.jpg)
The recent discovery of the Higgs particle -- the "God" particle -- will go down in the history of science as one of the greatest discoveries ever made. But what was discovered, exactly? Was it a discovery of a "particle" that grants mass to other elements of matter, or was it the discovery that thousands of scientists focusing on a large data set of seemingly random events can successfully skew the results of the data into a 5-sigma level of apparent statistical significance?
In other words, was the Higgs discovery actually the greatest intention experiment ever conducted? This is not a casual question. It reaches into the very nature of science itself and begs the question: Can human-run science ever truly be conducted independent from an observer? The answer, of course, is no. The subsequent question then becomes critical: Do observers alter the outcomes of scientific experiments even without any intention of doing so?
The very thought that observers may have altered the outcome of the Higgs experiment might at first seem outlandish to scientists who have been monitoring the hunt for the Higgs. They almost universally believe that the machines running the literally trillions of subatomic collisions operate independently from any conscious observers. The intention of the scientists watching the experiment cannot affect the outcome of the experiment, they insist.
But that assumption may be fundamentally incorrect for the simple reason that all known scientific knowledge has been gathered under a critical selection bias... the "consciousness" bias. The consciousness of intelligent, self-aware observers may actually shift the results of seemingly "random" events into the direction imagined or visualized by the conscious observers -- even without their intending to alter the data. There is evidence that this phenomenon is, in fact, quite real, making it one of the "spooky" realities of our mysterious cosmos.
In effect, Higgs scientists engaged in determined visualization and "intention" activities which are now being shown by other researchers (see below) to have the ability to slightly alter the outcomes of large sets of apparently random events. Although it seems unlikely that the power of intention -- even if proven true -- could shift a data set into 5-sigma territory, what if it could shift data by just one standard deviation? If so, that would reduce the Higgs "discovery" to a 4-sigma statistical anomaly, thereby revoking its "discovery" status altogether (a 5-sigma level of statistical certainty is the current requirement for "discovery" status in the sciences).
If the intention of the CERN scientists interfered with the data in any way, then it would drastically shift this "discovery" from the realm of physics to that of metaphysics. Perhaps the experimental results that appear to show behavior "consistent with the Higgs particle," as CERN has announced, is no more than scientific proof that the power of intention can quite literally alter large data sets and nudge them in the direction of the desired outcome.
CERN may not have discovered a new particle, it turns out, but may have inadvertently proven the power of mind-matter interaction.
Dean Radin is a scientist who studies the interaction between the mind and apparent physical reality. His books describe research that appears to show the power of conscious intention to nudge large data sets in a desired direction. Even physically "random" data such as the unpredictable decay of radioactive isotopes can be shifted in a desired direction based on the intention of a conscious observer.
There's no evidence that, for example, a young Jedi can levitate an X-Wing fighter out of the swamp, but there is statistically significant evidence that intention interacts with large, seemingly randomized data sets to nudge the data in a desired direction, often by the experimenter visualizing the desired outcome -- just like CERN scientists did for years on end.
Even the CERN announcement on the Higgs boson discovery is based entirely on "preliminary" data. As CERN says on its own website, "The results presented today are labeled preliminary. They are based on data collected in 2011 and 2012, with the 2012 data still under analysis. Publication of the analyses shown today is expected around the end of July. A more complete picture of today's observations will emerge later this year after the LHC provides the experiments with more data."
CERN Director General Rolf Heuer goes on to say, "We have reached a milestone in our understanding of nature."
That may very well be, and I'm not saying this discovery isn't scientifically legitimate, but it may instead be that CERN scientists have inadvertently reached a milestone in documenting the power of intention instead of discovering a real particle.
This is not meant to cast CERN's discovery in any sort of negative light, as the work of all the thousands of dedicated scientists there is, indeed, noteworthy. But is it the scientific milestone they think it is? Or is it something far more mysterious and "spooky", such as the world's first large-scale scientific proof that even the minds of thousands of scientists who don't believe in mind-matter interaction can still alter the outcome of an experiment upon which they intently focus?
As stated in the book, "The Conscious Universe, The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena" by Dean Radin, Ph.D.
