In chemistry, pH is a measure of the acidity or basicity of a solution. Pure water is said to be neutral, with a pH close to 7.0 at . Solutions with a pH less than 7 are said to be acidic and solutions with a pH greater than 7 are basic or alkaline. pH measurements are important in medicine, biology, chemistry, food science, environmental science, oceanography, civil engineering and many other applications.

In a solution pH approximates but is not equal to p[H], the negative logarithm (base 10) of the molar concentration of dissolved hydronium ions (); a low pH indicates a high concentration of hydronium ions, while a high pH indicates a low concentration. Crudely, this negative of the logarithm matches the number of places behind the decimal point, so for example 0.1 molar hydrochloric acid should be near pH 1 and 0.0001 molar HCl should be near pH 4 (the base 10 logarithms of 0.1 and 0.0001 being −1, and −4, respectively). Pure water is neutral, and can be considered either a very weak acid or a very weak base (center of the 0 to 14 pH scale), giving it a pH of 7 (at ), or 0.0000001 M H⁺. For an aqueous solution to have a higher pH, a base must be dissolved in it, which binds away many of these rare hydrogen ions. Hydrogen ions in water can be written simply as H⁺ or as hydronium (H₃O⁺) or higher species (e.g. H₉O₄⁺) to account for solvation, but all describe the same entity.

However, pH is not precisely p[H], but takes into account an activity factor. This represents the tendency of hydrogen ions to interact with other components of the solution, which affects among other things the electrical potential read using a pH meter. As a result, pH can be affected by the ionic strength of a solution – for example, the pH of a 0.05 M potassium hydrogen phthalate solution can vary by as much as 0.5 pH units as a function of added potassium chloride, even though the added salt is neither acidic nor basic.

Hydrogen ion activity coefficients cannot be measured directly by any thermodynamically sound method, so they are based on theoretical calculations. Therefore the pH scale is defined in practice as traceable to a set of standard solutions whose pH is established by international agreement. Primary pH standard values are determined by the Harned cell, a hydrogen gas electrode, using the Bates–Guggenheim Convention.

History

The concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909 and revised to the modern pH in 1924 after it became apparent that electromotive force in cells depended on activity rather than concentration of hydrogen ions.

It is unknown what the exact definition of 'p' in pH is. A common definition often used in schools is "percentage". However some references suggest the p stands for “Power”, others refer to the German word “Potenz” (meaning power in German), still others refer to “potential”. Jens Norby published a paper in 2000 arguing that p is a constant and stands for “negative logarithm”; H then stands for Hydrogen. According to the Carlsberg Foundation pH stands for "power of hydrogen".

Definitions

Mathematical definition

pH is defined as a negative decimal logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in a solution.

:$\backslash mathrm\{pH\}\; =\; -\; \backslash log\_\{10\}(a\_\{\backslash textrm\{H\}^+\})\; =\; \backslash log\_\{10\}\backslash left(\backslash frac\{1\}\{a\_\{\backslash textrm\{H\}^+\}\}\backslash right)$

where a_H is the activity of hydrogen ions in units of Mol/L (molar concentration). Activity has a sense of concentration, however activity is always less than the concentration and is defined as a concentration (Mol/L) of an ion multiplied by activity coefficient. The activity coefficient is a number between 0 and 1 and it depends on many parameters of a solution, such as nature of ion, ion force, temperature etc. For a strong electrolyte activity of an ion approaches it concentration in diluted solutions. Activity can be measured experimentally by means of an ion-selective electrode which responds, according to the Nernst equation, to hydrogen ion activity. pH is commonly measured by means of a glass electrode connected to a milli-voltmeter with very high input impedance which measures the potential difference, or electromotive force, E, between an electrode sensitive to the hydrogen ion activity and a reference electrode, such as a calomel electrode or a silver chloride electrode. Quite often glass electrode is combined with the reference electrode and a temperature sensor in one body. The glass electrode relatively good (95 - 99.9%) follows the Nernst equation:

:$E\; =\; E^0\; +\; \backslash frac\{RT\}\{nF\}\; \backslash ln(a\_\{\backslash textrm\{H\}^+\});\; \backslash qquad\; \backslash mathrm\{pH\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{E^0-E\}\{2.303\; RT/F\}$

where E is a measured potential , E⁰ is the standard electrode potential, that is, the electrode potential for the standard state in which the activity is one. R is the gas constant, T is the temperature in kelvins, F is the Faraday constant and n is the number of electrons transferred (ion charge), one in this instance. The electrode potential, E, is proportional to the logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity.

