They Deleted A Major Study On Consciousness…. Why?

A physics journal published the idea, then deleted it. Are they hiding something?

**Note: This piece draws from my original ideas, research, hooks, and metaphors. For editing and some wording, I’ve used AI tools trained on my own books and style, always blending technology with my hands-on curation and oversight. Thank you for being here—Jade.

---

Last year a respected physics journal published a paper that should have been impossible.

It was called “Universal consciousness as foundational field.” The author, Maria Stromme, is not a fringe figure. She is one of Scandinavia’s most decorated scientists, the first woman to hold a chair in nanotechnology in Sweden, with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers behind her name. And in this one she argued something that sounds like it belongs in a meditation retreat, not a physics journal: that consciousness is not produced by the brain. That consciousness comes first, and matter, space, and time come after. That each of us is a small, local expression of one underlying field of awareness.

Then, a few months later, the journal retracted it.

Not because she falsified data. Not because she plagiarized. They pulled it because, in their words, the central idea had no measurable quantity behind it. It could not be tested. It could not be proven wrong. And in science, a claim you cannot possibly disprove is not a strong claim. It is barely a claim at all.

Here is why I am telling you this story. Most people heard “retracted” and stopped listening. I heard something else. I heard a serious scientist reach for the most important question a human being can ask, where does my awareness actually come from, and get told to sit back down because she could not put a number on it.

So let me do what she could not get away with doing in a physics journal. Let me make the case in plain language, tell you exactly how sure I am of each piece, and show you the part she left out: how this invisible thing called consciousness reaches all the way down into your hormones, your gut, and the weight on your body.

Because this is not philosophy for me. This is the missing piece of why your biology does what it does.

---

The question nobody can actually answer

Start with the thing both sides agree on, because it is the crack the whole idea climbs through.

Nobody knows why you have an inside.

I mean that precisely. We can map which brain regions light up when you see red. We can trace the wiring from your eye to your visual cortex. We can predict, with electrodes, a fair amount of what you are about to do. What no one has ever explained, not one neuroscientist, not one philosopher, is why any of that electrical activity is accompanied by an experience. Why there is something it is like to be you. Why the meat glows from the inside instead of just computing in the dark like your laptop does.

The philosopher David Chalmers gave this a name in the 1990s, and the name stuck because everyone quietly knew it was true. He called it the hard problem of consciousness. (Established. This is not my opinion. The hard problem is openly acknowledged across neuroscience and philosophy as unsolved.)

Now hold that next to the standard story, the one you were taught, the one that gets called “just science.” The standard story says the brain generates consciousness. Neurons fire, complexity rises, and somewhere in that storm, awareness suddenly pops into being. Mind is what the brain does.

But hold on…That story has never been demonstrated. Not once. It is an assumption we treat as a fact because it feels safely material. We have a mountain of evidence that the brain correlates with consciousness, that damaging it changes the mind, that anesthesia switches the lights off. I am not going to wave any of that away. But correlation is not origin. Damage a radio and the sound distorts, cuts out, fills with static. That does not mean the radio was writing the music.

Sit with this for a moment. “The brain creates consciousness” is a hypothesis. It is NOT a proven fact. It is a reasonable hypothesis. A heavily evidenced one. But an unproven one, and given the hard problem, possibly an unprovable one. When someone tells you the alternative… that the brain instead receives consciousness… is “unscientific,” you are allowed to ask a pointed question back. Compared to what? Your story has the exact same hole in the floor. You have just gotten used to standing over it.

---

Brain as source. Or brain as receiver.

Here is the one-word change that flips the whole picture. What if the brain does not generate consciousness but instead receives it?

That sounds like a slogan. It is not. To see why, you have to start with a problem the brain scientists do not enjoy talking about. They call it the binding problem.

Right now, as you read this, different parts of your brain are handling different jobs. One patch handles the color of these words. Another handles their shape. Another handles their meaning. Another tracks the sound of the room around you. These patches are physically separate, firing at slightly different moments, and there is no central screen where it all gets stitched together, and nobody sitting in a chair to watch it. And yet you are not having a dozen separate little experiences. You are having one. One seamless moment, all of it bound into a single whole. How the scattered firing becomes the single experience, nobody can fully explain. (Established. The binding problem is a real, open question in neuroscience.)

