas that break down in mild Alzheimer’s
[31]. The one EEG feature distinguishing patients with mild Alzheimer’s dementia from patients with vascular dementia groups, like stroke
victims, was a prominent reduction of fronto-parietal alpha. Some of
the symptoms of mild Alzheimer’s could be attributed to disconnection
of the fronto-parietal regions. The symptoms include impairment of
language and math abilities along with loss of abstract thinking and
planning abilities.
Regarding the improvement of cognitive abilities, a recent finding
shows that magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the individual alpha frequency over frontal and right parietal areas enhances performance in
a mental rotation task [34]. Even when alpha synchrony is artificially
443
enhanced, there is evidence that phase-coordinated oscillatory activity in the alpha band in A–P areas contribute to the improvement of
cognitive performance. New research indirectly supports the model of
a standing wave in alpha persisting during a visual working memory
task. Alpha power and frequency are equalized between prefrontal and
occipital electrode sites, suggesting stronger functional coupling during
manipulation of visual information (top-down processing) [22]. The
enhancement of cognitive abilities through Transcendental Meditation
mentioned in Section 2.2 may be attributable to enhanced A–P connectivity.
Of further significance are the short-range changes in the present
study. High values of short-range alpha phase synchrony in frontal
regions and lower values of posterior phase synchrony have been discovered to be discriminate functions related to IQ [69]. We found one
anterior short-range pair (F3-Fz) that improved phase synchrony and
one posterior short-range pair (O2-T6) that showed phase synchrony
decrease (longer phase lags) during Transcendental Meditation practice.
The neurophysics model of consciousness [2] as it applies to psychiatric rehabilitation hypothesizes that processes during rest (sleep)
restore the nervous system from a perturbed state to a homeostatic
ground state [6]. A similar self-regulating model is proposed here with
the addition of Transcendental Meditation practice, a wakeful state of
quiescence, a ground state that reintegrates mind/body health through
a natural phase resetting process.
It is suggested by the results here that the property of zero-lag in
alpha may restore disrupted neural integration mechanisms. Through
interference pattern standing waves, alpha phase synchrony may be able
to uniquely and holistically enliven cortical fields in the brain.
10. Conclusion: perspectives on phase synchrony
A recent book by a noted physicist on the phenomenon of synchrony
[70] describes how, from a physicist’s point of view, ‘‘sync’’ is mathematically based and has passed the test of experiment. The author
describes how sync has offered unified explanations for a wide range of
globally cooperative behaviors in living and nonliving systems at every
distance scale from smaller than the smallest to bigger than the biggest.
444
Even though the findings here are interpreted with a building blocks
perspective, the phase synchrony brain model leaves the door open for
deeper interpretations including field interactions, holographic concepts even quantum field theoretical proposals.
The beauty of phase synchrony is that it can navigate across scales and
is compatible with field theory described in a recent field theory of consciousness [18] that is linked to quantum theoretical proposals [71,72].
Phase interactions can occur at different time and distance scales; in
fact on the largest scale, the structure of the universe is described as
phase coupling of gravitational and microwave fields [73].
Even though the present article develops the thought of standing
waves and microstates as the building blocks of experience, the surface
phase synchrony may have roots in deeper levels of nature’s functioning.
A recent book entitled the Quantum Brain describes how, in biological
systems surface levels of order are ‘‘nested in and iterated from’’ deeper