This definition, by itself, is wholly impractical, because the hydrogen ion activity is the product of the concentration and an activity coefficient. To get proper results, the electrode must be calibrated using standard solutions of known activity.

The operational definition of pH is officially defined by International Standard ISO 31-8 as follows: For a solution X, first measure the electromotive force E_X of the galvanic cell :reference electrode|concentrated solution of KCl || solution X|H₂|Pt and then also measure the electromotive force E_S of a galvanic cell that differs from the above one only by the replacement of the solution X of unknown pH, pH(X), by a solution S of a known standard pH, pH(S). The pH of X is then

:$\backslash text\{pH(X)\}\; -\; \backslash text\{pH(S)\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{E\_\backslash text\{S\}\; -\; E\_\backslash text\{X\}\; \}\{2.303RT/F\}$

The difference between the pH of solution X and the pH of the standard solution depends only on the difference between two measured potentials. Thus, pH is obtained from a potential measured with an electrode calibrated against one or more pH standards; a pH meter setting is adjusted such that the meter reading for a solution of a standard is equal to the value pH(S). Values pH(S) for a range of standard solutions S, along with further details, are given in the IUPAC recommendations. The standard solutions are often described as standard buffer solution. In practice, it is better to use two or more standard buffers to allow for small deviations from Nernst-law ideality in real electrodes. Note that because the temperature occurs in the defining equations, the pH of a solution is temperature-dependent.

Measurement of extremely low pH values, such as some very acidic mine waters, requires special procedures. Calibration of the electrode in such cases can be done with standard solutions of concentrated sulfuric acid, whose pH values can be calculated with using Pitzer parameters to calculate activity coefficients.

pH is an example of an acidity function. Hydrogen ion concentrations can be measured in non-aqueous solvents, but this leads, in effect, to a different acidity function, because the standard state for a non-aqueous solvent is different from the standard state for water. Superacids are a class of non-aqueous acids for which the Hammett acidity function, H₀, has been developed.

p[H]

This was the original definition of Sørensen, The calibration yieds a value for the standard electrode potential, E⁰, and a slope factor, f, so that the Nernst equation in the form :$E\; =\; E^0\; +\; f\backslash frac\{RT\}\{nF\}\; \backslash log\_e[\backslash mbox\{H\}^+]$ can be used to derive hydrogen ion concentrations from experimental measurements of E. The slope factor is usually slightly less than one. A slope factor of less than 0.95 indicates that the electrode is not functioning correctly. The presence of background electrolyte ensures that the hydrogen ion activity coefficient is effectively constant during the titration. As it is constant its value can be set to one by defining the standard state as being the solution containing the background electrolyte. Thus, the effect of using this procedure is to make activity equal to the numerical value of concentration.

The difference between p[H] and pH is quite small. It has been stated that pH = p[H] + 0.04. It is common practice to use the term "pH" for both types of measurement.we can report negative pH for strong acid.

pOH

pOH is sometimes used as a measure of the concentration of hydroxide ions, OH⁻, or alkalinity. pOH is not measured independently, but is derived from pH. The concentration of hydroxide ions in water is related to the concentration of hydrogen ions by

:[OH⁻] = K_W /[H⁺]

where K_W is the self-ionisation constant of water. Taking cologarithms

:pOH = pK_W − pH.

So, at room temperature pOH ≈ 14 − pH. However this relationship is not strictly valid in other circumstances, such as in measurements of soil alkalinity.