A neuroscientist named Johnjoe McFadden offered an answer his field finds uncomfortable. When your neurons fire, they do not only pass chemical signals across the tiny gaps between them. Every firing also throws off a small electromagnetic field. And fields, unlike the neurons themselves, are not separate. They blend. They sum into one combined electromagnetic field that covers the whole brain at once. McFadden’s claim is that this unified field is where the binding happens. The field is not a leftover of thinking. The field is the thought, pulled into one. He calls it CEMI, the conscious electromagnetic information field. (Emerging. It is a real, published, debated theory, and unlike most consciousness ideas it makes testable predictions about which brain activity should and should not be conscious.)

Sit with what that move does. It lifts the seat of your experience up out of the single cell and into a field. You are not the meat. You are the field the meat makes.

But McFadden’s field is still trapped inside your skull. It is your brain’s own broadcast. And a field can do more than broadcast. A field can also receive. Which leaves the real question hanging: what is your brain’s field tuned to?

---

The field the brain tunes into

This is where a physicist named Joachim Keppler comes in, and where it gets strange in a way I think is honest rather than mystical.

Start with the vacuum. Empty space, you would assume, is nothing. It is not. Physics has known for a century that even a perfect vacuum, with every particle stripped out, is not still. It hums. It is filled with a faint, restless energy that never switches off, called the zero-point field. This is not fringe. It is established physics, and you can measure its push in a lab through something called the Casimir effect. The emptiest space there is, is quietly full. (Established.)

Most physicists treat that field as background noise and move on. A smaller branch of physics, called stochastic electrodynamics, takes it more seriously, and treats the zero-point field as a real, physical sea that everything is sitting in, all the time. Keppler works from there, and then takes one more step the others will not.

He proposes the field is not blank. That alongside its physical side, it already carries the raw stuff of experience itself. Not thoughts, not pictures, but the basic palette of what it is like to feel anything at all, spread through everything, the way every possible color is already hidden inside plain white light. (This is the Speculative heart of it. It cannot be measured yet. It is a serious idea with a long history, but it is a claim, and I am flagging it as one and not selling it as a fact.)

If that is true, the brain’s job is not to manufacture experience. The job is to tune. And Keppler actually names the tuner, which is the thing the retracted paper never did. He points to the brain’s cortical microcolumns, little bundles of around a hundred neurons, sitting in a bath of the brain’s most common chemical messenger, glutamate. He argues these bundles can fall into a resonance, a kind of synchronized humming, that locks onto specific frequencies of the zero-point field. Lock onto one set of frequencies and you light up one specific shade of experience. Lock onto a different set and the shade changes. Stack enough of these locked frequencies in the right pattern, and you get the full, rich, complex thing you are living this second. He has a name for it, TRAZE, the theory of resonant amplification of zero-point modes. (Emerging. Published in real journals, with a proposed, in-principle-testable mechanism. A minority view, and the most rigorous version of “the brain is a receiver” that exists.)

Read that next to the retraction. Stromme said “consciousness is a fundamental field” and had nothing measurable to hang it on, so they pulled the paper. Keppler says “specific frequencies of the zero-point field, amplified by glutamate resonance in cortical microcolumns,” and names parts you can in principle test.

So now we have a testable mechanism of how the brain is more like a radio receiver. There is a deep field that carries the raw material of awareness, the source. And there is your brain, with its own electromagnetic field, tuning into it, amplifying a sliver of it, and turning that sliver into your moment. The awareness was never made in your head. It was caught there.

---

Two fields meet, and a you appears

Now I add my piece, and I am marking it clearly, because this is mine and I could be completely wrong.

If the brain is a receiver tuning a source field, then you are not one field. You are two fields meeting, and the meeting is the whole point.

There is the source field, the deep one, the same in everyone. Call it the zero-point field, call it source consciousness, call it the ground. It carries the raw awareness, but it carries no story. It is the bare fact of experiencing, with nothing personal in it yet. Babies have it before they have a self. It does not come from your history. It comes from the field.

Then there is your own field, the electromagnetic one your brain and body actually generate. This one is not the same in everyone. This one is yours. Forty years of living have shaped it, bent it, tuned it. Your beliefs are in here. Your conditioning. Your wounds and your hard-won wisdom. The whole story of who you think you are. This is the field of your identity, and it is the shape of your particular antenna.

Here is the precise thing, and I want to be careful, because it is easy to overstate. These two fields do not create awareness. The awareness was already there, in the source. What the two fields create, where they meet, is a you. A particular point of view. The universal light, bent through your specific lens, becomes one specific person looking out of one specific pair of eyes.

