hupinghu's blog

This year's Nobel Prize in physics went to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, Adam Riess. They well deserve the prize and congratulations!

As blogged by Philip E. Gibbs at viXra log: "[i]n the late 1990s these astronomers upset the prevalent belief that the universe’s acceleration must be slowing down due to the pull of gravity. They observed the brightness of distant supernovae in the universe, using them as standard candles to gauge distance. A comparison of the redshift and the brightness was found to be more consistent with the view that the rate of expansion is increasing."

According to Gibbs, "[t]he simplest way to model the expansion is to add a cosmological constant term to Einstein’s gravitational field equations. Such a term means that energy is added to space as it expands which must be compensated by negative gravitational energy from the increasing rate of expansion. The popular term dark energy has been used to refer to this mysterious feature of space and time but its origin remains a mystery and the Nobel prize has only been awarded for the discovery of the acceleration, not for dark energy."

The theoretical side of this amazing discovery is very unsettling and the whole of physics may be transformed by further developments.

Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu

October 4, 2011

Michael Persinger (1993, 2010a & 2010b) is truly a pioneer in the field of experimental studies of mysitical experiences and have done ground-breaking experimental work over the years. In 1999, Wired Magazine published an article entitled "This Is Your Brain on God" in which the author, Jack Hitt stated that "Michael Persinger has a vision - the Almighty isn't dead, he's an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul."

Persinger states at his website that "[a]s a human being, I am concerned about the illusionary explanations for human consciousness and the future of human existence. Consequently after writing the Neuropsychological Base of God Beliefs (1987), I began the systematic application of complex electromagnetic fields to discern the patterns that will induce experiences (sensed presence) that are attributed to the myriad of ego-alien intrusions which range from gods to aliens. The research is not to demean anyone's religious/mystical experience but instead to determine which portions of the brain or its electromagnetic patterns generate the experience. Two thousand years of philosophy have taught us that attempting to prove or disprove realities may never have discrete verbal (linguistic) solutions because of the limitation of this measurement. The research has been encouraged by the historical fact that most wars and group degradations are coupled implicitly to god beliefs and to the presumption that those who do not believe the same as the experient are somehow less human and hence expendable. Although these egocentric propensities may have had adaptive significance, their utility for the species' future may be questionable."

Our own theoretical and experimental studies (see references at the end) have shown that: (1) Consciousness is prespacetime (non-spatial and non-temporal) and not in the brain; (2) brain is an interface between Consciousness and the external world; (3) quantum spin is the mind-pixel; (4) magnetic field is manifested by the internal world based on the Principle of Existence. Therefore, altered states of consciousness such as sensed presence and out-of-body experience whether they are produced by magnetic, electric or other stimulations or circumstances can be most effectively explained as the changes of the relative contents and/or intensities of the test subjects’ neural quantum entanglement with their surroundings etc. (including possibly spiritual environments or information!).

Thus, interpreted from the perspectives of the latter findings, Persinger's "GOD experiments" might not have proven that GOD and/or mystical experiences are a mere phenomenon localized in the material brain but can be explained as the non-spatial and non-temporal Consciousness through the brain quantum-entangles with his/her environments possibly including the spiritual environment!

For readers interested in more details, please read the below and the articles listed in the Reference.

In a recent article Persinger and his colleague(s) summarize their results as follows (Michael, 2010a):

Quantitative EEG data indicate that a sequence of stimulation by between 1 and 5 uT fields at the scalp’s surface with as little as 10% greater intensity over the right hemisphere compared to the left is associated with greater convergence of theta activity between the left temporal and right prefrontal region. Subsequent bilateral stimulation is associated with greater right-to-left temporal coherence. These two experimental conditions and quantitative EEG patterns are associated with reports of out-of-body experiences and the sensed presence, respectively.
....

The results and approaches of our research and those of Olaf Blanke both show that out-of-body-experiences and the sensed presence can be generated experimentally by stimulating either one or the other of the hemispheres within specific regions. The quality of the experiences, although direct comparisons have not been made, appears to be similar and the quantitative or meaningful intensity reveal similar values for individual salience.
....

[We] reviewed and re-analyzed the approximately 20 experiments involving 407 subjects that have demonstrated the experimental elicitation of either the sensed presence or out of body experience. [Our] re-analyses clearly showed the specific magnetic configurations and not the subjects’ exotic beliefs or suggestibility was responsible for the increased incidence of sensed presences. The subjects’ histories of spontaneous sensed presences before the experiment (and exposure to the magnetic fields) were moderately correlated with exotic beliefs and temporal lobe sensitivity. The side attributed to the presence at the time of the experience was affected by the parameters of the fields, the hemisphere to which they were maximized, and the person’s a priori beliefs.

In vivid terms one test subject in Persinger’s experiment reported “I felt a presence behind me and then along the left side. When I tried to focus on the position, the presence moved. Every time I tried to sense where it was, it moved around. When it moved to the right side, I experienced a deep sense of security like I have not experienced before. I started to cry when I felt it slowly fade away ([Persinger] had changed the field patterns)”.

Also in vivid terms, another test subject reported an out-of-body experience stating “I feel as if there was a bright white light in front of me. I saw a black spot that became a funnel....no tunnel that I felt drawn into. I felt moving, like spinning forward through it. I began to feel the presence of people, but I could not see them. They were along my sides. They were colourless and grey looking. I know I was in the chamber but it was very real. I suddenly felt intense fear and felt ice cold.”

Persinger and colleague (2010a) reasoned that: "Our primary assumption is that consciousness and its variants of mystical states can be expressed as quantum phenomena. If consciousness and thought are coupled to electron movements, then a macroscopic manifestation should be congruent with the magnetic field strengths associated with neurocognitive activities. Access to the information within the movements of an electron, its fundamental charge, and the photon emissions associated with changes in electron movements, would allow mystical states and the information with which they are associated to have alternative interpretations that recruit the fundamental properties of space-time and matter."

Persinger et. al.’s above experimental results can be best explained by the spin-mediated consciousness theory for the reasons stated below:

First, the primary targets of interactions for the weak pulsed magnetic field used by Persinger’s Group are the nuclear and/or electron spins associated with the neural membranes, protein and water etc. Indeed, neural membranes and proteins contain vast numbers of nuclear spins such as 1H, 13C, 31P and 15N.

Second, as we have experimentally demonstrated (Hu & Wu, 2006a-c), pulsed electromagnetic fields (photons) carries information through quantum entanglement from external substance (and environment) which they interacted with.

Third, nuclear spins in the brain form complex intra- and inter-molecular networks through various intra-molecular J- and dipolar couplings and both short- and long-range intermolecular dipolar couplings. Further, nuclear spins have relatively long relaxation times after excitations (Gershenfeld & Chuang, 1997).

Fourth, quantum spin is a fundamental quantum process with intrinsic connection to the structure of space-time (Dirac, 1928) and was shown to be responsible for the quantum effects in both Hestenes and Bohmian quantum mechanics (Hestenes, 1983; Salesi & Recami, 1998).

Therefore, altered states of consciousness such as sensed presence and out-of-body experience whether they are produced by magnetic, electric or other stimulations or circumstances can be most effectively explained as the changes of the relative contents and/or intensities of the test subjects’ neural quantum entanglement with their surroundings etc. (including possibly spiritual environments/information!).

References

Persinger, M. A., Vectorial cerebral hemisphericity as differential sources for the sensed presence, mystical experiences and religious conversions. Psychological Reports, 1993; 76: 915-930.

Persinger, M. A. et.al. The Electromagnetic Induction of Mystical and Altered States within the Laboratory, JCER, 2010a; 1(7): 808-830.

Persinger, M. A. & Lavallee , C. F., The Electromagnetic Induction of Mystical and Altered States within the Laboratory, JCER, 2010b; 1(7): 785-807.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Spin-mediated consciousness theory. arXiv 2002; quant-ph/0208068. Also see Med. Hypotheses 2004a: 63: 633-646.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Spin as primordial self-referential process driving quantum mechanics, spacetime dynamics and consciousness. NeuroQuantology 2004b; 2:41-49. Also see Cogprints: ID2827 2003.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Action potential modulation of neural spin networks suggests possible role of spin in memory and consciousness. NeuroQuantology 2004c; 2:309-316. Also see Cogprints: ID3458 2004d.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Thinking outside the box: the essence and implications of quantum entanglement. NeuroQuantology 2006a; 4: 5-16.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Photon induced non-local effect of general anesthetics on the brain. NeuroQuantology 2006b 4: 17-31. Also see Progress in Physics 2006c; v3: 20-26.

Hu, H. & Wu, M. Evidence of non-local physical, chemical and biological effects supports quantum brain. NeuroQuantology 2006d; 4: 291-306. Also see Progress in Physics 2007a; v2: 17-24.

Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu

October 2, 2011

Pathway to Pure Consciousness at a Glance
Pathway to Excellence of the External [through] Six Sigma
Pathway to Excellence of the Internal Excellence: Process Details

As stated in their Abstract, "[t]he article begins with a proposed definition of pure consciousness that is followed by an explanation of why anyone might aspire to progress towards it, how one might make progress, what obstacles are likely to be encountered, and what the significance of reaching the destination might be. In the six sigma methodology, major impact factors are the vital few causes that determine systems performance; in the present context, the ability to reach the state of pure consciousness. The paper presents a six sigma analysis of the consciousness effort and identifies a major impact factor, possibly for the first time that will render the pursuit of pure consciousness a bit easier."

Citing Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the authors describe self referral pure consciousness, the source of all intelligence, [as] the ultimate reality of life from where creation emerges, from where the administration of life is maintained, and where the physical expression of the universe has its basis. It is said that a person who has achieved pure consciousness is able to manifest both internal and external excellence, thus transforming him/herself.

According to the authors, "human actions are determined by three components of the mindset: (i) The S component – truthfulness, honesty, compassion, evenness of mind - unaffected by success or failure, non-injury, etc., (ii) The R component- Bravery, ambition, ego, greed, etc., and (iii) The T component - lying cheating, causing injury in words or deeds, killing, lethargy, excessive sleep, etc...The mindset components undergo transformation over time leading to rise and decline of societies."

One of the important practical values of this work is that it discusses/teaches "how to raise one’s level of consciousness:" In the context of the S, R, T components, raising the level of consciousness is equivalent to raising the S component and reducing the R and T components. There appear to be two approaches to raise one’s level of consciousness: (i) Conscious Effort – The characteristics of S, R, T components being clear, one could track one’s level of consciousness on a control chart periodically, say once a week. If the desire is genuine, the control chart could be a useful tool to ensure that the level of consciousness is not degraded over time. (ii) Follow a process whose side-effect is a rise in the level of consciousness.

Readers are encouraged to study their work so as to gain valuable insights on how to transform oneself and the World.

Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu

September 30, 2011

In a paper entitled "Neutrino, flying from CERN to LNGS, and Brachistochrone" to appear in viXra preprint archive and be published in Prepsapcetime Journal shortly (links shall be provided here once available), Gunn Quznetsov provides an alternative explanation based on brachistochrone effect. His Abstract states that "[t]he result of the OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory (LNGS) is explained by the brachistochrone effect." So please check out his paper to hit the press.

In another paper entitled "On the Neutrino Opera in the CNGS Beam" which has just appeared in viXra, Armando V.D.B. Assis states that "[here], we solve the relativistic kinematics related to the intersection between a relativistic beam of particles (neutrinos, e.g.) and consecutive detectors. The gravitational effects are neglected, but the effect of the Earth rotation is taken into consideration under a simple approach in which we consider two instantaneous inertial reference frames in relation to the fixed stars: an instantaneous inertial frame of reference having got the instantaneous velocity of rotation (about the Earth axis of rotation) of the Cern at one side, the lab system of reference in which the beam propagates, and another instantaneous inertial system of reference having got the instantaneous velocity of rotation of the detectors at Gran Sasso at the other side, this latter being the system of reference of the detectors. Einstein's relativity theory provides a velocity of intersection between the beam and the detectors greater than the velocity of light in the empty space as derived in this paper, in virtue of the Earth rotation. Please read his paper for further information.

Among scientists who claim that the OPERA supports their theories are Matti Pitkanan and supporter(s) of Florentin Smarandache. Matti Pitkanen in a blog piece entitled "More about nasty superluminal neutrinos " states that " if the finding turns out to be true it will mean for TGD what Mickelson-Morley meant for special relativity." Pitkanen remarked that "[t]he reactions to the potential discovery depend on whether the person can imagine some explanation for the finding or not. In the latter case the reaction is denial: most physics bloggers have chosen this option for understandable reasons. What else could they do? The six sigma statistics does not leave much room for objections but there could of course be some very delicate systematical error involved." In his TGD theory, the OPERA results can be explained as follows: For many-sheeted space-time light velocity is assigned to light-like geodesic of space-time sheet rather than light-like geodesics of imbedding space M4×CP2. The effective velocity determined from time to travel from point A to B along different space time sheets is different and therefore also the signal velocity determined in this manner. The light-like geodesics of space-time sheet corresponds in the generic case time-like curves of the imbedding space so that the light-velocity is reduced from the maximal signal velocity. . Please his blog piece for details.

