The recent Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to John Clarke (UC Berkeley, USA), Michel Devoret (Yale University, USA), and John Martinis (UC Santa Barbara, USA), for showing that quantum effects can exist on a human scale. Their work shows that quantum weirdness, in particular quantum tunneling, can be achieved in macroscopic devices, therefore proving that mysterious is not reserved to the tiny, microscopic scale. Quantum coherency has been proven to be preserved in exceeding large conglomerates of atoms, and this has deep implications for biology and even for consciousness.
In 1984 and 1985, the now laureates had built a tiny superconducting electrical circuit in a super-chilled environment, that allows the current to flow without resistance, through a process knows a Cooper pairs. The superconducting components of the circuit were separated by a thin layer of non-conductive material, a setup known as a Josephson junction. This circuit behaved just like a quantum particle; it could tunnel through barriers, and it could absorb and release energy not continuously but in tiny fixed discrete amounts, called quanta, just as quantum physics predicts.
The charged particles moving through the superconductor behaved as if they were a single particle that filled the entire circuit. This macroscopic particle-like system is initially in a state in which current flows without any voltage, trapped in this state as if it was behind a barrier that it cannot cross. Its quantum character reveals by managing to escape the zero-voltage state through quantum tunneling, detected by the appearance of a voltage. This discovery helps the development of quantum computers, which work using these strange quantum states to process information in ways that normal computers can’t.
Quantum behavior is preserved at macroscopic scale … what does this mean? In simple terms, if quantum behavior can be preserved at macroscopic scales, and even at room temperature (for example the entanglement in diamonds, the proton tunneling in DNA, or the BEC behavior in photosynthesis), it may be that the macroscopic world is not as classical (local and linear) as one would imagine. Most of the biological processes would therefore involve quantum processes that science is still unable to acknowledge. One could draw a link between the fact that the science we have developed so far describes at most 5% of the physical reality around us (the remainder falls into the category of the yet undetected dark mass and dark energy), and, the unacknowledged quantum processes that could very well be responsible for the missing 95% which we know almost nothing about, and that seems to be holding reality together. Since the equations of general relativity developed by Albert Einstein, which basically are the updated version of the Newtonian physics corresponding to the classical world, require the existence of dark mass and dark energy to explain the behavior of mass at cosmological scales, clearly something huge (larger that 95% if we realize that the mechanism giving rise to mass is accounted for in 96% by the strong force) is missing in our understanding of the nature of reality. But not only physical reality is immersed in this conundrum. The pervasive consciousness, currently so in-vogue in the scientific debate, is the real feast. What is consciousness? Where does it come from? Is it an emergent property of complexity in biology? Or is consciousness fundamental to the physical world, as many ancient cultures affirm? Or a combination of both? A sure bet in this discussion, is that whatever mechanism is behind the nature of reality, it is also behind consciousness, and in a 95% certitude, it involves the unacknowledged 95% of reality. The unknown, unseen, vacuum; the empty space, the space in between.
Let’s not forget that 99,999999999% volume in matter, is vacuum. Therefore, vacuum must surely play the predominant role in this inquiry about the nature of reality.
Zero-point energy ZPE (the infinite energy density of space), unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and consciousness, are three deeply connected manifestations of the inner nature of reality, and currently they all are being addressed from a scientific perspective. The puzzle seems to be completing, though it is not. Science as a tool for understanding the nature of reality is currently at a crossroad. A fundamental aspect has been missing in our scientific endeavor: the relation between outside reality and inner worlds; the connection between objective and subjective experience, and the connection between the one and the many.
The separation frame between the outside world and the inner experience, as defined by modern science, permeates all its applications; its technology imposes a worldview where the observer is divorced from the observed. This is particularly worrisome, considering that we barely understand our biology or the origin of consciousness, and that at least 96% of the universe’s mass+energy fall under the biggest mystery called dark mass+dark energy, which remain undetected. The biggest pieces of the puzzle are missing in our awareness of the nature of reality …
At the same time, following by inertia the guidelines of a collective movement we don’t fully grasp, we live under the belief that if we need to overcome our limitations, we must become trans-humans, beyond humans, by incorporating technology in our bodies. As if by forcing an external gadget into our bodies it suddenly becomes internal technology that integrates us with the outside world.
Let’s dive in further; an implant allowing a person to walk, or to see again, is a significant achievement, though this does not mean that the person has integrated new information as a part of its body; the implant is still an outsider, which is now inside. Seen from without, the person has recovered, enhanced or expand his abilities, though these are brought by an external factor. If the device dysfunctions, it must be replaced from the outside. Science and technology are truly mind expanding if every single person engages in its development and has an understanding of their own in what its being done, its implications and meaning behind. Otherwise, we can become gadgets ourselves.
Technology can be thought of as a tool to enhance and expand abilities, giving autonomy and increasing well-being. It is supposed to make our lives easier, free from mechanical, automatized labor, liberating our time to be more creative. Though technology goes much deeper than that, it mirrors our level of consciousness and understanding of the nature of reality. Modern science and its technology have made remarkable achievements, though without a link between the internal and the external realms, in awareness that such link may be -and probably is- extremely nonlinear and non-local, humanity is stuck in a world view that empowers hierarchical patriarchal structures, where individuation is determined by power relationships. When power relationships prevail, we follow instructions like automata organic AI’s; we behave as sophisticated machines. No spontaneity, true love and joy can manifest or be experienced in such circumstances, we are mostly a collection of LLM’s, large language models executing a prompt that associates concepts and experiences with no real incarnation, no meaningful action behind. It can become extremely detrimental to our psychological well-being and development.
By developing an individual self-perspective in awareness of its connection to the collective perspective, we empower ourselves to construct our own, honest personal inner technology, such that we are less fearful and more confident in ourselves and the universe we live in, to become responsible co-creators of our reality. The acknowledgement of our inner nature and how it is connected to the outer world increases empathy, emotional well-being and mental health in the individual and therefore, in the collective. Healthy individuation starts understanding our boundary conditions (mental, emotional, physical and spiritual) beyond any theoretical or cultural, collective construct, diving into a grounded, poetical, personal embodiment. One must recognize our own biases and conditioning, to transcend them and grow inwardly.
Following David Bohm’s implicate order terminology, we embody a connection between the enfolded and the unfolded. It is not about gathering information and knowledge; it is about self-realization, i.e., the realization of a self, in an awakened life experience.
The good news is that a science that considers this fundamental aspect, is already here. At Serendipia Science we address consciousness and its relationship to the reality around us using the grounded empirical and theoretical framework of the quantum of consciousness (Q of C), developed by Dr. Inés Urdaneta, physicist in the field of light-matter interaction at the atomic scale.
The quantum of consciousness relates the objective and subjective experience, showing as well how the individual and the collective are related. Such realization has groundbreaking applications ranging from personal development and well-being, up to physics, quantum computing and consciousness technologies.
Learn more about this mind expanding framework, in our course The Science of Serendipity and the Quantum of Consciousness (insert link).
Did you know that the color you perceive from any object, is the opposite to its real color? This fact has deep mind-expanding and unexpected implications. Let’s dive in …
The perception of colors is a complex light-matter interaction that involves mainly three elements: the illuminated object (transmitter), the eye + brain (receiver) and messenger (electromagnetic radiation, i.e., light that bounces off the transmitter and arrives to the receiver). Light-matter interaction is an exquisite and very sophisticated communication process between an outside world and an inner experience, through a physical process known as resonance. Color is resonance happening between matter, or confined vibration (frequencies that carry a certain energy, and that are confined in a region of space) and light (free propagating vibration, i.e., frequencies that also carry or transfer energy). Light-matter interaction is a energy transfer (information transfer) process. In that sense, we can say that reflected light propagates information of matter, and that matter is confined light.
Color is a signature of light-matter interaction that depends on the atomic constitution of matter and its normal modes of vibration – the confined frequencies -, but this feature only reveals itself when light impacts it. The perceived color coming from the object depends on the intensity and energy – frequency, i.e., color- of the incident light, while the message (the reflected or emitted light) is interpreted in one way or another depending on the receiver. A note of caution here, colors are associated to frequencies of light, while perception of color is a different thing. We don’t know if we all see the same red, but we do know that what we mean by red will always be associated to a frequency range of 400 to 480 terahertz (THz), corresponding to a wavelength of approximately 620 to 750 nanometers (nm). Color has an objective aspect, quantifiable as frequency. But the perception of it, is subjective as the biology can change in individuals, for instance in a color blind person. We think we all see the same. One would need a third reference, a witness (internal or external) that could see the tone of red you are seeing and the one that I am seeing, and compare them, to tell up to what point we are perceiving the same tone or color. This is where things get tricky, were is that witness located? Up to what resolution can the differentiation be made?
When the light spectrum illuminates an object, the object absorbs certain frequencies from the incident light and their color complement in the incident light spectrum is left ‘unpaired’, alone, traveling back to the receiver as reflected light. This color complement predominates when reaching the eye and perceived by the brain. We see the complementary opposite of what the object’s color is (the frequencies it absorbed). Light bouncing back to the receiver is ‘incomplete’, it lacks some of the frequencies or energies it carried before impacting the object. It is as if the message was given in terms of what the light beam lacks. The case of fluorescence, that is, materials that emit the absorbed light, is more complex and will not be considered here. For a more detailed explanation go to Seeing Color.
The Chromatic circle, known as color wheel.
The chromatic circle known as color wheel, visually depicts colors and their combinations, serving as a fundamental tool in color theory. An interesting thing about it, is that if I make it spin, at a certain rotational frequency, colors are no longer distinguished separately, it looks white to the brain. Wavelengths from the light spectrum arrive on the chromatic circle and each color in the circle absorbs its complementary color from light, reflecting the others. As this happens with all colors equally -all are absorbed and reflected- the reflecting parts reconstitute the original stream of light, and we see it white. Our brain perceives something we call white, which is the sum of the colors reflected by this object that reached the eye. Watch the video below for a more detailed explanation.
An object is seen as magenta because its atomic composition have absorbed on average:
The complementary -green- and the reflected light that bounces off the object does not have green among its components or frequencies. Magenta, which is in opposition to green in the chromatic circle, is de compensated and magenta takes over.
All the colors are absorbed except magenta, and only magenta reaches the eye.
All the colors, minus those who combined in the brain will be seen as magenta.
In all cases the object is (absorbs) all colors or frequencies except the ones that reach the eyes. We perceive light that bounces off objects and that contains the complementary frequencies of the colors absorbed by objects. The light I receive from this object lacks green (case 1, shown in the image below), or all colors except magenta or a combination that recomposes magenta (case 2 and 3), and that is why I see magenta coming form it.
In summary, color is the light that bouncing from objects reaches the eye. That object is ‘being’ magenta from outside, but ‘IS’ green (absorbs green) or is everything but magenta from the inside. It looks magenta, which is what corresponds to the action of seeing it from outside. And it is seen or being perceived to the outside (magenta), as the opposite of what it is, in it self (green). It is a sort of entanglement, where the correlation between magenta and green is that they are in complementary opposition. The object is magenta, means that the object is or absorbs all but magenta. It is like taking its inverse, the negative of it. This is information theory, expressed in terms of light-matter interaction.
What about extreme cases black and white?
In a white object, the white color does not exist as such, in the sense that I can’t associate it with a set of frequencies. The Sun light (spectrum of ‘all’ wavelengths, including the visible) impacts on a paper constituted of atoms that don’t absorb any of the visible wavelengths, they reflect all and reach the eye. Our convention establishes the presence of all these waves reaching the eye as ‘white’. Meanwhile, a black object is made up of atoms that on average absorb all visible wavelengths; the convention establishes the lack of wavelengths reaching the eye as ‘black’. To be consistent, one should establish a reference; I will call white that which absorbs nothing from the visible spectrum, and black what absorbs all. Black is the absence in the retina (or presence on the object) of all colors been absorbed by this object, while white is their presence in the retina (or absence on the object) of all colors.
The oil looks black from without, but it is potentially white from within, as it contains all colors of light inside. We could establish an additional reference frame by saying that oil is potentially white from the inside (if the observer is inside the object). Paper looks white from without, though it is potentially black from within, as it lacks all colors of light. It is potentially black from the inside of the paper (if the observer is inside the paper). Potentially black and black differ in their dynamics; the first is going from the inside out (from the object to the observer), while the dynamics of the second is going from the outside in (from the observer to the object). It seems to me that the reference can be set arbitrarily for the first case, and the other cases must be assigned in accordance with the first. The critical factor is the consistency in the reference system, showing the existence of a gradient, a flow, a sense.
How is it with light?
From the rationale we are applying here, it’s not possible to associate light with black or white exclusively. Let’s see why … If white light contains all wavelengths, as if it had absorbed them a priori, I could say that it is fundamentally black from without. If there is an observer capable of seeing light directly and not its effect on objects, the light would then no longer be black, to be potentially black or potentially white according to the new observer.
Considering all these elements, the question, ‘is light white or black? ‘ has a four sided (tetrahedral) answer :
– By Inés Urdaneta, Paris, France (2004).
This result can be reformulated as follows: in order to have a self referring or self-contained frame of observation, one needs at least these four particular reference frames. This seems to be the irreducible representation of information exchange.
Light-matter interaction has deep philosophical implications. The ‘being’ to the outside is characterized by that which depends on the detection system, interaction or measurement, while the being to itself, or simply put ‘self’ is independent of this. The opposites ‘being’ and ‘self’ can only be the same thing if the transmitter and receiver are the same, what is to say that there is no transmission of message. It is the messenger and message at the same time. Light without interacting with any object would fulfill this role, and therefore a observer traveling at the speed of light would also. Though, a famous physicist’s theory explains that no object can travel faster than or at the speed of light in vacuum. Therefore, any-thing traveling at lower speeds cannot be ‘being’, and ‘self’, at the same time. And the origin of the light, that’s another story.
As the observations or measurements of ‘being’ involve the interaction with something that a priori «can only be for itself» (as with light, whose reference is itself), in the search of ‘that what is’ (as with the matter, whose reference is light), we only determine what the object is for who is measuring or observing it, losing the essence of ‘itself’ as long as the description of its «what is it?» (or its ‘being’) increases, since they oppose, no matter the number of states included to define it. This fact is equivalent to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in the atomic world: the more accurate is the measurement of the position of a particle, less is the accuracy of the speed of the particle. In simple terms, the more you know about the direction of the particle, the less you know where it is at, and the more you know the position of the particle, the less you know where it is heading to. It also means that the whole is NOT equal to the sum of its parts …
A second deep implication that passes unadvertised, is that if light-matter interaction is a quantum mechanical effect (since matter happens at certain frequencies and the energy exchange between light and matter happens in integer amounts of energy called photons) given that we have addressed this interaction in terms of reference frames, we have linked a critical aspect of quantum mechanics and relativity in a very subtle way: an observation with respect to reference frames (relativity) that when combined becomes self-referring (confined or quantized into a quantum of consciousness), building the notion of ‘an observer’.
– Connecting the reference frames from the tetrahedral diagram, one obtains currents or flows that are confined in a region of space. These are feedback-feed-forward loops of information flow, that circulate back and forth to a center, building the notion of ‘an observer’, which is also an irreducible representation of information exchange. By Inés Urdaneta, Paris, France (2004).
An observer is a self-referring frame of observation, therefore, it is absolute or universal only with respect to itself. It’s interesting that the flow of information depicts a continuous picture (relativity) which generates a granular picture (quantum mechanics), and vice versa, as if one was embedded in the other, depending on the scale you are looking at. This could also be connected to the wave-particle duality, in a much broader sense than what quantum mechanics tells us. It is not that the particle behaves as a wave or as a particle depending on how you observe it. The particle is made up of waves (oscillations, fluctuations, rotations in a seemingly continuous flow) that are confined (i.e., quantized) in a region of space and those waves are made up of smaller particles (i.e., smaller quanta or confinements of inner flows), such that one will detect a granular or fluid aspect depending on the scale we look at. It is a fractal ‘Russian doll’ type of relationship.
Learn more about this mind expanding framework, in our course The Science of Serendipity and the Quantum of Consciousness (insert link).