And there is a real, physical reason the word “meet” matters. When two fields overlap, they do not just stack up. They interfere. They make a pattern that neither field had on its own, a third thing born from the overlap, the way two stones dropped in a pond send out ripples that cross and build a shape in the middle that came from neither stone alone. You are that pattern. Not the source by itself, which is the same in everyone and would have no point of view. Not your conditioning by itself, which is just dead structure with no light in it. You are the living pattern where the source meets the personal shape. The source has no perspective, because it is everything. To become a someone, the everything has to bend itself through one particular instrument and look out. That instrument is you.

Now let me give you the picture that holds all of this, because most of the pictures we use i suspect are wrong.

You are not a drop of water falling back into the ocean. People love that one, but I think it gets it backwards, because every drop is the same as every other drop. A drop is anonymous. You are not anonymous. I don’t think you are a drop of water I think you are a song.

Now, Ill keep this simple, because I am not a music guy. Every song is built out of the same small handful of sounds. Nothing in your favorite song is foreign. It is the same notes everybody else is using. And yet there has never been another song exactly like it, and there never will be again. Same raw material. A combination that happened once. That is you. Made of the same source as every other person, owing that source everything, and still a tune the universe has hummed exactly one time.

That is the thing the drop and the ocean miss. You are not a piece that dissolves back into the whole and disappears. You are the whole, complete, showing up as one specific song. Made of source, and also unrepeatable and undeniable. Both at once.

---

Steam, water, ice: how the song becomes a body

Hold this song metaphor, because it answers the question I have been circling. How does something invisible become something physical? How does awareness become a number on a scale?

A song can show up in three forms, the same way water can. Water can be vapor. It can be liquid. It can be ice. Same stuff, three forms, nothing added or taken away.

Your song is vapor when it is still pure possibility, spread out everywhere, not yet anybody’s. That is the source. The field. Every song that could ever be sung, hanging in the air, unplayed.

Your song is liquid when it is actually playing, alive and moving, sound you could almost feel on your skin. That is your living energy. The signal running through you right now, the electricity in your nerves, the field around your heart.

And your song freezes into ice when it becomes your body. Solid. Something you can stand on a scale and weigh. Your tissues, your hormones, the set of your shoulders. Same song. Just frozen into a form you can touch.

This is what I mean when I use the word Essentia for who you really are. The combination of notes you were given is your true nature, pulled from the same set of notes as everyone else and yet different (your essential nature). The way only you have learned to play these notes is the wisdom you earned through living your life (earned wisdom). And the fact that you can still change how you play, right now, is your freedom (free will). Your essential nature, your earned wisdom, and your freedom to choose, sounding as one song. That is you, all the way from steam down to ice.

So can you change it? You change it the way a song gets covered. Think of karaoke, or any song you love that a second artist remade. Same song. A slower version, a louder version, a version that finally makes you cry. The notes did not change. The way it was played changed everything. You do not get new music. You change how you play it.

But here is where I part ways with most of the self-help world, because I think they get this exactly backwards. They tell you that you were whole and perfect once, that life broke you, and that your job now is to find your way back. That is a lie, and a sad one. It tells you your best self is a memory.

You were not broken by your life. You were built by it.

You came in whole, the way a seed is whole. Not finished. Whole. And everything that happened to you, the beautiful and the brutal, gave you range. It gave you something to sing about. A song with no struggle in it is a jingle. The suffering is not the damage to your song. It is how you ended up with a song worth singing.

So you are not here to find yourself. You are here to create and/or evolve yourself. The raw music was handed to you, your nature, the part that was always yours. But the words, the phrasing, the way only you will ever sing it, that is not buried treasure waiting to be dug up. It is yours to write, out of everything you have lived.

The frightened way you learned to sing it young was not a stain on a perfect original. It was your first draft. A child’s best attempt, with a child’s range, written before you were old enough to choose. There is nothing to restore. There is a next verse to write, and you finally have the range to write it. The first act of freedom is just noticing that the draft is not the whole song.

And when you write that truer verse, the body, slowly, thaws and re-freezes around the new one. You are not being fixed. You are being finished. By you.

---

The heart is the power. The brain is the tuner.

There is a second organ in this story, and most people skip it. I do not want to, because it might be the most practical part.

We talk about the brain as the seat of everything. But the brain is not the strongest electromagnetic generator in your body. Your heart is. By a lot. The heart’s electrical signal is roughly sixty times stronger than the brain’s. Its magnetic field is around a hundred times stronger, strong enough to measure several feet off your body with the right instrument. (Established. Magnetocardiography is real technology. The heart is, electromagnetically, the loudest thing you have.)