Finally, 2012 Daily also received a press-release-like piece written by Ion Patrascu. It is entitled "Scientist deduced the existence of particles with faster-than-light speeds recently discovered by CERN and states in part: "In the breaking News on September 22, 2011, in the LiveScience.com, it is said that proven true, the laws of physics have to be re-written: http://news.yahoo.com/strange-particles-may-travel-faster-light-breaking-laws-192010201.html. Professor Florentin Smarandache from the University of New Mexico, United States, has deduced the existence of particles moving faster-than-light in a published paper called “There Is No Speed Barrier in the Universe” in 1998, as an extension of a 1972 manuscript that he presented at the Universidad de Blumenau, Brazil, in a Tour Conference on "Paradoxism in Literature and Science" in 1993. His paper is based on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox (1935), a Bohm’s paper (1951) and Bell’s Inequalities (1964). For his prediction of particles of speeds greater than the speed of light (called “Smarandache hypothesis”) and for his introduction of the Neutrosophic Logic, Set, and Probability (which are the most general and powerful logic and respectively set and probability theories today), Dr. Florentin Smarandache was awarded the Telesio-Galilei Academy Gold Medal in 2010 at the University of Pecs in Hungary." Interested readers are encouraged to read the whole piece and make judgments of their own.

Huping & Maoxin

September 28, 2011

Max Planck and Consciousness
Walter B. Russell and the Universal One
David J. Bohm and the Implicate Order
Eckhart Tolle and the Power of Now
Peter Russell and Spirit of Now
Paul Laffoley and Visionary Arts
F. David Peat and Gentle Action
Charles T. Tart and the End of Materialism
Bruce H. Lipton and the Biology of Belief
Amit Goswami and the Self-Aware Universe
David R. Hawkins and the Truth vs. Falsehood

(To be continued)

Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu

September 25, 2011

(To be continued)

Huping & Maoxin

September 24, 2011

According to CERN - the European Organization for Nuclear Research, "[o]ur understanding of the Universe is about to change..." by the Large Hadron Collider. This is certainly true.

The key to this change is whether LHC will discover the Higgs Boson of the Standard Model or any Higgs Boson. According to Dr. Philip E. Gibbs who has done tremendous work to keep both the scientific community and general public informed, "Higgs boson hints are still alive. What is particularly interesting now is the bump at 140 GeV. Some people said that this excess came mostly from the WW channel, yet when the WW channel is removed the bump is still there with nearly 2-sigma significance. The two bumps peaking at 118 GeV and 128 GeV are also the right size for a Higgs signal but error bands are still too big. Any of these bumps could be statistical fluctuations but it is very unlikely that they all are. With current data available in the high-resolution channels it is not yet possible to draw robust conclusions, but I think I have demonstrated that this will be the best way to find the Higgs with future data. I hope the experimenters will take note and produce similar plots from the official data. Updated results with 2.5/fb could appear within weeks and we will see where the three candidate bumps are heading."

The absence of Higgs Boson will have dramatic effect on our understanding of the Universe. In that case, we have to rebuild our models of particle physics from scratch.

It should be pointed out here that Higgs boson was dubbed as the “God Particle” by Leon Lederman and hyped as such by the media. To many of us, Higgs boson should not be called the “God Particle. The genuine “God particle” should have at least the following explanatory powers:

a) Explanation of the creations of bosons and fermions; b) Explanation of gravitatonal force; c) Explanation of the strong force; d) Explanation of the weak force; e) Explanation of the electromagnetic force; f) Explanation of the origin of the Universe; g) Explanation of or relation to Consciousness; and h) Etc.

We are in the super-connected Age of Internet and technological wonders made possible through science. There is no doubt that we are also at the dawn of a brave New World in particle physics and science overall. Every genuine truth seeker should seize this moment. What we have witnessed so far is the rise of collaborative spirit in physics. We urge all genuine truth seekers to work together to make the brave New World a reality.

Huping & Maoxin

September 22, 2011