Speculations about the nature of consciousness have substantially increased in the last few years. Each discipline has its own views of what consciousness may be, and many articles have been contributed by neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, and biologists. In physics, the inescapable fact that the simple act of observation changes the nature of a physical system caused virtually all the founders of modern physics, including Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Albert Einstein, to think deeply about the strangely privileged role of human consciousness.
A growing number of contemporary physicists have continued the tradition of speculations about consciousness, mind, and matter, for some of the implications of modern physics are perplexing to say the least. As physicist Bernard d'Espagnat wrote in an article in Scientific American, "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
Many other articles on this topic have been published in scientific journals, including the American Journal of Physics, Physics Letters, Scientific American, Foundations of Physics, and Physical Review. A recent expression of the problem, which is directly relevant to psi research, can be found in a speculation about quantum theory by physicist Euan Squires, published in 1987 in the European Journal of Physics:
If conscious choice can decide what particular observation I measure, and therefore into what states my consciousness splits, might not conscious choice also be able to influence the outcome of the measurement? One possible place where mind may influence matter is in quantum effects. Experiments on whether it is possible to affect the decay rates of nuclei by thinking suitable thoughts would presumably be easy to perform, and might be worth doing.
Our meta-analysis findings led us to conclude that a genuine mind-matter interaction did exist with experiments testing tossed dice. The effect had been successfully replicated in more than a hundred experiments by more than fifty investigators for more than a half-century. If all this was so, then we might reasonably expect that there ought to be corroborating evidence from other experiments, using other types of physical targets. And there is.
Experiments involving random-number generators (RNGs) are the modern equivalents of dice studies. An RNG is an electronic circuit that creates sequences of "heads" and "tails" by repeatedly flipping an electronic "coin" and recording the results. A participant in a typical experiment is asked to mentally influence the RNG's output so that in a sequence of pre-defined length, it produces, say, more "heads" than "tails." Actually, most RNGs produce sequences of bits (the numbers 1 and 0); thus a person's task usually involves wishing for an RNG to produce more 1's or more 0's, depending on the instructions.
Modern RNG circuits usually rely upon one of two random sources: electronic noise or radioactive decay times. Both of these are physical sources that, through proper circuit design, provide electronic spikes at unpredictable times. These spikes, which may occur randomly a few thousand times a second, can be used to create sequences of random bits by having the spike interrupt a precise, crystal-controlled clock that is counting at the rate of, say, 10 million cycles per second.
When a random spike interrupts the clock, whichever state the clock is in ("1" or "0") is used as the random bit. If we sample from the clock at a slower rate than 10 million cycles per second, say at 1,000 randomly timed spikes per second, a truly random stream of 1,000 1's and 0's can be produced per second. Because RNGs are computer-controlled, even at a rate of 1,000 bits per second the random sequence can be recorded perfectly.
Participants in these tests often get feedback about the distribution of random events in the form of a digital display, audio feedback, computer graphics, or the movement of a robot's arms. Most modern RNGs are technically highly sophisticated, employing features such as electromagnetic shielding, environmental fail-safe alarms, and fully automatic data recording.
Results
From a wide range of sources, we found 152 references dating from 1959 to 1987. These reports described a total of 832 studies conducted by sixty-eight different investigators, including 597 experimental studies and 235 control studies. Of the 597 experimental studies, 258 were reported in a long-term investigation generated by the Princeton University PEAR laboratory, which also reported 127 of the control studies.
The overall experimental results produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one.
Now, we can directly compare the overall results of the dice experiments and the RNG experiments, as shown in figure 8.5. Both experimental (E) and control (C) results are shown. We see that the dice study results and the RNG study results are remarkably similar, suggesting that the same mind-matter interaction effects have been repeatedly observed in nearly five hundred dice and RNG experiments for more than five decades.
She's the author of The Field, The Intention Experiment and several other books worth reading. Along with Radin, above, Lynne McTaggart is on the forefront of the study of the impact of intention on the physical "real" universe.
In other words, was the Higgs discovery actually the greatest intention experiment ever conducted? This is not a casual question. It reaches into the very nature of science itself and begs the question: Can human-run science ever truly be conducted independent from an observer? The answer, of course, is no. The subsequent question then becomes critical: Do observers alter the outcomes of scientific experiments even without any intention of doing so?
The very thought that observers may have altered the outcome of the Higgs experiment might at first seem outlandish to scientists who have been monitoring the hunt for the Higgs. They almost universally believe that the machines running the literally trillions of subatomic collisions operate independently from any conscious observers. The intention of the scientists watching the experiment cannot affect the outcome of the experiment, they insist.
But that assumption may be fundamentally incorrect for the simple reason that all known scientific knowledge has been gathered under a critical selection bias... the "consciousness" bias. The consciousness of intelligent, self-aware observers may actually shift the results of seemingly "random" events into the direction imagined or visualized by the conscious observers -- even without their intending to alter the data. There is evidence that this phenomenon is, in fact, quite real, making it one of the "spooky" realities of our mysterious cosmos.
Higgs researchers obsessed over visualizing a positive outcome
The search for the Higgs particle, notably, was conducted over a period of many years, involving trillions of "random" events, using a statistical analysis method to try to spot aberrations that might be consistent with the behavior of the Higgs particle. But the part of this experiment which has been completely ignored by virtually everyone -- including the mainstream media -- is that the search for Higgs involved tens of thousands of conscious beings (scientists) who were intently focused on creating a positive outcome. They wanted the Higgs to be found. They wished for it intently, obsessively, and incessantly. They visualized it, spoke about it, and many even put their careers on the line in the hopes of finding it.In effect, Higgs scientists engaged in determined visualization and "intention" activities which are now being shown by other researchers (see below) to have the ability to slightly alter the outcomes of large sets of apparently random events. Although it seems unlikely that the power of intention -- even if proven true -- could shift a data set into 5-sigma territory, what if it could shift data by just one standard deviation? If so, that would reduce the Higgs "discovery" to a 4-sigma statistical anomaly, thereby revoking its "discovery" status altogether (a 5-sigma level of statistical certainty is the current requirement for "discovery" status in the sciences).
If the intention of the CERN scientists interfered with the data in any way, then it would drastically shift this "discovery" from the realm of physics to that of metaphysics. Perhaps the experimental results that appear to show behavior "consistent with the Higgs particle," as CERN has announced, is no more than scientific proof that the power of intention can quite literally alter large data sets and nudge them in the direction of the desired outcome.
CERN may not have discovered a new particle, it turns out, but may have inadvertently proven the power of mind-matter interaction.
Is there any evidence that this can happen?
One of the top minds attempting to research this very phenomenon is Dean Radin, Ph.D., author of several books including The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic PhenomenaDean Radin is a scientist who studies the interaction between the mind and apparent physical reality. His books describe research that appears to show the power of conscious intention to nudge large data sets in a desired direction. Even physically "random" data such as the unpredictable decay of radioactive isotopes can be shifted in a desired direction based on the intention of a conscious observer.
There's no evidence that, for example, a young Jedi can levitate an X-Wing fighter out of the swamp, but there is statistically significant evidence that intention interacts with large, seemingly randomized data sets to nudge the data in a desired direction, often by the experimenter visualizing the desired outcome -- just like CERN scientists did for years on end.
The hunt for Higgs is a statistical search, not a physical one
Notably, the search for the Higgs was structured in precisely this context: A large data set of seemingly random events. Out of that data, CERN scientists are not actually looking for any physical particle at all... they're looking for statistical anomalies that might be consistent with what they EXPECT to find. (Intention, get it?)Even the CERN announcement on the Higgs boson discovery is based entirely on "preliminary" data. As CERN says on its own website, "The results presented today are labeled preliminary. They are based on data collected in 2011 and 2012, with the 2012 data still under analysis. Publication of the analyses shown today is expected around the end of July. A more complete picture of today's observations will emerge later this year after the LHC provides the experiments with more data."
CERN Director General Rolf Heuer goes on to say, "We have reached a milestone in our understanding of nature."
That may very well be, and I'm not saying this discovery isn't scientifically legitimate, but it may instead be that CERN scientists have inadvertently reached a milestone in documenting the power of intention instead of discovering a real particle.
This is not meant to cast CERN's discovery in any sort of negative light, as the work of all the thousands of dedicated scientists there is, indeed, noteworthy. But is it the scientific milestone they think it is? Or is it something far more mysterious and "spooky", such as the world's first large-scale scientific proof that even the minds of thousands of scientists who don't believe in mind-matter interaction can still alter the outcome of an experiment upon which they intently focus?
As stated in the book, "The Conscious Universe, The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena" by Dean Radin, Ph.D.
Speculations about the nature of consciousness have substantially increased in the last few years. Each discipline has its own views of what consciousness may be, and many articles have been contributed by neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, and biologists. In physics, the inescapable fact that the simple act of observation changes the nature of a physical system caused virtually all the founders of modern physics, including Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Albert Einstein, to think deeply about the strangely privileged role of human consciousness.
A growing number of contemporary physicists have continued the tradition of speculations about consciousness, mind, and matter, for some of the implications of modern physics are perplexing to say the least. As physicist Bernard d'Espagnat wrote in an article in Scientific American, "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
Many other articles on this topic have been published in scientific journals, including the American Journal of Physics, Physics Letters, Scientific American, Foundations of Physics, and Physical Review. A recent expression of the problem, which is directly relevant to psi research, can be found in a speculation about quantum theory by physicist Euan Squires, published in 1987 in the European Journal of Physics:
If conscious choice can decide what particular observation I measure, and therefore into what states my consciousness splits, might not conscious choice also be able to influence the outcome of the measurement? One possible place where mind may influence matter is in quantum effects. Experiments on whether it is possible to affect the decay rates of nuclei by thinking suitable thoughts would presumably be easy to perform, and might be worth doing.
Scientific evidence for conscious intention altering "random" outcomes - a trillion to one!
From Radin's book:Our meta-analysis findings led us to conclude that a genuine mind-matter interaction did exist with experiments testing tossed dice. The effect had been successfully replicated in more than a hundred experiments by more than fifty investigators for more than a half-century. If all this was so, then we might reasonably expect that there ought to be corroborating evidence from other experiments, using other types of physical targets. And there is.
Experiments involving random-number generators (RNGs) are the modern equivalents of dice studies. An RNG is an electronic circuit that creates sequences of "heads" and "tails" by repeatedly flipping an electronic "coin" and recording the results. A participant in a typical experiment is asked to mentally influence the RNG's output so that in a sequence of pre-defined length, it produces, say, more "heads" than "tails." Actually, most RNGs produce sequences of bits (the numbers 1 and 0); thus a person's task usually involves wishing for an RNG to produce more 1's or more 0's, depending on the instructions.
Modern RNG circuits usually rely upon one of two random sources: electronic noise or radioactive decay times. Both of these are physical sources that, through proper circuit design, provide electronic spikes at unpredictable times. These spikes, which may occur randomly a few thousand times a second, can be used to create sequences of random bits by having the spike interrupt a precise, crystal-controlled clock that is counting at the rate of, say, 10 million cycles per second.
When a random spike interrupts the clock, whichever state the clock is in ("1" or "0") is used as the random bit. If we sample from the clock at a slower rate than 10 million cycles per second, say at 1,000 randomly timed spikes per second, a truly random stream of 1,000 1's and 0's can be produced per second. Because RNGs are computer-controlled, even at a rate of 1,000 bits per second the random sequence can be recorded perfectly.
Participants in these tests often get feedback about the distribution of random events in the form of a digital display, audio feedback, computer graphics, or the movement of a robot's arms. Most modern RNGs are technically highly sophisticated, employing features such as electromagnetic shielding, environmental fail-safe alarms, and fully automatic data recording.
Results
From a wide range of sources, we found 152 references dating from 1959 to 1987. These reports described a total of 832 studies conducted by sixty-eight different investigators, including 597 experimental studies and 235 control studies. Of the 597 experimental studies, 258 were reported in a long-term investigation generated by the Princeton University PEAR laboratory, which also reported 127 of the control studies.
The overall experimental results produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one.
Now, we can directly compare the overall results of the dice experiments and the RNG experiments, as shown in figure 8.5. Both experimental (E) and control (C) results are shown. We see that the dice study results and the RNG study results are remarkably similar, suggesting that the same mind-matter interaction effects have been repeatedly observed in nearly five hundred dice and RNG experiments for more than five decades.
Additional recommended reading
If you're interested in the study of mind-matter interaction, I also recommend books by Lynne McTaggart. Her Amazon.com author page is at:She's the author of The Field, The Intention Experiment and several other books worth reading. Along with Radin, above, Lynne McTaggart is on the forefront of the study of the impact of intention on the physical "real" universe.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