And the heart and brain are in constant, two-way conversation. This is mainstream neuroscience now, not fringe. The heart has its own dense web of neurons, its own little brain, and it sends more signals up to the head than the head sends down to it. (Strong evidence.) Researchers at the HeartMath Institute have spent decades showing that when your heart rhythm becomes smooth and ordered, a state they call coherence, your brain follows it into a clearer, calmer mode. (Emerging, and in places contested. Solid physiology at its core, more speculative claims at its edges. I will use the solid center and tell you when I am near the edge.)

So the brain and the heart are not doing the same job. The brain is the fine tuner, the delicate instrument that couples to the source field. The heart is the power supply and the conductor. It does not independently dial into the cosmos. It does something arguably more important. It sets the coherence of the whole system, and it pulls the brain into the ordered state where clean reception can actually happen.

Think of an old radio. The brain is the tuning dial, finding the station. The heart is the power running through the whole set, and when that power is smooth instead of noisy, the station comes through clear instead of buried in static. This is why a frightened, racing, incoherent heart gives you a frightened, narrow, static-filled mind. And why steadying the heart, through breath, through stillness, through love, of all the unscientific-sounding words, measurably steadies the signal. You are not just calming down. You are tuning the instrument so the music can come through it.

I am not going to tell you the heart is a second antenna to the zero-point field. Nobody has shown that. The cleaner claim, and the one I will stand on, is that the heart governs the coherence that decides how well the brain receives. That alone changes how you would live.

---

How the signal becomes flesh

Now we get to the part Stromme’s paper never touched, and the part that is actually my life’s work. It is one thing to say the song freezes into a body. It is another to show the steps. How does a verdict in your mind become a number on a scale, a level of inflammation, a pattern of hunger? This is the cascade I call SIGNAL. It is the song freezing from steam to ice, one stage at a time. It runs in six steps (see the illustration below).

S is for Source. The field. Pure awareness coming in, the same in everyone, carrying no story of its own. The song as steam.

I is for Identity. The source signal hits your conditioned field, and it picks up your story. This is where awareness gets a verdict attached. “I am safe here” or “I have to fight to be okay.” “My body is good to me” or “my body is the enemy.” The song is now your version. This is where you hold the beliefs about your self and the world.

G is for Gate, or Gestalt. That identity becomes a filter, a whole way of seeing. You do not experience the world. You experience the world through the verdict you reached, often before you could even spell. A neutral comment from your boss arrives as a threat or as nothing at all, depending entirely on the gate. ** Gestalt is used here because there is no real equivalent English word. Personality comes close, but gestalt is more accurate. It is the integrated stories, emotions, beliefs, identities that form your perceptual filter.

N is for Neuro. Now it drops into the body for the first time. The song starts to become liquid. Your nervous system is a prediction machine, and it braces for the world your identity expects. Hand it a story that says the world is not safe, and it sets a permanent high idle. A car revving in park, always ready, never moving, burning the engine to hold still.

A is for Adrenal, the hormonal layer. A nervous system held on high alert pulls the hormonal triggers. Cortisol up. Insulin pushed. The body shifts into storing and bracing instead of repairing and releasing. (Established. That chronic stress states reshape cortisol and insulin signaling is textbook physiology.)

L is for Lymphatic, the immune layer. And it lands here, frozen into ice. A body run for years on threat chemistry tilts toward inflammation. It holds on. It guards. (Established for the wiring itself. The body’s stress, hormone, and immune systems are physically connected. This used to be called the psychoneuroendocrine-immune system, a clumsy mouthful. I call it SIGNAL.)

That the wiring exists, Source through to immune function, is established science. How much of it is driven by the story upstream, by the identity and the gate, is my interpretation. I hold it as an inference, not a finished proof.

Imagine two potential versions of the same person. One version plays the song in the key of “I must fight my body.” The signal travels down. The gate sees the body as an enemy to control. The nervous system braces for siege. Cortisol and insulin climb. The body, reading the chemistry, holds on, stores, inflames. Thirty years of effort, and the weight will not move, because the body is doing exactly what the song told it to do. It is storing because it believes it is under attack.

Change one thing. Not the diet. The version of the song. “My body is good to me.” Same person. Now the signal carries a different verdict. The gate sees the body as an ally. The nervous system settles. Cortisol falls and the repair switches come back on. The body calms, releases, lets go. Same anatomy. Reorganized, because you changed how the song was played at the top and let it travel all the way down to the ice. That is not a motivational poster. That is a mechanism. The story you run upstream becomes the chemistry you live downstream. Consciousness to cell.

And this part is not my hunch. This part is in the journals.

Take the milkshake. Alia Crum and her team gave people the exact same 380-calorie shake on two different days. One day they told them it was a rich, indulgent, 620-calorie treat. The other day, a sensible, guilt-free, 140-calorie diet shake. Same shake, every time. But when people believed they were drinking the indulgent one, their ghrelin, the hunger hormone, dropped about three times more. Their bodies felt fed. Same liquid, different story, different chemistry. The belief, not the calories, moved the hormone.

Or the hotel maids. Crum and Ellen Langer found women who cleaned rooms all day but did not think of it as exercise. They told one group the simple truth, that their daily work already met the official targets for an active life. They changed nothing else. No new workouts. No new diet. A few weeks later, that group had dropped weight, body fat, and blood pressure. The only thing that changed was what the women believed they were already doing.

Or Langer’s strangest study, the one she called counterclockwise. She took men in their seventies and eighties and had them live for a week in a house rebuilt to look exactly like it was twenty years earlier, and to live as if they truly were that younger age. In a week, their eyesight, their hearing, their grip strength, their memory, even how old strangers judged them from photographs, all measurably improved. They turned the clock back with their minds.

And under all of it sits the placebo effect, the most documented and most ignored fact in medicine. A sugar pill, believed in, changes pain, changes immune markers, changes the brain. We have spent a century trying to subtract it out of our studies. It may be the loudest evidence we have that the story shapes the flesh.

(Established. These are real, published, repeatable studies. The science that belief reaches into biology is not in question. What I am adding is only the map of how far up the chain that belief actually goes.)

---

The bridge nobody talks about: fascia, water, and light

There is still a gap, and I am not going to paper over it. I said the song “drops into the body.” But what is the actual physical hardware that carries an invisible signal into living tissue? Nerves and hormones are part of it. But there may be a faster, more elegant layer underneath, and this is the frontier. I am taking you to the edge of the map now, and I will say so the whole way. And one quick note so you do not get confused: a moment ago I used water as steam, liquid, and ice as a picture. Here I mean literal, physical water, the kind in your tissues.

First, your fascia. The connective tissue web that wraps every muscle, organ, and bone, the thing most people think of as packing material. It is not packing material. The collagen it is made of is piezoelectric, meaning it turns mechanical stress into electrical signal, and it behaves like a liquid crystal. Researchers like James Oschman have argued for years that this fascial web is a body-wide communication network, possibly faster than the nervous system. (Emerging. The piezoelectric and liquid-crystal properties of collagen are real and measured. The claim that fascia is a primary signaling network is suggestive, not proven.)

Second, the water in you. You are mostly water, and the water inside you is not ordinary tap water sloshing around. The biologist Gerald Pollack has shown that water next to surfaces, like the surfaces of all that fascia, organizes into a structured, charged layer, almost a fourth phase between liquid and solid. Structured water can hold and move charge. (Emerging, and contested. Real in the lab. Its role inside the living body is argued over.)

Third, your light. This is the one that sounds most like science fiction and is, strangely, the most established at its root. Your cells emit light. Faint, ultra-weak photons, called biophotons, are measurably given off by living tissue, including your neurons. (Established that the light exists. Whether that light carries information between your cells, the way Fritz-Albert Popp proposed, is Speculative.)

Put them together and you get a possible chain, and I want to be loud that this is me connecting dots, not reporting a finished theory. The signal arrives as a field. The fascia, piezoelectric and crystalline, is the antenna and the wiring. The structured water layered along it holds and conducts the charge. And the biophotons are the body’s fastest language, light carrying the message between cells in an instant. Field, to fascia, to water, to light, to flesh. That would be the bridge from the invisible to the physical, the hardware under “consciousness to cell.” I cannot hand you that as proven. I can hand you four real research lines that each point the same direction, and tell you honestly that connecting them is my bet, not the literature’s verdict. That is the difference between this and a retraction. I am telling you the confidence level out loud.

---

How sure am I? The honesty ledger.

I want to do something the longevity influencers and the quantum-everything crowd never do. I want to show you my work, including where it is weak. Everything here rests on real research. But the research is not all equally settled, and pretending it is would make me the kind of person I do not trust. So here is the whole model, graded. The level is not how true I think it is. It is how settled the science is. Every row has research behind it. Read the level before you trust the claim. See the illustration below.

