Fundamental Physics of Consciousness by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Narendra

I have responded on your essay page but I repeat the response below for any who may only be following my page:

You state: "Now, i treat brain as a processing and memory centre only while the rest of the body cells , billions in number, are all sensors as well as activators to send signals and receive signals from out side"

I agree that the brain is processing and memory. This is the meaning of defining

intelligence = consciousness plus logic.

Consciousness is awareness and volition, or free will, and has a field nature, while logic is structural, based on material. Material structures store info, combine info, and project info, thereby creating memories and ideas/thoughts of the future. The conscious field and the material structures interact as described in my essay.

Cells are alive and, to some degree conscious. Although I do understand the mechanics of the immune system, I also believe it likely that the consciousness field plays a role in distinguishing 'self' from 'non-self'. Consciousness at the molecular level was probably the added push that, over millions of years, provided the anti-entropic basis for the cell to 'live'.

At the cellular level, consciousness probably provides the glue that is the basis of the organism. Of course all of the molecular biology of the cell (described by Alberts et al) is necessary for the physical functioning of cells, but the evolution of such complexity, without a conscious force at work, has never been explained, and the more one understands the cell, the less likely its independent evolution appears.

Note that I am not ascribing 'ideas' at the cellular level, but the protein/DNA structure clearly implements 'logic' capable of 'deciding' whether protein A AND protein B are present or whether only protein A OR protein B is present, and 'acting' accordingly to generate protein C or not.

Just as our macroscopic ideas sometimes lead us astray in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the application of human-centric ideas to cells will be 'fraught with peril', but, nevertheless, the existence of the consciousness field is clearly of immense importance.

I would also like to point out that Darwinian evolution has nothing to say on this. That is, if an intelligent life-form exists today, Darwin is completely unable to say whether the consciousness evolved by random means or by the application of low level conscious forces. Just as Darwin predicts nothing (except retroactively) it also explains nothing about the source of life. Evolution of lifeforms in the jungle would be the same regardless of whether the source of consciousness is random action, a consciousness field, or God.

Your question about what consciousness survives death is of course very important, but I am not yet ready to venture into this realm, as there are so many physical implications of the C-field still to be worked out. As I note in my essay, the C-field is quite useful for understanding particle physics. The equations are compatible with Yang-Mills gauge theory and, at the level of particle physics, all "conscious aspects" of the C-field can be completely ignored; the theory is, for all purposes, strictly physical. This aspect is treated in "The Chromodynamics War".

At the cosmological level there appears to be some grounds for considering the aspect of consciousness, since the Pioneer orbits and the CMB "axis of evil" do seem somewhat earth-centric. The physical behaviors associated with "flat rotation curves" and "jets" are 100 percent compatible with the C-field, but the relative magnitudes do seem to vary with some dependence on relation to earth. These issues are treated in "Gene Man's World".

At the biological level, while I am sure that the C-field is significant, the complexity makes it difficult to analyze the system. All I have been able to do is calculate that the C-field energy at the molecular level is of the order of 20 nano-eV. In 1958 Stan Ulam conjectured that "a minimum series of energy expenditures would transfer a body in a multi-body potential from one point to another efficiently." This of course was the basis of NASA's "Grand Tour" and has been recently extended to the quantum realm. Such forces at the cellular level, operating over time, could certainly shape the process of evolution, regardless of any concept of 'goal'. For all we know the goal could have been as simple as "feels good", or of simply achieving a greater local density in the consciousness field that endured for a longer time.

I will read your 'Relevance of Consciousness in Sciences'. Thanks for the reference.

Edwin E Klingman

Steve

Thanks for your kind words and your good wishes for my essay.

I will attempt to respond to some of your questions.

You state that:

"There no the dark energy is false and don't exist furthermore"

The 'dark energy' is considered as an explanation of the apparent fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating whereas gravity alone would be expected to decelerate expansion. The GEM equations discussed in my essay yield a force that is capable, for arbitrary mass, velocity, and C-field, of opposing the force of Gravity on that mass, and therefore of producing the "inflation" behavior that dark energy is supposed to explain. There is no other known field that produces this effect. The proposed "inflaton" field has never been detected. The C-field has been measured by Martin Tajmar, but his measurements have not yet been reproduced. I understand that attempts to reproduce his results are underway.

You also ask about "the galactic velocity problem known since 1933."

This is the problem that outer galaxies in galactic clusters and outer stars in spiral galaxies were measured (in 1933 by Fritz and since then by others) and found to be moving too fast to be constrained by gravity. Bekenstein and others have proposed MOND and other modifications to Newton's gravity to explain this otherwise unexplained phenomenon.

