Matt Rebold

This conversation is closed.

A particle that explains WHY to everything.

I believe there is a subatomic particle that follows the laws of physics that explains in its behavior why EVERYTHING happens. The particle is an individual idea that attracts other particles with the same idea. The more particles the total idea has the greater the mass, which also means a greater attraction. Humans (more specifically, the brain) can manipulate these particles through conscious and subconscious thought. I have done some research and testing on this theory but I would like feedback from the TED community from all walks of life.

  • thumb
    Oct 19 2011: Also, beware of this new age trend about consciousness and its relationship with, say, quantum physics.
    Just because both are hard to understand doesn't give one the right to entangle them in the same crazy theories.

    It feels like some people benefit from mind-boggling science to take advantage of the mind-boggled. Deepak Choprah and many alike... their superstitions "at last!" explained by the new hip progress in science (which few people understand anyway).
    • Oct 19 2011: Beware of this new age trend about consciousness and physics? I have been studying this area for the past year. I am a Sleep Technologist (PSGT) and have great interest in the patterns of consciousness in sleep. I have been reading the work of David Bohm and Karl Pribram the early developers of the holonomic model of the functioning brain. Are you suggesting that his theory's and contributions in physics as "entangled, crazy mind boggled science"?
      • thumb
        Oct 19 2011: No I'm not.
        1) I'm saying that your studies don't rely on reductionism.
        2) I'm saying that someone who claims that consciousness is closely related, in explanatory terms, to quantum physics is just doing it to sell self-improvement books to people who really want every scientific theory to bring meaning to their own daily life.

        I'm sure that your studies are fascinating and have nothing to do with what I meant by "New Age" crap.
        • Oct 19 2011: There is no objective way to measure mind or consciousness with an instrument. Mind-consciousness appears to be a field phenomenon which interfaces with the body and the neurological structures of the brain.
      • thumb
        Oct 19 2011: I think Gerald's comments relates more to Matt's posts rather than yours. You seem to pick up comments destined to Matt and think them destined to you. All the best with your scientific research (that of which Matt has done none).
        • Oct 19 2011: I agree, Gerald I apologize about the confusion as I am new to TED and this type of forum.

          I hope to have better etiquette in the future and hope that I can contribute when and where more effectively.
        • thumb
          Oct 19 2011: No need to apologize Frank. I'm glad that someone in this forum is actually doing research. You should post something about your studies. Some of us would benefit from this.
        • Oct 20 2011: Gerald thanks for your understanding, As I said I am new to TED and still exploring the video's and comments. I find it all fascinating and give the creators of this site much credit (kudos). Once I get comfortable within this environment (posting to 2000 word limits) I will gladly share my work with the group.

          I have seen your posts spread over many topics and look forward to your input on my work and others as they present their ideas. As for now I am like a kid in a candy store absorbing as much as I can.
    • Nov 11 2011: A prisoner inside a solitary cell can only hope to understand the cell itself. This doesn't prove that the cell
      is absolute reality. Physics is a mathematical constructed system which is very helpful in defining the cell
      from within the cell, but can only reveal a reductionist view of the closed system of the cell itself. It is the prisoner's way of measuring his relationship with his external surroundings as he percieves it. The Big Bang and thereafter is the cell or closed system being observed and quantified by an observer within the system using a measuring device called physics which is only useful within the system. "New Age" is actually "old age" and is also imprisoned by the belief that the closed system is all there is although it
      can only grasp the meta-physics of the same system. Both are cats chasing their tails.

      See beyond the closed system. Read A Course in Miracles. It is tolerant of physics and metaphysics
      but frees one from the "prison."
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2011: How do you know you're in a cell? Let's have a look around, first, shall we, before making any assumptions.
  • thumb
    Oct 19 2011: I don't think one should bind elementary particles or quantum physics with the human mind. How neurons work is a highly emergent phenomenum, and taking subatomic particles into acount brings no understanding whatsoever about it.

    It's like trying to explain 9/11 by observing every electron in the world. You'll see that everything is doing what it's supposed to do, but this won't give you knowledge about politics, the American people or terrorists.

