The True God Particle

The discovery of the Higgs Boson ,  bearing the misnomer "The God Particle" has stirred up the the passions of the scientific as well as the spiritual  communities. Censored  to God from goddamned, the act of eliminating profanity from the original  expression  of exasperation by Lederman deified this elusive particle, the perpetrator of  mass in the sub atomic realm. The standard model of physics broadly predicts two categories of sub atomic particles ,viz  fermions and bosons. Bosons, are  particles with an integer spin, with the same energy can occupy the same place in space. They are the force carrier particles. While most bosons are composite particles, in the Standard Model, there are five bosons which are elementary: the four gauge bosons (γ · g · Z · W±) and the Higgs boson (H0)n contrast,  Fermions , particles with a half integer spin,(leptons and quarks) are the building blocks of matter.  Forces are mediated by  massless particles operating at the quantum level.  The tangible at the mercy of the intangible. The Higgs Boson lends tangibility to the intangible (massless) subatomic world.  The standard model however fails to provide answers at the macro level. It cannot explain gravity, an  extremely weak force, that gets amplified by humongous sizes of the objects that seem to generate this attraction over equally massive distances. The graviton (G), a hypothetical elementary particle not incorporated in the Standard Model, if it exists, must be a boson, and could conceivably be a gauge boson.  The micro and the macro appear to have a schizophrenic dichotomy  of underlying scientific explanations.  The Theory  of everything still  a far cry aims to reconcile this existential aberration. Consciousness  as is conventionally understood  is an attribute of  the "life force" at the macro level. An extrapolation of the standard model hypothesis should   predict a massless particle to mediate this emergent phenomenon of the "animate" world.  Could  consciousness be merely a function of  neurotransmitters, an alchemy in this neuronal laboratory ?  Could there be a field that mediates this subtle yet powerful phenomenon just as the Higgs field that is necessary  to explain the genesis of mass from the massless?   The double slit experiment and it's subsequent modifications  throw up possibilities of  intelligence and consciousness at the "micro "level.  The photon behaves differently when it realises  it is being observed.  The entire quantum world behaves quaintly, as if it has a mind  of its own.  Just as there seem to be two sets of rules governing the macro and the quantum worlds, there may just be a different form of  conscious intelligence operating differently in both these worlds. There may just be another  form of intelligence - " Quantum intelligence", having its own domain and jurisprudence.  Consciousness and intelligence may not be just an "emergent " phenomenon of the macro  world, but the fundamental constituent of the subatomic quantum world. As the observer becomes vital to the existence of creation, the observed may just be observing as well, with a consciousness of its own.  Like finding an eye at the other end when prying through a key-hole. The trinity of observer, observed and observation may just be an illusion created by a grand unified all pervading  conscious intelligence.  The true "God Particle " will therefore be a particle that assigns consciousness to the subatomic quantum world. Or possibly , this entire universe may  just be a  particle of consciousness - "The God Particle". Dr Deepak M Ranade (The author is a consultant neurosurgeon - deepakranade@hotmail.com)

The infinitesimally small distance between I and me

The infinitesimally small distance between "I" and "Me" I is an "amness " that is  pure awareness. No one ever uses this term to address me except me. It is a first person singular. It is how I address myself.  It is always  a singularity , that is self indulgent. It's existence is virtuoso,  an a priori state.  "Me" is a personal pronoun I use when duality , or a second person perspective enters . It  helps distinguish "I" and the non "I",a relativity , between "I " and the universe. It defines a locus, a distinct margin between "I" and the world around "me". Is there any fundamental difference between "I" and "me" ? "Me" is an image I construct of myself. Me is the clothes that drape the naked "I".  Me brings along dual constructs  called my and mine, the ego that unleashes this desire to possess, to indulge, to flaunt. This "me" also brings along a spectrum of emotions, that are an inevitable  consequence of attachment. "I"  when left alone doesn't really need anything. I is purely existentialist without the angst that tags along with "me".  Life is the gradual transition from "I" to  "me". Life is a journey of " I "want to become ........., a seemingly endless journey with no destination. A purposefully  purposeless indulgence ,an emotional roller coaster ride of this apparition "I" call "Me".  The "me" keeps convincing the "I" , that "I " will be happy when I become "Me" "I" then embark on a never ending endeavour to become a "Me" that "I" know "I" can never become. This "Me" can never be satisfied by just being. The illusory "Me" has no end point that can be ever be  reached. It has to engage in a meaningful  deception  of "becoming" . But this "I"  enjoys this deception despite  subconsciously knowing  that "I" is not equal to "Me" . The nakedness of "I" is  a faceless formless abstraction. Like looking into a mirror and having an emptiness  staring  back.   All "my" achievements, accomplishments are efforts at cosmetic enhancement  to appear more aesthetically appealing when "me" preens itself in the societal mirror that discriminates on basis of appearances. I is all about being, whilst "Me" is about becoming. Becoming is merely a manifestation of "being".  The awareness " cloaked differently that wants to marvel at its multifarious spellbinding reflections it has conjured up of itself, by itself ,for itself.  I " relentlessly keep asking "Me" for reasons, for answers, for explanations. But "I" fail to understand that an apparition can never provide answers to its creator.  It should ideally be the other way round. The "Me" should be asking "I" why  "I" created "me" The metamorphosis from " me " to "I" is what spiritual evolution  is all about.  From  the  relative  me to the absolute I. Disrobing the apparel of " me". This divesting process is very difficult and at times painful.Realisation is  the knife that slices the tangibility of  "me " to leave an intangible  residue called "I" It is a process of reduction, that reduces becoming to being.  It is about travelling that infinitesimally small illusory distance between "I" and "Me". Paradoxically, " I" keep trying to search for myself in "me", when "me" is just a virtual image of "I". "Me" is virtual and "I" the reality, and  life is an endlessly eternal virtual reality. Dr Deepak M Ranade