The C-field vector force again produces results that would explain these "flat rotation velocity curves" if the C-field is co-axial with the spiral galaxies, a not unreasonable expectation for a 'solenoidal' interpretation of local C-field generation, although one that requires more words than I can justify in this reply. Interestingly, the effect is not seen in globular clusters where there would be no expectation of such a solenoidal C-field dipole.

You ask about "the prediction of quark matter behavior now appearing at RHIC."

"I don't know ,what is it ?"

As late as 2006 QCD physicists were predicting a "weak gas" when heavy nuclei (Gold on Gold) were slammed together at the "Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider" (RHIC), and were very surprised to find that the resultant collision was best described as a "perfect fluid" with consequent implications of unexpected correlations. The C-field "flux tubes" that are proposed as the central mechanism of nucleon structure, including quark confinement, would be expected to both affect the colliding quarks and to enhance the local C-field, thereby correlating the quark motion and producing such 'perfect fluid' behavior.

You mention "Yields asymmetric wave function that was the genesis of QCD color."

This refers to the fact that color was first proposed due to the need for an "asymmetric wave function" to preserve the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions. This was the ONLY reason that QCD color was proposed. The C-field flux tube yields an anti-symmetric wave function based on z-axis position along the flux tube and removes the original argument for 'color'.

Your further ask about "Explains the genesis of String Theory, pre-Theory of Everything."

and then ask "You think really it's the pre-theory of everything ."

The meaning of these statements is that the original (Veneciano) string theory was based on the behavior observed in proton-proton collisions, which seemed to match a model in which the protons had some "string" properties. This is exactly what one would expect from the 'cylindrical' flux tube proposed as the C-field explanation of nucleon binding. The flux tube can be considered as a three dimensional "string" in this sense. Of course string theorists chose to consider a one dimensional string which would be the idealization of a three dimensional string. Unfortunately a 3D string is physically real, whereas a 1D string is a mathematical model having no reality.

By "pre theory of everything" I refer to the fact that soon string theorists decided that their mathematical discovery of a "spin 2" property indicated that strings also explained "gravitons" and therefore the string was the answer to "everything". Unfortunately, this extended string theory to energy regions very far from the energies of proton-proton collisions, and led to the frustrations experienced by those who wish to explain everything by 1D strings (or 11-D strings, or whatever the final dimensionality is supposed to be). That is the meaning of "pre-theory of everything" in the above quote.

Steve,

Thanks for the attention you've devoted to my essay. I'm glad that you found it interesting and appreciate your comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Darrryl Jay Leiter,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I have read your essay and found that Jonathan Dickau's comments were most helpful. The unorthodox use of 'color' combined with QCD may throw some readers off, but Dickau explained it well.

I must confess that the arrow of time has not bothered me much lately, since the attribution of consciousness to a 'field' and the definition of consciousness as "awareness plus volition" almost erases the problem of the time arrow. If volition is the ability to act, it seems self evident that action can only occur going 'forward' in time. A related aspect is that the consciousness field interacts with itself, an inherently non-linear operation. As discussed in my essay, this is compatible with Yang-Mills gauge theory, and is inherently non-Abelian, as explained in detail in "The Chromodynamics War". I haven't given enough thought to the linearization of the consciousness field to be able to say whether an Abelian operator gauge symmetry such as you develop is a reasonable approximation.

I like your treatment, and admire your approach, but I am unable to believe that consciousness 'emerges' from matter or material constructions (glorified Lego blocks).

Avoiding the many-worlds solution, which seems to be inherently non-physical, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be that a particle is 'non-physical', spread over a number of 'possible' physical states until a measurement is made, at which time it somehow 'collapses' into reality, and the multi-state vector settles into the measured state. Although the probability is somewhat deterministic, the behavior before measurement is essentially random. But the true meaning of random is "for no reason at all", since, if there is a reason for a behavior, it is not random.

In a consciousness-field-based theory the unpredictability is not interpreted as random, but as a consequence of the inherent volition, or "free will" built into the field, however small, and however subject to energy constraints.

What are the consequences? The replacement of a meaningless random basis of the universe by a (possibly meaningful but unpredictable) conscious basis of the universe makes it a whole lot easier to swallow the "self-assembly" of the first living cell, an otherwise statistically unlikely event. The net result is that the replacement of an essentially random universe based on a (Yang-Mills gauge theory compatible!) consciousness field allows us to reject an absolutely meaningless (random) universe for a possibly meaningful (conscious) universe.