That is the honest map. The floor of the whole thing, the foundation rows, are Proven. The brain has a field. The vacuum has energy. The heart is loud. Stress becomes chemistry. The hard problem is real. None of that is in dispute. What is mine is the way I connected them, and I marked every connection so you always know when you are standing on bedrock and when you are standing on me. I would rather lose the argument honestly than win it by blurring that line. The honesty is not a disclaimer. It is the credibility.

---

Why this is not just philosophy

Let me bring it all the way home, because none of this matters if it stays in the clouds.

If the old story is right, and your brain simply generates your mind, then you are essentially your hardware. Your set point is your set point. Your biology happens to you. You manage it from the outside with discipline and supplements and force, and you hope the numbers hold.

If this story is closer to right, the picture changes completely. You are not a machine generating noise. You are a song. Awareness from the source, played through the particular instrument of you, frozen for now into a body. And a song can be played another way.

That is the entire reason I do this work. Because if the song shapes the flesh, then the deepest lever on your physical health is not another protocol laid on top of the old story. It is changing how the song is being played. It is rewriting the verdict at the I, the first draft you wrote before you could choose, so that everything downstream of it, the gate, the nerves, the hormones, the immune system, gets a different version to freeze around.

The woman with thirty years of weight that would not move did not need a better diet. She needed to stop sending her body to war against itself. When the version changed from “I must fight my body” to “my body is good to me,” the chemistry had permission to change, and the body, finally, re-froze around the new song.

You are not broken. Your biology is just faithfully freezing around the version of the song you have been playing. And that version, unlike almost everything else you have been told to optimize, is something you can actually learn to play differently.

The physics journal pulled the paper because she could not put a number on the source. Fair enough. But you do not live in a physics journal. You live in a body that is, right now, freezing something invisible into something physical, every second, whether you believe it or not. The song never stopped. You were handed the music a long time ago. The only real question left is what you are going to do with the next verse.

---

PS. If you want to stop managing your body from the outside and start changing the song underneath it, this is the entire reason I built The Human Game. It is where I teach you to find the version running your biology and learn to write the next verse, step by step. Come play.
http://www.nextlevelhuman.com/the-human-game

---

References:

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.

Crum, A. J., Corbin, W. R., Brownell, K. D., & Salovey, P. (2011). Mind over milkshakes: Mindsets, not just nutrients, determine ghrelin response. Health Psychology, 30(4), 424–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023467uu

Crum, A. J., & Langer, E. J. (2007). Mind-set matters: Exercise and the placebo effect. Psychological Science, 18(2), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01867.xuu

HeartMath Institute. (n.d.). Research library. HeartMath Institute. Retrieved June 28, 2026, from https://www.heartmath.org/researchuu

Langer, E. J. (2009). Counterclockwise: Mindful health and the power of possibility. Ballantine Books.

McFadden, J. (2020). Integrating information in the brain’s EM field: The cemi field theory of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1), niaa016. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niaa016uu

Pollack, G. H. (2013). The fourth phase of water: Beyond solid, liquid, and vapor. Ebner and Sons.uu

Popp, F.-A., & Beloussov, L. V. (Eds.). (2003). Integrative biophysics: Biophotonics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.uu

Strømme, M. (2025). Universal consciousness as foundational field: A theoretical bridge between quantum physics and non-dual philosophy [Article retracted]. AIP Advances, 15(11), 115319. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0290984diva-portal+1

Uppsala University, Department of Physics and Astronomy. (2025, November 23). Consciousness as the foundation – new theory of the nature of reality [News post; later updated noting retraction]. Uppsala University. https://www.uu.se/enuu

Keppler, J. (2013). A conceptual framework for consciousness based on a deep understanding of matter. SAGE Open, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013506459

Keppler, J. (2016). On the universal mechanism underlying conscious systems and the foundations for a theory of consciousness. Open Journal of Philosophy, 6(4), 346–367. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2016.64033

Keppler, J. (2018). The role of the brain in conscious processes: A new way of looking at the neural correlates of consciousness. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01346

Keppler, J. (2020). The common basis of memory and consciousness: Understanding the brain as a write–read head interacting with an omnipresent background field. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2968. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02968

Keppler, J. (2021). Substantiating the theory that conscious processes are based on the brain’s interaction with the zero-point field. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 723415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.723415

Keppler, J. (2024). Laying the foundations for a theory of consciousness: The significance of critical brain dynamics for the formation of conscious states. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 18, 1379191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1379191frontiersin+1

Keppler, J. (2025). Macroscopic quantum effects in the brain: New insights into the neural correlates of consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 19, 1676585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1676585