Applications

Pure (neutral) water has a pH around 7 at ; this value varies with temperature. When an acid is dissolved in water the pH will be less than 7 (if at ) and when a base, or alkali is dissolved in water the pH will be greater than 7 (if at ). A solution of a strong acid, such as hydrochloric acid, at concentration 1 mol dm⁻³ has a pH of 0. A solution of a strong alkali, such as sodium hydroxide, at concentration 1 mol dm⁻³ has a pH of 14. Thus, measured pH values will mostly lie in the range 0 to 14. Since pH is a logarithmic scale a difference of one pH unit is equivalent to a tenfold difference in hydrogen ion concentration.

Because the glass electrode (and other ion selective electrodes) responds to activity, the electrode should be calibrated in a medium similar to the one being investigated. For instance, if one wishes to measure the pH of a seawater sample, the electrode should be calibrated in a solution resembling seawater in its chemical composition, as detailed below.

An approximate measure of pH may be obtained by using a pH indicator. A pH indicator is a substance that changes color around a particular pH value. It is a weak acid or weak base and the color change occurs around 1 pH unit either side of its acid dissociation constant, or pK_a, value. For example, the naturally occurring indicator litmus is red in acidic solutions (pH<7 at ) and blue in alkaline (pH>7 at ) solutions. Universal indicator consists of a mixture of indicators such that there is a continuous color change from about pH 2 to pH 10. Universal indicator paper is simple paper that has been impregnated with universal indicator.

A solution whose pH is 7 (at ) is said to be neutral, that is, it is neither acidic nor basic. Water is subject to a self-ionization process. :H₂O H⁺ + OH⁻ The dissociation constant, K_W, has a value of about 10⁻¹⁴, so in neutral solution of a salt both the hydrogen ion concentration and hydroxide ion concentration are about 10⁻⁷ mol dm⁻³. The pH of pure water decreases with increasing temperatures. For example, the pH of pure water at 50 °C is 6.55. Note, however, that water that has been exposed to air is mildly acidic. This is because water absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, which is then slowly converted into carbonic acid, which dissociates to liberate hydrogen ions: :CO₂ + H₂O  H₂CO₃  HCO₃⁻ + H⁺

Calculation of pH for weak and strong acids

In the case of a strong acid, there is complete dissociation, so the pH is simply equal to minus the logarithm of the acid concentration. For example, a 0.01 molar solution of hydrochloric acid has a pH of −log(0.01), that is, pH = 2.

The pH of a solution of a weak acid may be calculated by means of an ICE table. For acids with a pK_a value greater than about 2,

:pH = ½ ( pK_a − log c₀),

where c₀ is the concentration of the acid. This is equivalent to Burrows' weak acid pH equation

:$\backslash text\{pH\}\; =\; -\backslash log\_\{10\}\backslash left(\backslash sqrt\{K\_a\; c\_0\}\backslash right)\backslash ,$

A more general method is as follows. Consider the case of dissolving a weak acid, HA, in water. First write down the equilibrium expression. :HA $\backslash rightleftharpoons$ A⁻ + H⁺ The equilibrium constant for this reaction is specified by :$K\_\backslash text\{a\}=\backslash mathrm\{\backslash frac\{[A^-][H^+]\}\{[HA]\}\}$ where [] indicates a concentration. The analytical concentration of the two reagents, C_A for [A⁻] and C_H for [H⁺] must be equal to the sum of concentrations of those species that contain the reagents. C_H is the concentration of added mineral acid.

:C_A = [A⁻] + K_a[A⁻][H⁺]

:C_H = [H⁺] + K_a[A⁻][H⁺]

From the first equation

:$\backslash mathrm\{[A^-]=\backslash frac\{\backslash mathit\; C\_A\}\{1+\backslash mathit\; K\_a[H^+]\}\}$

Substitution of this expression into the second equation gives

:$\backslash mathrm\{\backslash mathit\; C\_\; H=[H^+]\; +\; \backslash frac\{\backslash mathit\; K\_a\; \backslash mathit\; C\_A\; [H^+]\}\{1+\backslash mathit\; K\_a\; [H^+]\}\}$

This simplifies to a quadratic equation in the hydrogen ion concentration

:$\backslash mathrm\{\backslash mathit\; K\_a[H^+]^2\; +\; \backslash bigg(1+(\backslash mathit\; C\_A-\backslash mathit\; C\_H)\backslash mathit\; K\_a\; \backslash bigg)[H^+]\; -\backslash mathit\; C\_H\; =\; 0\}$

Solution of this equation gives [H⁺] and hence pH.

