If you went to church in the 18th century, you would have heard God described as a celestial clockmaker who had wound up the universe and left it to run itself. Today, the wind-up is the Big Bang and the clock's parts are subatomic particles. But the problem of creating matter out of emptiness remains the same.
How does matter form from the immaterial? What gives particles their mass, and how do they stick together? The physicists at the CERN facility in Europe are busy using the massive multibillion-dollar Large Hadron Collider to try to answer those questions by hunting for the elusive Higgs boson, the so-called "God particle."
The search takes place between the visible and the invisible. The hypothetical Higgs boson is a virtual particle, which means it can be coaxed to enter spacetime for the tiniest flash of a millisecond. It operates at the Planck scale, which is millions of times smaller than the nucleus of an atom.
The excitement over finding the Higgs particle is that physical science will have uncovered the mechanism for how the tangible world arises from the intangible. That's as close to the divine act of creation as physics can get. Yet there's an irony in basing the solid physical universe on -- nothing. Could this in fact be where materialism destroys itself from within? The Higgs boson may be the key to unlocking the mystery of creation by affirming very different things than materialism dreams of.
Assuming that the particle allows itself to be discovered, the second step is the exploration of the invisible domain. It is literally nothing, and yet everything comes from it. Centuries ago the wisdom traditions of the world compared creation on a small scale to creation on a massive scale. The great sages noted that our minds are nothing, too. Before a thought appears, there is emptiness and silence. And yet once the mind produces its creations, they are potent, meaningful, and coherent.
Creation doesn't move from the invisible to the visible with random particles like foam on the surface of the sea. They look random in the Large Hadron Collider, but the scientists running the machine, who are themselves part of creation, don't have bodies that fly apart into a cloud of particles. Rather, our bodies, like the human brain and DNA itself, are exquisitely ordered creations, the farthest thing from random events.
Physical forces cannot explain such exquisite order, much less the meaning we derive from it, which is why God came into being. The God particle delivers the tiniest bits of the clock but not the maker. I do not mean that an actual person in the sky made the universe. Keeping strictly with the scientific worldview, the maker must be impersonal, intelligent, universal, invisible, yet manifest in the visible world. The only viable candidate is consciousness.
The Higgs boson particle represents a tiny stepping stone toward a theory of creation that rests upon consciousness as the primal stuff of the cosmos. Many theorists are already getting there; it's been several decades since the concept of a self-aware universe has been in play.
Someday it will be commonplace to concede that the intangible, immaterial domain of quantum physics is conscious. In that world of virtual particles, non-locality, and indeterminacy, things don't exist with shape, hardness, or color. Their existence is a fleeting display of tendencies, and the superposition of possibilities. It will be a major realization for science to recognize that all of these tendencies and qualities are tendencies of consciousness.
The third step to a full comprehension of the universe will be connecting the consciousness, which is the ground of the cosmos, to our individual experience of consciousness. Our ground of existence is the same as the ground state of the universe. This is the message of Vedanta: Atman is Brahman. Individual consciousness fully awakened is the same as the essential nature of the entire cosmos. Somehow our consciousness participates and is integral to the creation of the universe. Sadly, by the time we realize our true creative role, our ignorant actions might have already destroyed our planetary home.
The creative function of consciousness in quantum mechanics was originally outlined in the Copenhagen Interpretation which says that an observer is required in order to collapse the wave function into a single occurrence and produce a measurable outcome. Without a conscious observer, the wave function remains a superposition of eigenstates that are not real in a measurable way.
The Many Worlds theory of quantum mechanics seeks to avoid the need for an observer and the collapse of the wave function by positing enough parallel universes to contain all possible states of the wave function. But in the end, to solve the measurement problem without an observer, a measuring apparatus is needed that is physical yet when analyzed quantum mechanically would not itself be a wave function, or superposition of eigenstates. No one can explain what kind of matter that would be.
The Transactional Interpretation describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. Here it is assumed that the interaction with the measurement device somehow activates the emission of a possibility wave going backward in time. This is a way to avoid the need of an observer, but like the Many Worlds theory it too implies a dualistic universe that takes us outside of the rules of quantum measurement. Again, the equipment that measures the wave function would have to be made out of matter that does not obey quantum physics with the superposition of possibilities.
A more promising theory of quantum mechanics is David Bohm's paradigm of Implicate and Explicate Order where primacy is given to wholeness over the parts which include space, time, particles, and quantum states. In this view, the parts unfold from the whole.
Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, PhD. have evolved the Orchestrated objective reduction model (Orch OR) and this I find to be the most progressive theory to bridge universal consciousness and individual consciousness. Penrose starts with the position that consciousness is fundamentally non-algorithmic and therefore incapable of being duplicated by a computer or machine. He proposes that consciousness could be explained through quantum theory with a new type of wave function collapse in the brain. Hameroff's expertise in the field of neurophysiology provided a likely quantum link in the microtubules in the neurons. Instead of the conventional view is that consciousness emerges from complex computation among brain neurons, they propose that consciousness involves sequences of quantum computations in microtubules inside brain neurons, not between them in the dendrites and synapses. The quantum computations in the brain are also ripples in fundamental spacetime geometry, the most basic level of the universe.
Penrose suggests that quantum wave function collapse happens by itself above the Planck scale. He postulates that each quantum superposition has its own spacetime curvature and these bits of curved spacetime form a kind of blister in spacetime maintaining superposition. But when it gets larger, beyond the Planck scale, gravity's influence makes it unstable and it collapses. That is the objective reduction or collapse of the wave function into a measurable particle.
This theory approaches the perspective of Vedanta, where Brahman the all-inclusive consciousness is the self-interacting dynamic of observer, observed and process of observation. This process of self-interaction gives rise to all diversity and phenomenon while it remains unaffected by it. As science continues to probe the exotic and extreme reaches of physics we can take some comfort that we are actually coming closer to understanding what is most intimate to us, our own consciousness, our self. The tangible springs from the intangible, and that intangible is what we are and what we call God.
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
Robert Urquhart: CERN Higgs Boson V Comic Sans Debacle
Loading comments… 
SUTRA:
The Buddha said: If your conception of a mind is 'between' is correct, it implies a position for it.
(Quantum?)
Now according to our inference, where is this intermedia
(Moreover) is its position manifest or not? If it is not, it does not exist. If it is, it is not fixed. Why?
For instance, if a stake is driven into the ground to mark a center, when seen from the east it is in the west and when seen from the south it is in the north.
As this stake can only lead to confusion, so is (our) conception of Mind... in between the completely chaotic.
~Buddha~
Is there only One Universe..
what qualificat
It is hubris in the most utmost form for someone, like Chopra and some of the posters below, to think they know the answers to the questions that have plagued humans for all time and probably always will. Answers make you feel very good, especially ones that are non-falsif
Also, just because, as jjdrma puts it, "Vedic scholars had realized and documented these (ideologie
So did the old testament, over 5k years ago.
My postmaster
NO SCIENTIST KNOWS THIS OR CLAIMS TO KNOW THIS FOR SURE. THERE ARE ONLY THEORIES AT THIS POINT IN TIME. You think you know the answer's to the universe (I can't believe I am arguing about this) or even know that it is NOT a finite universe. That is closed minded. All of the theories of the universe are possible to some extent at this point in time!
As a scientist this is incorrect and couldn't be farther from the truth. Spirituali
The collective intelligen
please tellmewhat old testament said.Iam not clear on thatif you believe jesus is your savior I have no arguement against that ..ididnt say advaita is my saviour or god, it calms down my inquisitiv
This sums up a flaw in your reasoning.
How can you subscribe to a theory that is non-falsif
http://en.
This is a tautologic
There are 2 possibilit
The same I would aver is true of the "God Particle": if it exists (and perhaps to entertain the God will provide it) it will at best give an insignific
On the downside, "the worst case scenario" the continued experiment
still the great minds out there who's desire for prestige is probable worth the annihilati
regards gm23
How do you know this?
Is this this the interpreta
The physicists at CERN still are unsure of exactly what they will find.
What makes you the expert?
If the entire human atomic mass can be condensed to nothing more than the size of a Sugar cube.... then who are you.... where are you.... do you matter on a Universal scale?
Can you please elaborate?
Does this make sense to anyone else?
How does Myoho know so much about things that no one else knows about?
The real is brahma, the creator.Ve
The big bang also violates the law of the conservati
How can you be so sure of yourself?
This is not true, generally speaking, for most physicists and cosmologis
Where are you getting your informatio
"Freedom from the desire for an answer is essential to the understand
regards
'Science is utterly beguiled by two major superstiti
Science, you built a Large Hadron Collider - where irresistib
Love and light, Paul Hunting.
Science is fundamenta
And the fact that scientists spend billions of dollars does not make them haughty or arrogant. A scientists will change his position on a certain topic if a particular piece of evidence contradict
I am a physicist and don't see the Higgs Boson as a good particle. That is the media's name for it, Physicist'
"irresisti
Hmmm... a term that the layman can understand
However, you see that the majority of the people posting on this thread fail to understand
I didn't see it... I do not understand it... my beer is in the way of the TV... and Jerry Fallwell tells me I have a purpose... therefore there must be a creator.
99.9% of them cannot even fathom the Multi-Vers
Meditation children..
watch, listen, learn, meditate, understand
Wanna know why?
You say that the scientific method is the only reliable and predictabl
You go on to say that we can only use "subjectiv
Don't misunderst
'I' as an observer here REALLY enjoyed your post.
Not attempting to interfere with what you are saying here to Deepak, but man that is DEEP.
Most of 'us' think there is a 'personal God'... however with the fairly recent acknowledg
Each new Universe created by the impact of two other Universes.
Mathematic
The Multi-Vers
Uhh...no. That is one of many theories that still have zero experiment
http://en.
"with the fairly recent acknowledg
So you are saying we have recently acknowledg
Again, it is noted that Deepak CLAIMS that the Universe has 'conscious
-Extraordi
That living beings, since the time without beginning, have been subject continuous
You really ARE confused.