    In that same way, human thinking can be reduced to sub atomic interactions, but this doesn't give us explanations of how we think.
  • Nov 8 2011: The subatomic particle you are looking for is a duality wave manifested by a single thought of conciousness which
    we will call "the tiny mad idea" which is the original single thought of the state of the observer and the observed (two-ness). It is the physical manifestation of thought,--consciousness--, which miscreated into a force we call energy which by its nature is a closed system of duality--positive vs. negative--polarities. The "tiny mad idea" fractaled into a holographic multiplicity of "bodies" or fragmented minds from the original unified mind which is responsible for the "tiny mad idea". What is the "tiny mad idea?" It is the idea that one is not one but two. It is the insane idea that we are all indviduals, seperate minds and bodies. One(1) can never- not- contain all there is --all in all--therefore fragmenting one(1) is actually impossible. We are experiencing a common illusion called the "universe," otherwise referred to as time, space, and matter.

    If you are a serious seeker you may want to look into A Course in Miracles. I did and it "intelligently" answered my questions.
  • thumb
    Oct 19 2011: One last example on the strength of the Central WHY.
    I am NOT a religious person and I have NEVER read the Bible. Please keep that in mind.
    I know some basics, but I am about to get really basic.
    So there was this guy that you may know. His name was Jesus Christ. I'm sure you have heard of him. Anyway, he had a WHY. No, his WHY was not that he wanted to spread Christianity and force people to live under certain rules. (which sadly, is what some churches have become.) His WHY was the Central WHY. "To make the world a better place for EVERYONE" But didn't I say everyone has that WHY? Yes, I did. What makes Jesus different is that he took that WHY out of his subconscious and into his consciousness and made it his life goal to spread that idea to EVERYONE. Imagine, 2000 years ago when people were killing each other for sport or because they were foreign or "different" I bet if Jesus saw a Chinese person during his life we would have treated them with love and respect. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Jesus died for ALL of OUR sins. Hmmm if that doesn't connect to the Central WHY then I don't know what does. To this day people are still attracted/connected to Jesus because they believe in the same WHY.

    I have a lot more info that relates to the WHY particle but I would like some feedback on what I have so far so I do not get too far ahead of myself. Thank you for taking the time to read this
  • thumb
    Oct 19 2011: "WHY does a pencil exist?"
    Does/Can it make the world a better place for everyone?
    Yes because it provides humans a way to write down ideas and connect thoughts.

    "Why is McDonalds so successful?
    Does/Can it make the world a better place for everyone?
    Yes because it provides a service that makes food easily accessible to the masses at a low cost. (Everyone needs to eat)

    "WHY has the automobile industry been so successful?"
    Does/Can it make the world a better place for everyone?
    Yes because it provides everyone with the opportunity to travel large distances in a much shorter time in order to transport goods, connect with people in different cities, provide paramedics, fireman, and policemen better chances to save lives and assist others.

    The WHYs go on and on and on and on......

    Billions of people were attracted to each one of those ideas because it connected very aggressively with the Central WHY. Now lets look at something that has a weak connection. If we think about murder, I assume that 99% of the world's population would not do it, consciously or subconsciously. WHY? Well we can clearly see that there is an issue when you try to connect it back to the Central WHY. If you kill someone, ANYONE, you do not make the world a better place for EVERYONE. Some may say, "Well what about Osama?" Good question, lets talk about it. In a best case scenario, me killing Osama would make the world a better place for everyone minus 1 person, Osama (duh).
    That is not the case though. If it were, then what would stop any member of Al Qaeda from killing him if it meant a better world for everyone? Here is what happened. Osama promised his people that he would make the world better for them, but not everybody. (Certainly not America) Of course those who he promised a better life were ATTRACTED to him. His WHY was enough to attract others who wanted to believe what he believed. Where he failed is he did not want a better world for EVERYONE. America WHY > Al Qaeda WHY.
  • thumb
    Oct 19 2011: If you are still following, I am about to get to my favorite part. Before I do I want to make clear of what I have already said.

    - Common WHY particles bond and form a larger mass which therefore means it is subject to a greater gravitational pull.
    - WHY particles come from our consciousness but most come from our subconscious
    -ALL WHY particles are connected (some connections are stronger than others)

    Understanding these led me to ask myself a question. What WHY has the biggest mass and strongest attraction?
    I came up with a concept called the "Central Why" This WHY is what EVERY other WHY particle is somehow connected to. You can trace ANY WHY back to this one. So what WHY can possibly do this? I am not 100% positive to be honest but I found a REALLY good one. Open your mind for this one. Ready?

    "To make the world a better place, for everyone"

    Some of you can stop reading right there because it clicks. Let me explain to those who it did not click for. The idea of the "Central WHY" is that anything and everything can connect back to it. Remember, a WHY is most of the time subconscious so we do not even know that we are using it sometimes. Now to test it you would have to test any why and somehow connect it back to the Central Why.
    Let me throw out a couple.....
  • thumb
    Oct 18 2011: When you say research, what do you mean exactly?
    • thumb
      Oct 19 2011: I haven't done anything like particle accelerators. I just have a theory based on the possible existence of the particle. So far I have not found anything that disproves its existence. It is a lot more extensive than what I originally posted. I need assistance to adequately organize and discuss my idea
      • thumb
        Oct 19 2011: So you've derived this sub-atomic particle from mathematics? Does it fit with the current models and theories of physics we have?. What are some of the testable consequences of your idea?

        I ask because to me " I have done some research and testing on this theory" makes it sound like you've done some serious academic work on this which isn't necessarily true. It's misleading.
    • Oct 19 2011: (Matthieu) Did you mean in regards to the sleep data I have collected or on the subject matter?
  • thumb
    Oct 19 2011: Ok I've read the few posts you've made on your idea which essentially answers my question. All I have to say is that your theory is complete utter nonsense. Thinking yourself really clever and posting your baseless conjectures on TED does not make them anywhere near scientifically rigorous. This is insulting to people who actually do proper research. That's my feedback.
    • thumb
      Oct 19 2011: You are assuming I claim to be a prolific scientist that assumes himself clever for posting on a public forum. Neither are true. What's wrong with me posting an idea? I'm pretty sure TED was created because of ideas. Not all ideas are thorough and sorry this doesn't meet your standards and sorry for "insulting" real scientists. And by sorry I mean I'm not sorry.
      • thumb
        Oct 19 2011: Nothing wrong with posting ideas. However, if you do not wish to conform to the modern scientific method (and you do not need to be a prolific scientist to do so, I have done some research and I am merely a Masters student), might I suggest that you make this a little more explicit. Sentences like:

        "that follows the laws of physics that explains in its behavior why EVERYTHING happens" or "I have done some research and testing on this theory".

        are either intentionally misleading (as they suggest you have done some background research into the basics of physics before coming up with your hypothesis thus giving your idea some credibility) or unintentionally ambiguous (although I seriously doubt it, this happens all too often).

        Otherwise I stand by my remark. This is playing around with scientific buzzwords, creating deepities and failing to take science seriously.

        Statistically, the chance of your idea being true given that it has no evidence for it whatsoever is 1 divided by all the possible ideas that could be formed by a mind...an infinity...1/infinity rounded up is essentially 0. Not to mention that such an idea doesn't sit at all with physics.So yes we could spend lifetimes thinking up all the crazy ideas and becoming advocates of such idea without actually doing any of the research we purport to have done (I'm still curious to know what you could ever mean by research and testing) but it's all a tragic waste of time.

        Next time, straight up call it for what it is: Pseudoscience. Maybe make a religion out of it, there's less rigor in religion (Scientology is doing well).
  • thumb
    Oct 19 2011: Why? (Wright brothers) (#1)
    "Because we want to change the course of the world"

    Why? (Langley) (#2)
    "Because I want to be rich and famous"

    Now imagine these two ideas/reasons as identical looking particles but you can see the difference in their substance. Which particle would YOU be attracted to? These two particles are both reasons why (insert any name here) wants to fly. But flight only manifested through particle #1. Why? I believe that particle #1 has a stronger gravitational pull. Yes, I said gravitational. As in, its subject to the law of gravity. As most of you know, the force of gravity is related to an object's mass. The more mass an object has, the stronger the force of gravity. The way a WHY particle would gain more mass is by having other exact particles attract to it. There are more people who "want to change the course of the world" than there are people who want "Langley to be rich and famous." Common sense I would think.

    There is NEVER only one reason WHY people do things. Also all the WHYs are connected to each other (again, by gravity) I believe humans have about a billion WHYs, but we are only aware of a handful. The rest lie in our subconscious. What's great is that you can move these WHYs into your consciousness. A very small example of this would be instead of you just going through the motions of tying your shoe, you would consciously think, "Why am I tying my shoe?" Then go on and think, "Well I want to tie my shoes BECAUSE I want them to be tight and not fall off while I am walking" Or, "I do not want to trip over my laces" You do not consciously think either of these while you tie your show but subconsciously, you do.
    • Oct 22 2011: Your idea is not necessarily bad, but it has absolutely nothing to do with physics or particles. I don’t intend to be demeaning, but it is obvious by the way you use physics terminology that you are not very well informed in this area. You are a good thinker and your idea sort of makes sense, but you are trying to explain human behavior and you can't use physics to explain this. The question of why Jesus did what he did or why Osama did what he did is most definitely not a matter of physics. It is a matter of sociology, psychology, neuroscience, and any other field of science that attempts to explain brain processes, consciousness, and human behavior. Your idea is also not completely original. Search “memetics” in Google and you will understand what I mean.
  • thumb
    Oct 19 2011: This is what I wrote previously but it was deleted by the site for vagueness. I understand I am not using a method people would prefer, but it is an idea that I would like feedback on....

    Inspired by Simon Sinek's talk, especially where he mentions that there is biological basis, I began trying to make an even stronger bond between the "Golden Circles" and applying it to everything I could think of. I came up with an idea that is very hard for me to explain because I believe it covers EVERYTHING. What I have come up with so far is a model of what I like to call the "WHY particle." (Maybe the "Idea Particle" will work better)

    Imagine the structure of an atom. It has a nucleus and electrons that orbit it.
    Here is where you will need some imagination and I guess, faith.
    Imagine the nucleus is now a representation of "Why". Stick with me. Here is where I have difficulty explaining what I see.
    This representation of "WHY" applies to any and all forms of the QUESTION why.
    Using the example in Sinek's talk, "WHY were the Wright brothers able to fly?" Why questions are answered starting with the word "Because..." Back to the example. The Wright brothers were able to fly BECAUSE they created a model that was able to support their weight, create propulsion, and generate lift. Right? WRONG. I just answered HOW they were able to, not WHY. As stated in the video the reason the WHY the Wright brothers were able to fly is BECAUSE they believed it would change the course of the world. (I'll refute this later but this example still helps my theory) Now look at Langley, his WHY is because he wanted to make a profit and become famous. I am going to switch these examples to first person.
    • Oct 19 2011: I'm currently studying particle physics for my masters degree. I am sorry to say this but your theory is a complete mess of concepts and ideas you obviously don't understand the slightest.

      Let me just cite some of you claims:

      "- Common WHY particles bond and form a larger mass which therefore means it is subject to a greater gravitational pull.
      "- WHY particles come from our consciousness but most come from our subconscious
      "-ALL WHY particles are connected (some connections are stronger than others)"

      There is no "WHY particle" and no concept even close to what you are describing. None of the models of physics permit "particles come from our consciousness". It is utter nonsense. And why are you bringing gravitation into this? It follows no logic.

      Another one:

      "Now imagine these two ideas/reasons as identical looking particles but you can see the difference in their substance."

      If you use a concept from physics like "identical particles" as an analogy in your "theory", please use these concepts the right way. Identical particles are _identical_ and there is no way to distinguish between them. Thus, "seeing the difference" is totally wrong - you simply just can't. Look it up on Wikipedia if you do not trust me.

      The best advice I can give you to evolve these ideas are to watch Ben Goldacres great Ted talk http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html. It's on medicine, but you should get the message.
  • Comment deleted

  • Oct 18 2011: Go to Google and use keywords (cymatics, harmonics mundi) I would suggest reading (researching) this information again as it will be useful to understand the principles prior to understanding it's effects on sleep.
  • Oct 18 2011: I would suggest you research the work of Hans Jenny (cymatics) and Kepler's Harmonics Mundi. There was actually a TED Speaker that touched on cymatics however he did not offer any new insights.

    Once you have a better understanding of these principles then possible conversations on how it relates to sleep will be more understandable.
  • thumb
    Oct 18 2011: Thank you for your reply! I would love to hear what you have found. I am sure I can use the information to continue my own research.
  • Oct 18 2011: Not sure if my work fits your topic, but I have been doing research on cymatics which is the way particles behave when introduced to sound and vibration. This is not a new science however it has been neglected to be recognized as a insight to human consciousness. I am a sleep researcher (PSGT) and have been applying this science to the human body during sleep and have found some very interesting phenomenon.