This method can also be used for polyprotic acids. For example, for the diprotic acid oxalic acid, writing A²⁻ for the oxalate ion,

:C_A = [A²⁻] + β₁[A²⁻][H⁺] + β₂[A²⁻][H⁺]²

:C_H = [H⁺] + β₁[A²⁻][H⁺] + 2β₂[A²⁻][H⁺]²

where β₁ and β₂ are cumulative protonation constants. Following the same procedure of substituting from the first equation into the second, a cubic equation in [H⁺] results. In general, the degree of the equation is one more than the number of ionisable protons. The solution of these equations can be obtained relatively easily with the aid of a spreadsheet such as EXCEL or Origin. The pH always has an amount of fractional figures equal to the amount of significant figures of the concentration.

pH in nature

blossoms are either pink or blue, depending on a pH-dependent mobilization and uptake of soil aluminium into the plants.]]

pH-dependent plant pigments that can be used as pH indicators occur in many plants, including hibiscus, marigold, red cabbage (anthocyanin), and red wine.

Seawater

The pH of seawater plays an important role in the ocean's carbon cycle and there is evidence of ongoing ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide emissions. However, pH measurement is complicated by the chemical properties of seawater, and several distinct pH scales exist in chemical oceanography.

As part of its operational definition of the pH scale, the IUPAC defines a series of buffer solutions across a range of pH values (often denoted with NBS or NIST designation). These solutions have a relatively low ionic strength (~0.1) compared to that of seawater (~0.7), and consequently are not recommended for use in characterising the pH of seawater since the ionic strength differences cause changes in electrode potential. To resolve this problem, an alternative series of buffers based on artificial seawater was developed. This new series resolves the problem of ionic strength differences between samples and the buffers, and the new pH scale is referred to as the total scale, often denoted as pH_T.

The total scale was defined using a medium containing sulfate ions. These ions experience protonation, H⁺ + SO₄²⁻ HSO₄⁻, such that the total scale includes the effect of both protons (free hydrogen ions) and hydrogen sulfate ions:

:[H⁺]_T = [H⁺]_F + [HSO₄⁻]

An alternative scale, the free scale, often denoted pH_F, omits this consideration and focuses solely on [H⁺]_F, in principle making it a simpler representation of hydrogen ion concentration. Analytically, only [H⁺]_T can be determined, therefore, [H⁺]_F must be estimated using the [SO₄²⁻] and the stability constant of HSO₄⁻, K_S^*:

:[H⁺]_F = [H⁺]_T − [HSO₄⁻] = [H⁺]_T ( 1 + [SO₄²⁻] / K_S^* )⁻¹

However, it is difficult to estimate K_S^* in seawater, limiting the utility of the otherwise more straightforward free scale.

Another scale, known as the seawater scale, often denoted pH_SWS, takes account of a further protonation relationship between hydrogen ions and fluoride ions, H⁺ + F⁻ HF. Resulting in the following expression for [H⁺]_SWS:

:[H⁺]_SWS = [H⁺]_F + [HSO₄⁻] + [HF]

However, the advantage of considering this additional complexity is dependent upon the abundance of fluoride in the medium. In seawater, for instance, sulfate ions occur at much greater concentrations (> 400 times) than those of fluoride. Consequently, for most practical purposes, the difference between the total and seawater scales is very small.