In fact, the problem becomes, how does the universe emerge from consciousness, not how does consciousness emerge from matter. My essay attempts to outline this approach.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

In comments on another essay Uncle Al wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 23:22 GMT

You say, "If we simply ask 'How can we reconcile Quantum theory with Relativity?' we may find ourselves disappointed." General Relativity has c=c,G=G, h=0. Quantum Field Theory has c=c,G=0, h=h. Write predictive theory in which c=c,G=G, h=h. It's not a big deal, conceptually. Who bells the cat?

Answer:

It seems appropriate to point out that in the derivation of the Master equation and the subsequent derivation of the Quantum Flow Principle, the two major results and starting point of my theory, I have explicitly: c=c, G=G, and h=h.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Narendra,

I am honored that you recommend my essay to others. You correctly capture the essence of my approach that our physics should be based on phenomena that are directly perceived by one and all, versus on abstractions that are not even agreed by all to exist. Surely the ultimate physics will not be based on such abstractions.

You are also correct to state the importance of predictions. I have made several, such as that the core of the neutron should be negative. All current theories predict a positive core, but experiment says negative. It is difficult to compare and contrast predictions with lattice-QCD because all of the current models, no matter how different in detail, boil down to a canonical form that is the same for all. The model agrees with (but did not predict) the 'perfect liquid' seen at RHIC, whereas QCD was predicting a 'weak gas'.

There are other consequences of my theory, such that charge is quantized ( a mystery in QED and QCD), the fine structure constant is derived (it is not in any other theory) and the model predicts a J/psi decay to three gamma's, as recently measured but predicted by none. The theory also predicts some two gamma processes that are currently being filtered out of the experimental data. and explains 'Halo' neutrons, with significant consequences for QCD.

But by far the strongest prediction is that no Higgs boson will be found, nor will the axion, or the three SUSY right handed neutrinos (required by neutrino mass) nor ANY of the SUSY particles nor any new particles at all (except for resonances) be detected at LHC.

That is, my theory says no new particles will be found. If any are found, it will probably falsify my theory. That is a much stronger prediction than others are making.

Thanks again for your kind support.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I have read and enjoyed your essay. In this comment I will attempt to link some of your ideas to some of my own. I am including a copy on my page for the convenience of readers.

You state that:

"The relation between physics and human consciousness may never be fully answered (due to the fact that it is "all in the brain"), but understanding the limitations of brain as a thought machine will help realize the ultimate possibilities in physics."

This is almost identical with my conclusions, although we reach this point by different paths.

You describe "human thought as a physical process, following the laws of this universe itself." and then attempt to analyze the relation between physics and mathematics.

You define: "A human thought is a signal exchanged and saved among neurons in the brain."

I agree with this, and go further to link this physical process to the logic circuitry of the brain, a physically real construction. I do *not* attribute "awareness" to this construction, but to a consciousness 'field' which has the properties, awareness plus volition. In this sense I also agree with you that:

"Whatever be the physiological and chemical processes, the human thought is bound to the nature of the universe."

The "thought" is the physical 'model' in the brain. Awareness of this thought is attributed to the essence of the consciousness field, which, in my essay is considered to be physically real, that is, capable of coupling to the brain processes. As you say: "it has to come down to a basic understanding in form of these brain signals. Humongous amount of experimental data is of no real use unless analyzed for results, and fit into a physical theory."

You then ask: "What is mathematics? A conventional answer is the study of numbers ergo of quantities, measurement, etc." and "The existence of mathematics is not a demand of nature but a need of a scientific mind."

You then look at representation and worry that "Hence 'the first number' cannot be defined absolutely, without defining 'the first operation' and vice-versa." but you then state that "One of the first scientific inventions of the primitive man was counting."

This is true, and, as a Computer Science Engineer, you recognize that one of the simplest constructions based on logic elements is a "counter". Logic and counters can be implemented as silicon, neural, and even protein circuitry. Additionally, there is much proof that many lifeforms and 'higher' animals have the ability to count (and compare).

Counting is not just biologically important, but the essence of Quantum Field Theory is the particle counter or number operator that counts particles by summing over annihilation and creation operations. This theoretical 'counting' should go hand in hand with the experimental counting of the measurement process, showing that both theory and experiment are based in counting. Elsewhere I have shown that, given measurement numbers, there exist pattern recognition principles that begin with clustering operations and then associate 'features' with clusters and so allow one, based on a group of measurement numbers, to create a feature 'map' or feature vector that represents the system being measured. This, in a nutshell, is the reason that mathematics is so applicable to physics, and so well suited to the brain. And this is why, as you state: "The studies of physics and mathematics are an extension of the human mind and its consciousness."

You ask: "Should we ever expect to understand the nature in its entirety?"

My essay attempts to define the ultimate limits of understanding based on a model of consciousness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman