Talk:John Hagelin/Archive 1

Educational Posters
I believe the final sentence referring to educational "posters" should be removed entirely. Considering the statement in its original form and a web search it appears to be a superfluous personal anecdote. --24.2.154.16 00:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These beautifully illustrated posters are regarded as unique collector items by particle physicists and mathematicians in that they are full of mathematical equations which have correct "grammar" interposed with Transcendental Meditation.

This statement is a combination of POV with some assertions of (ahem) questionable veracity. I've spent plenty of time around physicists and mathematicians, and haven't heard of these posters. As to what "correct" grammar is, I have no idea.

However, it is generally acknowledged that the means by which he is attempting to demonstrate this connection are within the norms of the scientific method and that he has a competent background in particle physics, and as a result Hagelin's work within particle physics is well respected in the physics community.

I question the accuracy of this. The impression I've gotten from the few physicists I've talked with about Hagelin is that while his early work was respected, work he's done since he became a TM advocate is not. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I don't want to leave this endorsement of his work unless someone can back it up. Isomorphic 23:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have some suggestions. Revise the entire section written by his proponents, claiming his works are some of the most cited - a look at the link for that shows it isn't true, leading merely to one single coauthored paper in a one year period. That whole section touting great achievements in research and pubs is totally exaggerated.


 * The paper mentioned in that article was, according to the article, cited 20 times in 1983 and 40 times in 1984. It's a matter of record that he coauthored scores of papers and that they have been influential in the development of unified field theories. TimidGuy 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As per Wikipedia official policy this kind of name calling in biographies of living persons must be deleted. Should have caught this sooner.(olive 13:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Running mate
Michael Tompkins or Vinton Tompkins (Vinton D. Tompkins)? I've seen it given both ways. Esquizombi 10:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

problem with wording about John's retiring from active research
The current article says " After that he tried to link particle physics to Transcendental Meditation and failed to publish a single paper in an established journal. His last accepted contribution to physics is from 1994" This first is actually completely backward, but I don't know an easy way to correct the misconception. At the least, it is more accurate to say that once he started running for political office, he stopped publishing scientific papers. As for the second sentence, his last contribution was published in 1995, not 1994.

To show why the statement is completely wrong, you can examine the timeline of his professional work:

1981 PhD in Physics; 1982 published research affiliated with CERN 1983 published research affiliated with SLAC 1984 -1995 published research affliated with Maharishi University of Management (FKA MIU).



Hagelin produced a stream of research in callaboration with Ellis and Nanopoulos, most of it AFTER he went to work at the TM university. In fact, according to Hagelin, HE was the one to start the revision of Flipped SU(5) which made the reputation of all three researchers. By Hagelin's account, he spent some time with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (MMY) in Switzerland discussing what a western Theory of Everything would need to include to be compatible with MMY's interpretation of Vedic cosmology. After their talk, Hagelin returned to MUM/MIU and started examining various western theories. Flipped SU(5) seemed to be the easiest to modiy along the lines that MMY suggested, and after the initial modifications, Hagelin realized that they made flipped SU(5) a much stronger scientific theory. He faxed the original modifications to Ellis at CERN who then contacted Nanopoulos, the original author of flipped SU(5), and the three produced a slew of papers on the subject for the next several years, starting with this one in 1987.

I can't say whether or not Hagelin's co-authors have "distanced themselves from him," but it certainly isn't simply because he attempted to connect TM theory to superstring theory because that attempt is what led to the fame of all three in the Theoretical PHysics world.

Additionally, both Ellis and Nanopoulos have published papers attempting to link Quantum Mechanics and consciousness, so this also suggests that they are not completely distainful of Hagelin's theories. Sparaig 06:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Validity of SU(5) Theory?
I read some recent press articles where the SU(5) Theory was discuss. Not that I completely understood the article, but I got the sense that there may be flaws with the theory and that experimental evidence did not support this theory. Can anyone comment on this? Bigweeboy 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Made change
Made the changes I said I would. Sparaig 16:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

variouis edits
Reformatted timeline and corrected a few factual errors about who did what where in DC study.Sparaig 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

crime rate statistics...
The crime rate statistic cited was for yearly rate. The study examined the crime rate week-by-week for a specific period. You can't use the rate averaged over a year's period to refute a claim made about the weekly rate for an 8-week period. I have no idea if the claims made are valid, but you have to address the claims made in order to refute them. Sparaig 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Superstringtheory and TM
source: http://www.nhne.com/misc/hagelin.html "John Hagelin did begin his career in physics with great promise. He now claims, however, to be the primary author of one of quantum physic's hottest theories. Superstring theory seeks to explain all physical laws in terms of one, neat system. Rather than being primary author, however, Hagelin was the second or third author on the foundational superstring papers, behind John Ellis, director of the eminently prestigious CERN, and others. (Authors on scholarly papers are traditionally listed in order of their contribution to the paper's contents.) And as you can read below, his co-authors and other noted scientists now distance themselves from -- and sometimes outright ridicule -- Hagelin's current theories linking Transcendental Meditation and the Maharishi's teachings with quantum physics. Meanwhile, his publications have gradually dwindled -- with no new publications since 1994."

"Hagelin & Quantum Theory: Holding on by a Superstring, (http://www.trancenet.org/nlp/physics/superstring.shtml ) from Nature, Vol. 359, Christopher Anderson, Sept. 10, 1992. In this article from one of the most prestigious journals in science, physicist Hagelin is accused of distorting science to fit his guru's ideas. Hagelin's former colleagues in superstring theory disown his theories of consciousness and politics."

source: http://minet.org/TM-EX/Fall-92

"Not surprisingly, the linkage of SU(5) with TM infuriates his former collaborators. It is hard enough, they complain, to win scientific support for any type of unified theory. ``A lot of people [Hagelin] has collaborated with in the past are very upset about this,  says Jorge Lopez, a Texas A&M University physicist. ``It's absolutely ludicrous to say that TM has anything to do with flipped SU(5)."

"John Ellis, director of CERN's theoretical physics dept., has asked Hagelin to stop mixing TM and SU(5). ``I was worried about guilt by association, Ellis explains. ``I was afraid that people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."

Therefore, I removed the following unsourced paragraph:

"1986
 * After a series of discussions with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the potential relationship between Physics and Vedic Cosmology, Hagelin made some preliminary modifications in Flipped SU(5) Superstring Theory to make it more in-tune with Vedic philosophy, which coincidentally also made the theory more robust from a Western scientific perspective. He contacted John Ellis of CERN with this information who then contacted Dimitri Nanopoulos and the three published many papers on the subject over the next several years."

I do not dispute that Hagelin wrote a paper about Superstringtheory, but I consider "make it more in-tune with Vedic philosophy, which coincidentally also made the theory more robust from a Western scientific perspective" TM-folklore. -- mkrohn 13:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The info is from a lecture Hagelin gave many years ago. I don't have a date for the lecture, but it is a reasonable paraphrase of what Hagelin claims. I'm putting it back in with the ole revert button, if I canfigure out how to do it, or with copy/paste if I can't. Sparaig 17:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, your source's comment, "Rather than being primary author, however, Hagelin was the second or third author on the foundational superstring papers, behind John Ellis, director of the eminently prestigious CERN, and others. (Authors on scholarly papers are traditionally listed in order of their contribution to the paper's contents)" is quite wrong:

In scientific papers, traditional the principle authors are listed in alphabetical order, and minor contributors' names are tacked on at the end. If your source was correct, the fact that Dimitri Nanopolous is always listed AFTER Hagelin in the citation would mean that Hagelin was more important than Nanopolous. You can't have it both ways. Either Hagelin is in fact a more important author than Nanonpolous (as your source's comment would insist is the case), or Ellis, Hagelin and Nanonpolous are co-equal in their authorship of the 50 or so papers that have all of their names on them, ALWAYS in alphabetical order. Sparaig 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Having published myself on hep-th I agree with you. It is almost always in alphabetical order (there are exceptions). Nevertheless, you should either revert your edit or make very clear that the part "to make it more in-tune with Vedic philosophy, which coincidentally also made the theory more robust from a Western scientific perspective" is the view of Hagelin only. -- mkrohn 18:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which part is unclear? According to Hagelin, he made his initial modifications to Flipped SU(5) in order to maket them more "Vedic." By his estimation they also made them more scientifically useful, and apparently Ellis and Nanopolis agreed with him on this latter point because all three were co-authors of about 40 papers on the subject, AFTER Hagelin made the initial modifications. Only Hagelin can say why he made the initial modifications, and he has (or such is my recollection --I've asked his secretary to verify the details and timeline of what I said--just got off the phone with her literally 5 minutes ago). Sparaig 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

DC crime statistics
I had a look at the DC statistics for the heck of it, and I can't say they back up the claim of the text "In actuality, there was no decrease in crime that year, during which Washington DC recorded the third highest number of murders in its history". 1993, number of murders 454, 1994 number of murders 399, 1995 number of murders 360. And actually, that year DC had the 6th highest number of murders in its history. The text is rather dismissive and misleading for something that is not so clear after all.


 * I thought the experiment was to demonstrate the reduction in crime during a specific period of 1993, namely June and July? Did violent crime go down in these months?  Bigweeboy 5/13/09

Reading comprehension.
the vitae says he published his last paper in 1995, and the little hostile blurb says he published his last paper in 1994. Additinally, he conected TM theory with FLipped SU(5) 10 years prior to his last publication, so the little hostile blurb is obviously wrong ther also, and yet people persist in keeping it in...Sparaig 10:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ig Nobel -- removed POV text
I removed the claim that the Ig Nobel awards are "for genuine achievements"; they gave a prize to Social Text for the Sokal Affair, so this is clearly not true. I think the wikilink to the Ig Nobel article alone is enough to clarify what the prize is. --Craig Stuntz 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That quote is from the website. The website explicitly says that aside from several awards given (and hey mention the year and it ain't he year Hagelin got oen), they are all for "genuine achievements. Your OWN POV is showing. Sparaig 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. THought you said you were putting back in the original POV text, rather than taking something out. My bad. Sparaig 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it says: 1994: Awarded an Ig Nobel Prize. In his case the prize was awarded for his experimental conclusion that 4,000 practicitioners of the TM-Sidhi program who gathered in Washington, D.C. for the Summer, caused a 23.3 percent decrease in crime in that city during an 8 week period in the Summer. As predicted, the full effect only lasted during the research period and gradually declined thereafter. This in accord with other research on the crime reducing effect of TM-Sidhi practice in groups and provides additional support for the connection between the effect and the presence of the group of meditators. The probability that this result was due to chance was less than 2 in 1 billion (p < .000000002). When a longer baseline was used (1988–1993 data), the maximum decrease was 24.6% during this period (p < .00003). The research was published in the peer-reviewed Social Indicators Research, 47, 153–201 (1999) (For a summary, see[2]).

specific offending lines: the first in bold - most 3rd party sources point to this episode as a hoax, you'd think there would be some dispute concerning what the effects of this if any there were, which should reflect here- not a whole hearted adulation of some supposed achievement; this makes it sound like he did something great and was awarded a prize, where as the Ig-Nobel prize is obviously a joke, or the antithesis of the nobel prize (ie. razzi:oscar, etc). And the second line is a bit more transparent. None of this is backed up at all, the only supporting link here is to his website, I suggest that the bulk of this be removed and it reflect the actual nature of the Ig-Nobel prize, and be relevant. Anyone agree? oZwald


 * The link to the web site is simply a convenience link. The real source for this is the peer-reviwed study that appeared in Social Indicators Research. All the information in that paragraph is from this peer-reviewed study. If the Ig Nobel prize wants to make a joke of this study, that's their prerogative. But one would hope that any critics of the study would examine it, rather than just making a joke of it because it's counterintuitive. TimidGuy 12:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact?
Do we really need the two fact links in the article? --Richrobison 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

unsourced my aunt tilly
As I already said, Hagelin made the claim about how and why and when he made the initial revision to Flipped SU(5) in a lecture he gave 20 years ago. I saw the lecture. I have it on videotape. -Sparaig 07:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, that doesn't even satisfy WP:RS. It comes nowhere near satisfying the requirements of the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision for scientific topics. --Philosophus T 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the scientific validity of Hagelin's research but about what he says about WHY he did the scientific research. Would you object to someone paraphrasing Kekulé about his own dream? True, the dream didn't prompt him to make other claims about the importance of snakes to chemistry, but that doesn't really matter. -Sparaig 07:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and revision of lead
In response to the cleanup request, I have rearranged the existing material in the lead and have added some material from other parts of the article to put this lead more in line with model Wikipedia biographical articles on living academics. Because this action does not add material not already included or referenced in the article, it seemed appropriate to go ahead and substitute it for the previous lead. ChemistryProf 04:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuing with the clean-up of this article, I have rearranged the information previously included in this section to reduce redundancy and to make it more readable. I also have corrected some misinformation concerning the founding of the NLP in the US. (The source material for the new information is in delivery and will be cited and referenced when the detailed source information is in hand.) Some other source information is still needed. ChemistryProf 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Continuing with clean-up of article:

I realize these are judgment calls on my part. (olive 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
 * removed personal information not pertinent to biography as per Wikipedia guidelines ie: complete info. on date of birth can jeopardize privacy and security of the person noted.
 * removed personal information that has no bearing on scholastic life, accomplishments in science and candidacy for public office.

Removed the Ig Nobel Prize text (Curriculum Vitae heading)
It is evident that this award was a great mistake and therefore gives a misleading impression. The selection criterion for the Ig Nobel Prize is "achievements that cannot or should not be reproduced" (What is Ig). However, the research finding that rendered Hagelin the price has been reproduced (replicated) in dozens of peer reviewed studies published in leading scientific papers. A great strength of this research is that it is based on public data that cannot be faked. Moreover, the study was supervised by a 27 member group from Washington DC, including leading scientists, representatives of the Police and of the Mayors office. This independent group confirmed that the research was correctly made in every possible way. The finding was that a group of 4000 practitioners of the advanced Transcendental Meditation-based technique, TM-Sidhis, caused a 24% drop in criminality in Washington DC during 6 weeks. The probability that the effect was due to chance was 2 on 1 billion (p<0,000000002). For a summary, see Washington demostration project. For a summary of other research confirming this so called "Maharishi effect", see Research on the Maharishi effect. Actually few if any other sociological phenomena have been confirmed so strongly. --Võitkutõde 06:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the award was "a great mistake", the award was given and should be included. If it's true that this study "has been reproduced (replicated) in dozens of peer reviewed studies published in leading scientific papers", then perhaps it might be best to note that by mentioning those studies and the "leading scientific papers" in which they were published.Marcello09 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Marcello09 According to Wikipedia standards I believe this would be the correct way to deal with this . This does make more interesting reading - noting that the award although given was given in error since the study had been replicated .(olive 14:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Thanks for your input, Olive. I've re-instated the mention of the IgNobel prize, although I changed the phrase "rigorous scientific study" to "study". "Rigorous scientific" is very POV. I'd welcome any additional information about any additional studies that replicate or refute the findings of Hagelin's study. Marcello09 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

DC study
An anonymous editor has added a reference to Park's criticism of the DC study. It might be a good idea to balance that with the rebuttal of Park's criticism that also appeared in the Skeptical Inquirer. However, we then face the extended point-counterpoint that already exists in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. What to do? Since this article is about Hagelin and not the DC study, maybe we should simply direct readers to the TM-Sidhi article and include a summary comment. TimidGuy 11:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion of TimidGuy that a link from the DC study to the point-counterpoint that already exists in the article on the TM-Sidhi program would be a good way to handle this. However, I also want to state my intention to insert two paragraphs summarizing Haglin's research, creating a new section that I had intended to call simply "Research." Part of the reason for this addition is the correct mention by previous editors that CVs are not normally found in encyclopedia entries, even biographical ones such as this. Research sections are often included for academics, particularly for scientists, so that appears to be a good way to deal with some of the newsworthy information in the CV. The two paragraphs I will insert also incorporate something from the Kilby award. This fits well in the research section. Based on the above discussion, it seems that the Ig Nobel prize info could be added in this section as well. In fact, it could follow immediately after the end of my second paragraph, which ends with mention of the DC study that resulted in this award. Now that I think about it, the section might even be titled "Research and Awards," because two awards would be mentioned there. Because this new section also contains the information presently in the section entitled "Impact of Scientific Publications," the new section will simply replace that one. ChemistryProf 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I really like the material you added. Good work. I think that as soon as we've finished replacing the CV material, then we can move the cleanup tag at the top that Philosophus added. TimidGuy 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a great addition to the article, and really "fleshes" it out. As you mentioned this will help to solve the CV problem as well . Thank you for excellent work.(olive 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Will begin moving other CV material into the body of the article so we can soon delete the CV.(olive 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Am I missing something here? "Although noted as an award that can’t or shouldn’t be replicated, Hagelin’s study was in fact a replication of several such studies, suggesting that the study did not meet the criteria for the award." What studies did it replicate, or what studies replicated it? The citation that follows links to a page that doesn't even mention the study, or Hagelin. Marcello09 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marcello. I've added a link to a fairly comprehensive list of studies done on the Maharishi Effect. Some are conference presentations, some are self-published in The Collected Papers, but quite a few have also been published in peer-reviewed journals, such as Social Indicators Research, Journal of Mind and Behavior, Social Science Perspectives Journal, Journal of Conflict Resolution (based at Yale University), Journal of Crime and Justice, and Psychology, Crime and Law. According to David Orme-Johnson, there have been 51 studies. That page summarizes the published studies and gives an overview of the research. TimidGuy 10:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's my fault actually.... the link I provided was for the paraphrase from the award about "replication". I inserted this at the end of the line as per Wikipedia advice to not interrupt the flow of a sentence with links. I went back and forth in my mind trying to decide where to put the links but all in all the whole thing reads better now. The studies had to be added, and I hadn't had time to do that-probably should have done it before putting the section up. Once the studies link was added it especially doesn't make sense to add all of the links at the end of the sentence.Thanks Timid Guy and Marcello for dealing with this. I had neglected it.(olive 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Remove birthdate
In did remove the birth date again from this article since the Wikipedia guidelines suggest not giving this kind of info because of the amount of identity fraud these days. We do use Hagelin's full name in the Early life so it seems redundant in the intro, but its your call. I'd like to leave out the birth date though, as that only seems fair to Hagelin himself. (olive 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Olive - I have noticed a lot of the positive contributions you have made to various wiki articles and am worried that this may sound like I am being "difficult but :-)

All, "real" encyclopedic biographical entry's contain the subjects date of Birth - and indeed death when relevant. Removing it on the basis of identity theft - although well intended - is simply illogical and would go against the criteria of normal encyclopedic enters. Someone as well known as Haglins DOB is is easily found anyway - see the latest edition of Who's Who" for example. Indeed, I believe it is even found on his own website. thoughts? :-)Crowleys Aunt 00:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of real analysis or discussion of link between unified Field theory and theory of Consciousness
Reading this I can't help but feel that it doesn't give enough analysis to the criticisms made by the scientific community regarding Hagelin "merging" his theories of consciousness - especially those related to Vedic and perhaps more specifically TM - with Flipped SU(5) Superstring Theory.

Lets be honest, it has been noted elsewhere that many of his former peers have distanced themselves not only from his "merging" of these theories but also, in some respects, from Hagelin himself due to this. It is frustrating for me to see him presented at various TM meetings (see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2200642823213458442&q=david+lynch+duration%3Along&total=35&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 For example) which make much of his, qualifications, research and rewards in physics and for him to then seem to use this "authority" while discussing what are essentially religious views on the nature of consciousness. It's this sort of thing that gives what seems like, "scientific" authority to the pseudoscience and general misuse of Quantum physics in "documentaries such as "What the bleep".

I think this is not helped by the exclusion of criticisms of the DC study.

Lets be honest, there will be people perhaps new to Haglin who on seeing some of his "claims" will look to WIKI for criticisms. Surely some discussion of these criticisms should be included in some form? Thoughts? Crowleys Aunt 01:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Crowleys, for your input. The article says almost nothing about his merger of consciousness and the Unified Field. If it were to present a critique, then it would also have to present his argument. Which would be very challenging to do in the context of this bio. This material could end up being longer than the bio itself. If you're familiar with published critiques of either or both of his seminal papers on this topic, it would be great if you could share the bibliographical info. We could maybe figure out a way to work in a reference.


 * Regarding the DC study, some of the controversy is presented in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. One very simple solution to the latter issue would be to insert the word "controversial" as a modifier in front of the mention of the DC study, and then wiki link to the article on the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback Timid. Firstly, I like your notion of adding "controversial" to the DC study - this seems to not damge it's importance while clarifying the difficulties attached to it.

Regarding criticisms of his "seminal papers" I shall look but I think that it should be mentioned that this have never been published in a peer reviewed publication. They have both appeared in something that sounds like it is - "Journal of Modern Science and Vedic Science" until you realize that this is published by MUM which is the University of the religion known as TM.(http://www.mum.edu/) In the publications own overview it states:

'' "It draws upon a new technology for investigating the Unified Field that combines the approaches of modern science and Vedic Science as brought to light by Maharishi Mahesh. It continues The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs, by drawing upon the most powerful level of Nature, offer the means for unfolding enlightenment in individual life, and to create balance, peace, and coherence in the world as well as unprecedented progress and prosperity for mankind. Over six hundred scientific studies have validated the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs to be effective, practical means of systematically transforming the quality of human life." Yogi.''("http://www.mum.edu/msvs/)

Hardly a Scientific publication in the traditional sense. I should add that I may seem as if I am "negative" toward TM. This is not the case, trust me I'm a connoisseur of "kooky" facts. However, I am concerned when religions miss-use science - or scientific "authority" to support their religious views when this is clearly not the case ( I have the same difficulties with the miss-use of intelligent design and creationism in certain Christan thought for example). I just feel that at the moment, within the context of this Bio, his collaborative - and fine work in "normal", "recognized" science - ie string theory - is not separated from the highly religiously influenced - and unpeer reviewed work- to combine consciousness with some unified field theory - something realistically unlikely to ever be fully proven I would suspect. The two are very different, the first existing within physics and the second - if belonging to any "science - perhaps psychology.

Does that make any sense what-so-ever?

21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Crowleys Aunt


 * Hi. I just left a message on your Talk page. I've got to run right now but will be back in several hours. I'll just quickly note that I wasn't suggesting that Hagelin's two papers were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Far from it. In a sense, they're self published. I guess what concerns me is that his ideas are dismissed by scientists who have never bothered to read the logic. John is a highly intelligent man. His IQ is in the stratosphere. He has top-level physics credentials. He's thought deeply about this perplexing idea of a unified field that underlies all of existence and how that might relate to a view from other traditions of knowledge. It pains me sometimes that scientists dismiss him as a kook without ever examining his ideas. And it must pain him. I'd like to get these seminal papers online so that they're more easily viewed. Our librarian would be happy to make them available to anyone who wants to critique them.


 * Is there a way that we can change the language so that it doesn't make it sound like these are peer-reviewed ideas accepted by the scientific community? Thanks! TimidGuy 11:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi timid. Thanks for your response - and indeed words of encouragement :-) I have, to be honest, decided to leave any further discussion on this subject. I think i should just keep out of theological discussions when they relate to one specific religion. However, thank you all for your time and good luck. And may your god/gods go with you

14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Crowleys Aunt


 * Thanks, Crowleys. : ) On a personal note -- I'm not a religious person, other than experiencing the wonder of creation as revealed by science. As I have time, I'll make the three changes that we had consensus on. (the citation, qualifying the DC study, and seeing about changing the wording regarding his two papers on consciousness and the unified field) TimidGuy 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hagelin’s papers include some of the most frequently cited references in the physical sciences.
The citation for this states this was true between 1983-84, the reference itself is dated 1985. This remark should either be removed, edited to stated that this was during 1 year 22 years ago, or updated with a new citation to prove its continued validity? Crowleys Aunt 01:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your concerns concerning research that is dated. This material though is contained in context of the awards Hagelin received during his lifetime, and is just part of the time-line of a career. In several places in the article, and importantly in the introduction, the material clearly states Hagelin made an unusual career shift, a couple actually, so there is no attempt as far as I can see in this article to hide anything or to deceive the reader. Dr. Hagelin is shown as an excellent student,and a brilliant physicist who makes some strong life changes. Fair enough its his life, and that's what this article is about. As well, the material is not being used as a citation for anything else in which case the dates of the research would be important-although I believe, (and I'm not an expert in this) that Dr. Hagelin's Unified Field Theory still maintains a significant place in Theoretical Physics.(olive 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Seems like it would be nice to give the reader some indication of the influence of his physics work within the field. Hageln's most cited paper has 589 citations, Should we say something like this instead? TimidGuy 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 15:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better to me Timid.At the moment it reads like he his cited more then Einstein, Planck, Bohr, or Schrödinger :-) Crowleys Aunt 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ig Noble
I did make two edits but very strange, but the first never showed up either here or in the article .... At any rate have removed lines because they are not referenced and as they are, are POV. Lines are here until referenced and discussed.

Ig Nobel prizes are often awarded simply for the perceived entertainment value of unusually bizarre research. second edit. Thanks for noting the award was a Peace award. Hagelin's award was given for the conclusions to a research study so I see no problem with points referring to that. The added information noting that the research was one of many, a replication of other such studies, and therefore not in line with the award statement concerning awards that "can't or should not be replicated" is pertinent information. I am reminded that in biographies of living person an editor should be scrupulous in adding any information that throws a less than positive light on the person written about. Adding this statement gives context to the Ig Noble award statements.(olive 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC))


 * I think more context would be provided by noting that the previous year's prize went to Pepsi for sparking huge riots, and the following year's to the Taiwan Parliament, for "punching, kicking, and gouging" each other. The award is obviously not meant as a sincere commendation, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Rracecarr 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rracecarr. Some good edits. Others seem to reflect your POV. Why are you so freely removing sourced material? Aren't such removals usually discussed first? I see you're an experienced editor based on edit count, but your edits and your manner suggest otherwise. TimidGuy 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry about the severity.  It really bugs me to see such twisting of the truth.  To claim that "His papers are among the most referenced in the physical sciences" (paraphrasing) when the fact is it was one paper which he wasn't even first author on, and which was listed as one of the 103 articles which were cited the most times during the years 1983/1984, well, it's like saying that a backup vocalist on a track that hit the top 100 for a few months in 1965 is one of the biggest rock stars of all time. Parts of this article read like propaganda.  Just because there are references tied to some of the claims does not mean they are not written with POV. Rracecarr 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rracecarr. Most editors would have reflexively reverted. It's good to have your input. I agree that sourced claims doesn't automatically mean NPOV. And it's good to scrutinize some of these things. But it bears discussion. Where would you like to start? With the claim of being some of the most cited papers? TimidGuy 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just changed that sentence. Right now it's kind of annoyingly detailed, but at least it reflects what the reference says.


 * I also changed the What the bleep do we know bit again. The website maintained by the producers of the movie is not an acceptable reference for awards the movie has received.  The IMDb page  doesn't list any awards.  There may be some other source, in which case, the "five awards" bit can go back in. Rracecarr 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that there are two sources for the claim about his research being widely cited. Note that the authors are listed in alphabetical order. Would be great if we could follow WP:CONSENSUS. TimidGuy 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The word controversial doesn't need to be there if it's too POV. Will change that. Rracecarr 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Let's also discuss your deletion of the Discover magazine statement that the work suggests Nobel Prize. Also your removal of the list of studies similar to the one in DC showing that this research has been replicated. TimidGuy 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The first change was made based on my interpretation of WP:CBALL. Who knows if he's going to win a Nobel? The second one is a subtle point. In my view, the link with the 50 studies is an attempt to try to offset a possible negative connotation associated with the Ig Nobel prize, and as such is POV. Also, the link went to a Maharishi University website, and docomented papers about the so-called Maharishi Effect. That should raise some alarm bells. Rracecarr 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Here's from WP:CBALL: " It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."


 * Why isn't it a case of representing both points of view by citing that list of studies? Why hide the fact that it's been repeated. These are contradictory facts, and it could be argued that both sides should be represented. This is simply a list of published studies. How is that disputable? If it is, then one could simply put in a long list of citations. Again, thanks for discussing. You're touching on some areas of the article that need attention. TimidGuy 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, referenced or not, it seems a little unencylopedic (if that's a word) to speculate on a future Nobel Prize. Also, the reference is from 1991. Surely there's a more current reference to decide who is or is not likely to win a Nobel. Particularly since the sentence was written in the present tense: ...theory IS considered one of the more successful unified field theories or “theories of everything,” evoking mention of a possible Nobel Prize.

Yeah, my main point with the 50 experiments thing was not the website but the fact that the very fact that the sentence is there at all reads like a defense of the research. The section is about awards (partly). I don't buy the "show both sides" argument at all. No one seems to think it's necessary to supplement information about the Kilby Award with the "other side" i.e. criticisms of that research. Why is it suddenly necessary to defend an experiment because it got an award that isn't always associated with scientific rigor? Rracecarr 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To my mind, this suggestion of Nobel prize suggests the significance and originality of the research. It could be reworded and attributed. The fact is, this has been an influential theory.


 * The problem is that the phrase "cannot be repeated" is forever associated with the Ig Nobel. And it's a lie, because it has been repeated. Seems like it's important to acknowledge that. The award is always going to be an embarrassment to a dedicated scientist. No amount of qualifying will remove the stigma. But one should at least be able to state the counter fact. TimidGuy 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really appreciate this tweak . TimidGuy 20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think a reworded Nobel part could go back in. Something more specific than "evoking mention". Personally, given the conservatism of the physics Nobel committee, I think a Nobel Prize is extremely unlikely, but I won't try to keep the sentence out on the basis of that opinion.

We can take out the sentence about "cannot or should not be repeated". But I still can't see defending the research. Just say it won an Ig Nobel, and leave the readers to draw their own conclusions (most of them probably don't associate it with "cannot be repeated"--most of them probably haven't even heard of it). That is the only way I can see to keep it NPOV. If anything, that is kind of POV the other way, because it really doesn't make it clear at all that the Ig Nobel is often used as a criticism or to make fun of its recipient. If you like the 50 other experiments thing, I would say it belongs in the paragraph above, which discusses the experiment in question. Rracecarr 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, damn. I had just reinserted. Some excellent suggestions. Will revert my addition and be back. TimidGuy 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Working quickly here, and I have to leave in a few minutes, but I think above already mentions about there being a number of studies of the Maharishi Effect. So I'll simply add the citation there but leave the sentence out. We can cut the "cannot be reproduced." Maybe you could suggest Nobel wording. Thanks much. Article is improving. TimidGuy 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent rewrite
I tend to agree that parts of the article may have been a bit effusive and that the recent rewrite has improved it. I feel like it's now more encyclopedic in style -- just presents the facts. I wanted to alert any interested editors who may have seen my participation in yesterday's edit warring that I think the result is an improvement. TimidGuy 11:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have had to be away for awhile. I think the article is looking better,cleaner.The section on the Ig Noble Award was probably inching towards OR so this looks good . I don't agree that leaving out comments about the Kirby award such as "in the tradition of Bohr ...." is POV or effusive .... if this is what they said, this is what they said and it can be used. Some small statement like that can really give a sense of the man and makes for interesting reading. Not choosing to use such a statement is much more of a non- neutral move I think. Are we choosing to make the man look less than he is. But I will go with the consensus on that .... I think you both have done a great job on this article. (olive 15:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Thanks, Olive. I'm relieved you agree that mostly the edits are good. Rracer, from what I understood, thought that part of Kilby was POV and he questioned the source -- MIU World. TimidGuy 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this was covered in the Des Moines Register. We could find it online, probably via Lexis/Nexis. TimidGuy 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My search for another source for this quote(Eistein,Bohr) came up empty as I thought it might. As far as I can tell the comment was made at the ceremony and either was part of the citation verbally given or was on the award. I doubt if this had been written down anywhere. I would really like to use this quote since it gives a great sense of the abilities of this man but as well gives a larger more interesting context for the subsequent shift Hagelin makes from gifted young scientist to aligning himself with a spiritual teacher - not that these are mutually excluse - and then also runs for president of the US .... an interesting life, and not of the norm.Using this quote shows this. Wikipedia does indicate that there are exceptions for including material that may not be as well sourced as is usually the case. Since this quote was cited as the award ceremony, it probably can't be used in the usual way but could it be included anyway.Neil Dickie's research and writing seem to be good . Is this an instance where that kind of source might be ok. Just some thoughts.(olive 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

Kilby Award
I had personally wondered about the significance of the Kilby Award, especially after reading something on a critic site. Turns out, what I read was totally false (no surprise). For future reference, am putting some info here about the award that's from the Kilby web site :

The Kilby Awards Jury is chaired by Sir Brian Heap, Master of St. Edmund's College at Cambridge University. A distinguished committee meets annually with Sir Brian Heap to consider candidates submitted by nominators throughout the United States and abroad. These Laureates are chosen from international candidates and celebrated in an Awards Ceremony.

The Kilby Awards Foundation annually recognizes five to seven individuals who make extraordinary contributions to society through science, technology, innovation, invention and education.

Mr. Kilby received the Nobel Prize from His Majesty the King of Sweden. The Founders and Trustees are grateful to Jack St. Clair Kilby, who graciously allowed the founders to name this international awards program in his honor and thus to commemorate the power of one individual to make a significant impact...

Young Innovator nominees are individuals under 40 whose past accomplishments and future potential indicate exceptional promise. They are persons for whom early recognition might mean significant and timely freedom and support for their maturing talents, enabling them to make even greater contributions in the future. Young Innovator candidates might be very young or very close to the senior laureate age.

Dallas, Texas - In 1999, The Kilby International Awards have been selected as one of the world's most distinguished awards and cited in the official roster of The International Congress of Distinguished Awards, which includes 116 awards selected from a five year study of 26,400 awards worldwide.

Seems impressive. TimidGuy 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

last published research
Here we are again. Seem to show up at the same time. Where are you getting your info? Here's a paper that was published in 1996. That's just one that i happen to know about that's after the date of 1995. TimidGuy 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad then. I was looking at older versions of the article.  I think last time that "fact" was removed without a reason.  I am thinking about a section titled "Controversy" or something similar.  There are plenty of sources supporting the idea that some of Hagelin's ideas are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. Rracecarr 18:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, hope you find better sources than an old version of the article. : )


 * Which ideas? The controversy regarding the DC study is presented in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. I haven't seen any published critiques of his ideas connecting consciousness and the unified field. Maybe you can find some. One thing that always makes me sad is that people often reject these ideas without ever having read his two papers connecting consciousness and the unified field. He's an intelligent man who's thought deeply about this connection. TimidGuy 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went through the 90-odd listings on Google Scholar with him as an author, and that PRL 1996 is the most recent physics listing that shows up. Doesn't prove anything though, and I don't think it's important to include the date of the last publication. I do think it's informative to indicate that if he's still doing physics, he's certainly not as active as he was in the 80's. But I suppose that's hinted at in the article already. You seem to be implying that that you think I haven't read the consciousness papers. Well, you're right (there would be no point--garbage or not, it would be all Greek to me). But I still think concerns expressed by his former collaborators (e.g. Ellis) may have a place in the article (those are the sources to which I was referring--statements made by physicists, not published critiques). A "Controversy" section could be written in a neutral tone--no implied judgment on the validity of the ideas on consciousness, just an indication that they haven't met with wide acceptance (some of Einstein's ideas didn't either, for a while). Rracecarr 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this research. How can we represent John's hypotheses that his former collaborators are commenting on? I guess we'd have to first summarize them somehow. Greek to me, too. TimidGuy 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fales and Markovsky
Let's discuss this. As far as I understand it, this is not a critique of Hagelin's theory linking consciousness and the unified field. And in fact, I believe it's not directly related to Hagelin. It's a critique of a study that appeared in Yale University's Journal of Conflict Resolution. Hagelin wasn't involved in this study and wasn't a coauthor. It would be appropriate, as I've noted in other contexts, to include this study and the critique (and the forthcoming rebuttal) in the article on the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn. Seems like I'm always messing with your work, Rracecarr. Sorry about that. I'm putting the new addition here until we can discuss. Hope that's okay. It just doesn't seem accurate. ==Controversy== Hagelin's linkage of quantum mechanics and unified field theory with consciousness and, particularly, with Transcendental Meditation, has met with some skepticism among scientists.

Do you have a copy of the article? TimidGuy 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right that the article is primarily aimed at a study in which Hagelin was not involved, but his contributions are discussed. Here is an excerpt.


 * ''...Hagelin (1987, 1989) argues first that the identification of the mental with the physical is plausible within the framework of quantum mechanics and, second, that this identification—and a fully worked-out theory of mind/matter that anticipates contemporary unified-field theories—is found in the oldest sacred Hindu texts, the Vedas.


 * ''Hagelin’s case rests on three pillars: (1) supernormal phenomena ("sidhis"), such as the ME, levitation and invisibility, have no other natural explanation; (2) parallels between an esoteric theory of consciousness and quantum mechanics; and (3) parallels between a theory allegedly imbedded in the Vedas and contemporary unified-field theories. Regarding (1), Hagelin goes to some lengths to invoke the more recherché possibilities allowable by quantum theory, in particular, levitation. The problem is that, ignoring for now the ME, no sidhis are validated and so the far-fetched explanation lacks purpose. Under the circumstances, Hagelin assigns premier importance to the ME, saying it provides "the central core of experimental evidence in support of the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the unified field" (1987:73).


 * ''Hagelin’s (and O88’s) other pillars are equally shaky. His argument for a unified field-consciousness identity suggests that some quantum-mechanical properties of physical fields match characteristics of consciousness. However, his argument relies critically upon ambiguity and obscurity in the terms denoting these properties. For instance, he notes that "creativity of consciousness" describes intellectual inventiveness, whereas "creativity of matter" describes the quantum field’s capacity to generate particles. Both kinds of creativity share the characteristic of production, but Hagelin does nothing to show that these two kinds of production are the same, or even interestingly analogous. This is about as cogent as arguing that the mind is a sort of mirror because both reflect, but it does capture the essence of Hagelin’s approach.


 * ''To draw his parallels between the Vedas and contemporary unified-field theories, Hagelin relies on numerological and exegetic styles of reasoning. For example, his evidence for linkages between the Vedas, the unified quantum field, and consciousness includes the fact that there are five special Vedic terms called tanmatras, and there are five "spin-types" in quantum mechanics. Moreover, the quantum field theory that Hagelin especially favors is known among physicists as a "superstring" theory. In corroboration, Hagelin offers a line from a Vedic text that he translates as "My body is called a string."[8] Hagelin’s interpretations of physical fields in terms of consciousness are supported by nothing more than the construction of arbitrary formal isomorphisms, metaphors, and a reliance upon ambiguity and vague analogy.


 * I assume this takes care of your concerns about accuracy. I'm putting the section back in. Rracecarr 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, Rracecarr. Good job. This is very helpful. It looks as if they're accurately characterizing his arguments. I haven't seen his papers. The forthcoming rebuttal tests their alternate explanations of the observed phenomenon against the data and shows that they don't explain it. And it makes a case against their philosophical criticism of this particular heterodox theory. But in skimming it, I don't recall that it rebuts these arguments against Hagelin. Though I guess since ME is a cornerstone, and the authors rebut Fales and Markovsky's critique of the JCR study, then that may be relevant once the rebuttal is published.

Seems like we need to consider WP:UNDUE. Is it a matter of undue weight to take a single study and make in an entire section and label it controversy? Why wouldn't we integrate that into the research section? Also, we need to be cautious about ad populum statements, which Wikipedia cautions against using. TimidGuy 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny, my take on WP:UNDUE is that the Controversy section ought to be much more extensive. Since the idea is to give viewpoints weight corresponding to the distributions of expert opinions, and since most physicists certainly don't accept Hagelin's more radical ideas, it seems to me that a Controversy section should appear prominently in the article.  Everyone has his own bias--I guess that's why it's good to have multiple editors working on an article. Rracecarr 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem if you're able to locate sources -- physicists not accepting Hagelin's ideas.

By the way, it's not clear in what sense these are Hagelin's ideas. The Maharishi Effect isn't his idea but a phenomenon that's been researched over several decades. The connection between consciousness and the unified field isn't his idea, but is certainly one that he's tried to articulate more than anyone else. TimidGuy 15:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your recent changes have improved the flow of the article, but you have removed the phrase about skepticism among scientists. I know about verifiability not truth blah blah blah but my opinion is that the controversial nature of a two-way connection between human consciousness and fundamental physics is under-emphasized.  How many physicists' quotes are needed to back up the statement that there's a significant amount of skepticism?  One of the problems is that most physicists just ignore stuff they regard as junk science, and the ones who do comment on it are often pejorative--several of the quotes I have found would not be especially appropriate in a biography of a living person.  I'll leave it alone for at least a while. Rracecarr 16:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Invincible America Assembly - IAA
This inclusion based on a Reuters article seems to contain several inaccuracies.... the newspaper article itself as source is inaccurate. John Hagelin is not the head of this course or group, to my knowledge, although he has commented on it, and could be considered an integral part of it.In actual fact Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is probably considered to be head of the course, and he has addressed the participants on many occasions. This is not an organization but simply a course. The organization which the article seems to indicate is the IAA as noted in the newspaper does not own two facilities, ....As I mentioned this isn't an organization and these course participants don't own anything. The course is being held on the MUM campus, and course participants may be staying at the nearby Vedic city. To my knowledge John Hagelin isn't doing any kind of research on the "group" or "Maharishi effect" of this course.

Although, I did correct the material I'm not convinced this information should be included in this article There is no information that indicates Hagelin is researching this group effect at this time,and the Reuter article is somewhat inaccurate making the inclusion inaccurate. I think I'll wait a day or so for comments but then probably delete as not useful material.(olive 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Hi Olive, thanks for correcting the sentence I added. Reuters is a respected news service.  It seems to me that contradiction by a reliable source should be demonstrated before dismissing the article as inaccurate.  Whether or not the article got the details of IAA right, the main point of the story is the predictions made by Hagelin about crime rates and the stock market.  If the news story is not totally bogus, and he really did make such predictions, I think that is very notable, and definitely belongs in the article. Rracecarr 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. I think there is a better way of doing this.

Reuters is a highly respected news service but alas they got some of this wrong.My tendency is to think well if they got some wrong how do we know if they didn't get more of it wrong. No matter.... What if I find out if Hagelin is doing research on the effects of this course .... If he is we can use this under the research section if not we can still use the info as a comment and find a place where it fits somewhere in the article. (olive 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Here's a source that correctly refers to it as an assembly. TimidGuy 11:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Oops. Just read the Reuters story. I see that it also refers to it as an assembly. TimidGuy 11:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a press release that refers to John as leading the assembly and refers to it as a scientific demonstration project. Seems like the Reuters mostly follows the press release, except for the vague and confusing statement about operating two facilities in Iowa. TimidGuy 15:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * yup... speaking of brain loss.... sorry I got this wrong ....should we cite this press release. (olive 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Looks like this section is pretty complete, and the Reuters article as a mostly reliable source : ) pretty much brings the research section up to date.(olive 15:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC))