"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them"

""We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. The Standard Model is a theory that accounts for three of the forces of nature, electromagnetism, the weak and the strong force, and how the particles making up these forces interact. The masses of the sixteen elementary particles in the Standard Model span eleven orders of magnitude, from the electron-neutrino to the top quark. The Standard Model does not account for the masses of these particles, which are ""put in by hand"" to make the model work. To explain how these particles get their masses, Peter W. This field is called the Higgs field and the Higgs boson is the particle that mediates the field or which carries the energy of the field. "" The Higgs particle is in many ways the ""holy grail"" of particle physics because it is a necessary part of the Standard Model, even though particle physicists also know that the Standard Model still would not be complete because it doesn't account for the major force in the universe - gravity. But there is another way to account for the masses of elementary particles that does not require a six-billion dollar particle accelerator or thousands of physicists. It requires that instead of looking at the world from the standpoint of a particles and forces (or matter), we look at the world from the standpoint of the mind toward the particles and forces. Or the outer harmony determines the inner harmony of the physical form. Once a composer hums the melody, he can then write out the notes to the song. This approach leads to the intractable dilemma - faced throughout modern science - of explaining how finely ordered particles (such as the particles of the Standard Model or the DNA molecule) arose from the random laws of nature. But once we eliminate this unnecessary prejudice from scientific theory, the answer becomes apparent: when we peer into the interior of physical forms we are actually looking into a dream image. "" These statements are all factually true because they describe the inner workings of a dream world. These models ultimate fade away to nothing, as the building blocks cannot precisely replicate the workings of a crystalized thought in motion. The radical nature of this approach of course that it takes quantum theory to its logical conclusion and articulates a result that is appearing more and more obvious: consciousness truly does create reality because somewhere inside of us is the power of the dream. Here are a few predictions that this dream-perspective makes: At the core of matter should actually be nothing since matter is in fact an illusion. "" Robert B. There are scores of books and experiments attesting to the dream-like nature of reality. No free-standing, objective world exists independently of consciousness. Here is an example from David Lindley's The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory (Basis Books 1993): ""The basis of quantum theory is more revolutionary yet: it asserts that perfect objective knowledge of the world cannot be had because there is no objective world. This is in fact a tautology because ""dark matter"" is called ""dark"" because scientists cannot find it. If the universe is a dream, however, then the universe would be more an artistic creation than a randomly assembled machine held together by the impersonal laws of nature. This may be a radical thought in a materialistic worldview, but the question should be not whether it's radical, but whether it's right. As with dark matter, cosmologists invented dark energy to explain why the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. Assuming that these measurements of accelerating galaxies are true, the phenomenon can be explained from the dream perspective as simply creation in motion and nothing more. This conclusion naturally follows from a dream world since at the source of dreams is a mind and, if the mind creates an outer world of harmony, or a universe that flows coherently along a story-line, the inner workings of the world will appear to be finely-tuned. The multiverse does not exist. Specifically, to explain why our universe has a special set of physical laws, forces, and constants oddly suited for life, some scientists say that this is so because we just so happen to live in a universe with a set of physical laws adapted to life. So we can explain the mass of the elementary particles of the Standard Model and all sorts of other physical phenomena by simply changing our perspective. This contradiction is that at the same time modern science is based upon the assumption that a real world exists independently of human perception, its leading theory of the physical world - quantum theory - holds that no such independent world exists. Many scientists were raised in the either-or mindset of the modern world: either you are a scientist or a God-fearing creationist. We should stop pretending that the only way to practice science is within a materialistic, objective world model. A mind-first standpoint still allows for the practice of science - the rigorous criticism and testing of theories - but this time the question is not how random, impersonal particles, forces, and laws happened to create the universe but how the mind happened to create this universe. But until the leaders in university science departments understand that their outworn, archaic reliance upon an objective world model is leading us all down a dead-end road, there will not be a change, which is to say a revolution. . TRY SOMETHING NEW JUST CLICK HERE