levels of nature’s functioning [74, p. 209]. In this vein a recent study of
phase synchrony behavior, using the complex Morlet wavelet analysis method, characterized the alpha EEG as ‘‘scale invariant’’ [7]. The
study showed that the growth rate of the alpha fluctuations revealed a
hidden order in the dynamics of large-scale synchronized activity suggesting a deeper interpretation of macroscopic data. The building-block
theory of consciousness may ultimately give rise to a unified field theory
as has been recently suggested [47]. The author of Sync suggests that
the reason synchrony strikes a chord in all of us is that ‘‘we instinctively
realize that if we ever find the source of spontaneous order, we will have
discovered the secret of the universe.’’
Acknowledgment
With deepest appreciation to His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
the foremost scientist of consciousness in the world today, for his insistence upon scientific research in the field of consciousness and meditation and for providing the subjective validation of ancient and modern
theories of consciousness through his Transcendental Meditation program. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contributions of all
the work referenced herein contributing to the most profound field of
integrative cognitive neuroscience, the science of consciousness.
445
And finally we honor the staff of the Signal Processing Journal for
recognizing the importance of the area of neuronal coordination and
for their promotion and implementation of this issue.
References
[1] M.J. van Putten, Proposed link rates in the human brain, J. Neurosci. Methods 127 (1) (2003) 1–10.
[2] E.R. John, The neurophysics of consciousness, Brain Res. Rev. 39
(2002) 1–28.
[3] P.L. Nunez, Toward a quantitative description of large-scale
neocortical dynamic function and EEG, Behav. Brain Sci. 23 (3)
(2000) 371–398.
[4] W.J. Freeman, Evidence from human scalp electroencephalograms
of global chaotic itinerancy, Chaos 13 (3) (2003) 1067–1077.
[5] T. Nader, Human Physiology, Expression of the Veda and Vedic Literature, Maharishi Vedic University, Station 24, 6063 NP Vlodrop,
The Netherlands, 1995.
[6] J.R. Hughes, E.R. John, Conventional and quantitative electroencephalography in psychiatry, J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 11
(2) (1998) 190–208.
[7] P. Gong, A.R. Nikolaev, C. van Leeuwen, Scale-invariant
fluctuations of the dynamical synchronization in human brain
electrical activity, Neurosci. Lett. 336 (1) (2003) 933–936.
[8] M. Breakspear, L.M. Williams, C.J. Stam, A novel method for
the topographic analysis of neural activity reveals formation and
dissolution of dynamic cell assemblies, J. Comput. Neurosci. 16 (1)
(2004) 49–68.
[9] R. Hebert, D. Lehmann, Theta bursts: an EEG feature of normal
subjects practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique,
Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 42 (3) (1977) 397–405.
[10] R.L. Maulsby, Hedonic hypersynchrony: an evoked theta rhythm
in infancy, Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 31 (1971) 157–165.
[11] J. Bhattacharya, Reduced degree of long-range phase synchrony
in pathological human brain, Acta. Neurobiol. Exp. 61 (2001)
309–318.
[12] M.A. Bruck, Average voltage as a measure of phase synchrony in
EEG, Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 19 (6) (1965) 601–605.
446
[13] W.J. Freeman, Origin, structure, and role of background EEG
activity. Part 2. Analytic phase, Clin. Neurophysiol. 115 (9)
(2004) 2089–2107.
[14] W. Singer, Synchronization of cortical activity and its putative
role in information processing and learning, Annu. Rev. Physiol.
55 (1993) 349–374.
[15] F. Varela, J.P. Lachaux, E. Rodriguez, J. Martinerie, The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration, Nat.
Rev. Neurosci. 2 (4) (2001) 229–239.
[16] M. Rosenblum, A. Pikovsky, J. Kurths, Phase synchronization of
chaotic oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 1804–1807.
[17] J.P. Lachaux, E. Rodriguez, J. Martinerie, F.J. Varela, Measuring
phase synchrony in brain signals, Hum. Brain Mapp. 8 (7) (1999)
194–208.
[18] E.R. John, A field theory of consciousness, Conscious. Cogn. 10 (2)
(2001) 184–213.
[19] M.L. Van Quyen, J. Foucher, J.P. Lachaux, E. Rodriguez, A.
Lutz, J. Martinerie, F.J. Varela, Comparison of Hilbert transform and wavelet methods for the analysis of neuronal synchrony, J. Neurosci. Methods 111 (2) (2003) 83–98.
[20] P.L. Nunez, B.M. Wingeler, R.B. Silberstein, Spatial-temporal
structures of human alpha rhythms: theory, microcurrent
sources, multiscale measurements and global binding of local
networks, Hum. Brain Mapp. 13 (2001) 125–164.
[21] H. Petsche, S. Kaplan, A. von Stein, O. Filz, The possible
meaning of upper and lower alpha frequencies for cognitive and
creative tasks: a probability mapping study, Int. J. Psychophysiol.
26 (1997) 77–97.
[22] P. Sauseng, W. Klimesch, M. Dopplemayr, T. Pecherstorfer, R.
Freunberger, S. Hanslmayr, EEG alpha synchronization and
functional coupling during top-down processing in a working
memory task, Hum. Brain Mapp. (May 31) (2005), in press.
[23] A. von Stein, P. Rappelsberger, J. Sarnthein, H. Petsche, Synchronization between temporal and parietal cortex during
multimodal object processing in man, Cereb. Cortex. 9 (2) (1999)
137–150.
447
[24] R. Silberstein, J. Song, P. Nunez, W. Park, Dynamic sculpting
of functional brain connectivity is correlated with performance,
Brain Topography 16 (4) (2004) 249–253.
[25] R. Silberstein, F. Danieli, P.L. Nunez, Fronto-parietal evoked
potential synchronization is increased during mental rotation,
Neuroreport 14 (2003) 67–71.
[26] W.R. Gruber, W. Klimesch, P. Sauseng, M. Doppelmayr, Alpha
phase synchronization predicts P1 and N1 latency and amplitude
size, Cereb. Cortex 15 (4) (2005) 371–377.
[27] S. Hanslmayr, W. Klemesch, P. Sauseng, W. Gruber, M. Dopplemayr, R. Freunberger, T. Pecherstorfer, Visual discrimination performance is related to decreased alpha amplitude but
increased phase locking, Neurosci. Lett. 375 (1) (2005) 64–68.
[28] W. Klimesch, EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive
and memory performance: a review and analysis, Brain Res. Rev.
29 (1999) 169–195.
[29] M. Schurman, E. Basar, Functional aspects of alpha oscillations
in the EEG, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 39 (2–3) (2001) 151–158.
[30] A. von Stein, C. Chiang, P. Konig, Top-down processing mediated by interareal synchronization, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97
(26) (2000) 14748–14753.
[31] C. Babiloni, R. Ferri, D.V. Moretti, A. Strambi, G. Binetti, G.
Dal Forno, F. Ferreri, B. Lanuzza, C. Bonato, F. Nobili, G.
Rodriguez, S. Salinari, S. Passero, R. Rocchi, C.J. Stam, P.M.
Rossini, Abnormal fronto-parietal coupling of brain rhythms
in mild Alzheimer’s disease: a multicentric EEG study, Eur. J.
Neurosci. 19 (9) (2004) 2583–2590.
[32] T. Koenig, L. Prichep, T. Dierks, D. Hubl, L.O. Wahlund, E.R.
John, V. Jelic, Decreased EEG synchronization in Alzheimer’s
disease and mild cognitive impairment, Neurobiol. Aging 26 (2)
(2005) 165–171.
[33] A.F. Leuchner, Changes in brain functional connectivity in
Alzheimer-type and multi-infarct dementia, Brain 115 (1992)
1543–1561.
[34] W. Klimesch, P. Sauseng, C. Gerloff, Enhancing cognitive
performance with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at
448
human individual alpha frequency, Eur. J. Neurosci. 17 (5) (2003)
1129–1133.
[35] X. Li, Z. Nahas, B. Anderson, F.A. Kozel, M.S. George, Can
left prefrontal rTMS be used as a maintenance treatment for
bipolar depression?, Depress. Anxiety 20 (2) (2004) 98–100.
[36] E.M. Khedr, H.M. Farweez, H. Islam, Therapeutic effect of
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor function in Parkinson’s disease patients, Eur. J. Neurol. 10 (5) (2003)
567–572.
[37] L.H. Strens, A. Oliviero, B.R. Bloem, W. Gerschlager, J.C.
Rothwell, P. Brown, The effects of subthreshold 1 Hz repetitive TMS on cortico-cortical and hemispheric coherence, Clin.
Neurophysiol. 113 (8) (2002) 1279–1285.
[38] P.H. Levine, The coherence spectral array (COSPAR) and its
application to the spatial ordering of the EEG, Proc. San Diego
Biomed. Symp. 15 (1976) 237–247.
[39] M.C. Dillbeck, E.C. Bronson, Short-term longitudinal effects of
the Transcendental Meditation technique on EEG power and
coherence, Int. J. Neurosci. 14 (1981) 3–4.
[40] F. Travis, A. Arenander, D. Dubois, Psychological and physiological characteristics of a proposed object-referral/self-referral
continuum of self-awareness, Conscious. Cogn. 13 (2) (2004)
401–420.
[41] F. Travis, R.K. Wallace, Autonomic and EEG patterns during
eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation practice: the
basis for a neural model of Transcendental Meditation practice,
Conscious. Cogn. 8 (3) (1999) 302–318.
[42] F. Travis, J. Tecce, A. Arenander, R.K. Wallace, Patterns of
EEG coherence, power, and contingent negative variation
characterize the integration of transcendental and waking states,
Biol. Psychol. 61 (3) (2002) 293–319.
[43] B.C. Glueck, C.F. Stroebel, Biofeedback and meditation in the
treatment of psychiatric illnesses, Comprehensive Psychiatry 16 (4)
(1975) 303–321.
[44] J.P. Banquet, M. Sailhan, Analyse E.E.G. d’ états de conscience
induits et spontanes, Rev. Electroencephalogr. Neurophysiol. Clin. 4
(3) (1974) 445–453.
449
[45] R. Hebert, D. Lehmann, T. Koenig, F. Travis, Global field synchronization during the Transcendental Meditation technique,
Brain Topography 15 (3) (2003) 191.
[46] G.M. Edelman, G. Tononi, A Universe of Consciousness, Basic
Books, 2000.
[47] J.R. Searle, Consciousness, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23 (2000)
557–578.
[48] F. Travis, C. Pearson, Pure consciousness: distinct phenomenological and physiological correlates of ‘consciousness itself ’, Int. J.
Neurosci. 100 (1999) 77–89.
[49] B. Ramamurthi, The fourth state of consciousness: the Turiya
Avasta, Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 49 (2) (1995) 107–110.
[50] H. Mizuhara, L.Q. Wang, K. Kobayashi, Y. Yamagichi, Longrange cortical network emerging with theta oscillation in a
mental task, Neuroreport 15 (8) (2004) 1231–1232.
[51] L.I. Aftanas, S.A. Golocheikine, Human anterior and frontal
midline theta and lower alpha reflect emotionally positive state
and internalized attention: high-resolution EEG investigation of
meditation, Neurosci. Lett. 310 (1) (2001) 57–60.
[52] W. Klimesch, B. Schack, P. Sauseng, The functional significance
of theta and upper alpha oscillations, Exp. Psychol. 52 (2) (2005)
99–108.
[53] W.J. Freeman, B.C. Burke, M.D. Holmes, Aperiodic phase
re-setting in scalp EEG of beta–gamma oscillations by state
transitions at alpha–theta rates, Hum. Brain Mapp. 19 (4) (2003)
248–272.
[54] D. Chalwa, K.J. Friston, C.D. Lumer, Zero-lag synchronous
dynamics in triplets of interconnected cortical areas, Neural Networks 14 (2001) 727–735.
[55] G.R. Burkitt, R.B. Silberstein, P.J. Cadusch, A.W. Wood,
Steady-state visual evoked potentials and traveling waves, Clin.
Neurophysiol. 111 (2) (2000) 246–258.
[56] J. Ito, A.R. Nikolaev, C. van Leeuwen, Spatial and temporal
structure of phase synchronization of spontaneous alpha EEG
activity, Biol. Cybern. 92 (2005) 54–60.
450
[57] R.W. Thatcher, P.J. Krause, M. Hrybyk, Cortico-cortical associations and EEG coherence: a two-compartment model, Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol. 64 (1986) 123–143.
[58] D. Lehmann, Human scalp EEG fields: evoked alpha, sleep and
spike-wave patterns, in: H. Petsche, A.B. Brazier (Eds.), Synchronization of EEG Activities in Epilepsies, Springer, New York,
1971, pp. 307–326.
[59] W. Klimesch, B. Schack, M. Schabus, M. Doppelmayr, W. Gruber, P. Sauseng, Phase-locked alpha and theta oscillations generate the P1-N1 complex and are related to memory performance,
Brain Res. Cogn. 19 (3) (2004) 302–316.
[60] R.R. Llinas, The intrinsic electrophysiological properties of
mammalian neurons: insights into central nervous system function, Science 242 (1988) 1655–1664.
[61] G. Kozyreff, A.G. Vladimirov, P. Mandel, Dynamics of a semiconductor laser array and delayed global coupling, Physical
Review E, 64 (2001) 016613–11.
[62] A. Burgess, L. Ali, Functional connectivity of gamma EEG
activity is modulated at low frequency during conscious recollection, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 46 (2) (2002) 91–100.
[63] B. Schack, N. Vath, H. Petsche, H.G. Geissler, E. Moller,
Phase-coupling of theta–gamma EEG rhythms during shortterm memory processing, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 44 (2) (2002)
143–163.
[64] B. Libet, W.W. Albertsa, E.W. Wright, L.D. Delattre, G. Levin,
B. Feinstein, Production of threshold levels of conscious sensation by stimulation of the somatosensory cortex, J. Neurophysiol.
27 (1964) 546–578.
[65] M. Steriade, D. Contreras, F. Amzica, I. Timofeev, Synchronization of fast (30–40 Hz) spontaneous oscillations in intrathalamic and thalamocortical networks, J. Neurosci. 16 (8) (1996)
2788–2808.
[66] D. Lehmann, W.K. Strik, B. Henggeler, T. Koenig, M.
Koukkou, Brain electrical microstates and momentary conscious
mind states as building blocks of spontaneous thinking. I. Visual
imagery and abstract thoughts, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 29 (1998)
1–11.
451
[67] M. Jung-Beeman, E.M. Bowden, J. Haberman, J.L. Frymaire, S.
Arambel-Liu, R. Greenbatt, P.L. Reber, J. Kunios, Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight, P.N.A.S.
Biology 2(4) (2004) 0500–0510.
[68] C. Tallon-Baudry, Oscillatory synchrony as a signature for the
unity of visual synchrony, Proceedings of the Fourth Conference
of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness,
Conscious. Cogn. 9 (2000) S25–S26.
[69] R.W. Thatcher, D. North, C. Biver, EEG and intelligence: Relations between EEG coherence, EEG phase delay and power,
Clin. Neurophysiol. (2005), in press.
[70] S. Strogatz, Sync: How order emerges from chaos in the universe,
Nature and Daily Life, Hyperion Press, New York, 2003.
[71] R. Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1994.
[72] K. Pribram, Proposal for a quantum physical basis for selective
learning, 4th International Conference on Emergence, University of
Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, 2000.
[73] L. Chiang, P. Coles, Phase information and the evolution of cosmological density perturbations, Nature 406 (2000) 376–378.
[74] J. Satinover, The Quantum Brain, Wiley, New York, 2001.
[75] J.T. Farrow, J.R. Hebert, Breath suspension during the Transcendental Meditation technique, Psychosom. Med. 44 (2) (1982)
133–153.
[76] J. Sarnthein, H. Petsche, P. Rappelsberger, G.I. Shaw, A. von
Stein, Synchronization between prefrontal and posterior association cortex during human working memory, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 10 (1998) 7092–7096.
[77] A. von Stein, J. Sarnthein, Different frequencies for different
scales of cortical integration: from local gamma to long range
alpha/theta synchronization, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 38 (3) (2000)
301–313.
[78] R.K. Wallace, The physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation, Science 167 (1970) 1751–1754.
[79] R.K. Wallace, H. Benson, A.F. Wilson, A wakeful hypometabolic physiologic state, Am. J. Physiol. 221 (1971) 795–799.
452
This article, “Enhanced EEG Alpha Time-Domain Phase Synchrony
during Transcendental Meditation: Implications for Cortical Integration Theory,” by Russell Hebert, Dietrich Lehmann, Gabriel Tan, Fred
Travis, and Alarik Arenander, here revised/updated, was originally
published in Journal of Signal Processing, July 9, 2005. © 2005 Elsevier
B.V. All rights reserved.
453

Consciousness-Based Education

Transcription

Similar documents

There are two basic instincts in human beings and these have been

Is reality a quantum hocus pocus?

73-34 Cosmic Awareness Communication it tut v l t4c.ula.cly , yysr,h

The Quantum Pool Brochure

UMI Presentation AUr@ 15 Dec 2014.key

N - Faculty of Physics University of Warsaw

Business Agenda - QUE Group

Fysiikan historia Luento 11

Big Story Annual Conference Call