The following three equations summarise the three scales of pH:

:pH_F = − log [H⁺]_F :pH_T = − log ( [H⁺]_F + [HSO₄⁻] ) = − log [H⁺]_T :pH_SWS = − log ( [H⁺]_F + [HSO₄⁻] + [HF] ) = − log [H⁺]_SWS

In practical terms, the three seawater pH scales differ in their values by up to 0.12 pH units, differences that are much larger than the accuracy of pH measurements typically required, particularly in relation to the ocean's carbonate system. |- ! Compartment ! pH |- | Gastric acid || 1 |- | Lysosomes || 4.5 |- | Granules of chromaffin cells || 5.5 |- | Human skin || 5.5 |- | Urine || 6.0 |- | Neutral H₂O at 37 °C || 6.81 |- | Cytosol || 7.2 |- | Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) || 7.3 |- | Blood || 7.34–7.45 |- | Mitochondrial matrix || 7.5 |- | Pancreas secretions || 8.1 |} , resulting from decrease in body pH.]] The pH of different cellular compartments, body fluids, and organs is usually tightly regulated in a process called acid-base homeostasis.

The pH of blood is usually slightly basic with a value of pH 7.4. This value is often referred to as physiological pH in biology and medicine.

Plaque can create a local acidic environment that can result in tooth decay by demineralisation.

Enzymes and other proteins have an optimum pH range and can become inactivated or denatured outside this range.

The most common disorder in acid-base homeostasis is acidosis, which means an acid overload in the body, generally defined by pH falling below 7.35.

In the blue, pH can be estimated from known base excess (be) and bicarbonate concentration (HCO₃) by the following equation:

$\backslash mathrm\{pH\}\; =\; \backslash frac\{be\; -\; 0.93\backslash mathrm\{HCO\_3\}\; +\; 124\}\{13.77\}$

See also

Acidosis

Alkalinity

Alkalosis

pH meter

pH indicator

References

External links

Online pH Calculator

Category:Acid-base chemistry Category:Equilibrium chemistry Category:Units of measure Category:Water quality indicators

Name	John Hagelin
Birth date	June 09, 1954
Birth place	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Death date
Resting place coordinates
Residence	Fairfield, Iowa, USA
Known for	Three-time candidate for U.S. President, physicist, and administrator
Education	Ph.D. Harvard University, 1981
Doctoral advisor	Howard Georgi
Alma mater	Dartmouth College, Harvard University
Employer	Maharishi University of Management, US Peace Government
Occupation	Professor
Title	Raja of Invincible America, President of the US Peace Government, and others
Party	Natural Law Party
Spouse	Margaret (1985–1993) divorced Kara Anastasio (2010)
Awards	Kilby, Ig Nobel
Website	http://www.hagelin.org

John Hagelin (born June 9, 1954) is an American particle physicist, three-time candidate of the Natural Law Party for President of the United States (1992, 1996, and 2000), and the director of the Transcendental Meditation movement for the US.

Hagelin was a researcher at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and is now Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University of Management. He has conducted research into unified field theory and the Maharishi Effect.

Hagelin was appointed Raja of Invincible America by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and is also President of the US Peace Government. He is Executive Director of the International Center for Invincible Defense, Executive Director of the Global Financial Capital of New York, Executive Director of the Center for Leadership Performance, Director of the Board of Advisors for the David Lynch Foundation, Honorary Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Maharishi University of Management, and International Director of the Global Union of Scientists for Peace.

Early life and education

John Samuel Hagelin was born June 9, 1954, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. During childhood, he played soccer, hockey and the piano. Hagelin won a scholarship to Taft School for boys, where he received a perfect score of 165 on a school-administered IQ test and, according to Neil Dickie of The Iowa Source, "(...) was also a dare-devil".

Hagelin later graduated from Taft and attended Dartmouth College on a scholarship. After his freshman year, a continued interest in Transcendental Meditation led him to Vittel, France, where he completed the studies necessary to become a qualified teacher of the Transcendental Meditation technique. While at Dartmouth, he earned an undergraduate degree in physics in three years with highest honors (summa cum laude). He also co-authored and published papers in physics research and won a fellowship to study physics at Harvard. While at Harvard, Hagelin worked under the noted physicists Howard Georgi and Sheldon Glashow, best known for their work in Grand Unification theory (GUT). He received a Master's degree from Harvard in 1976, and a Ph.D. in 1981.

Professional careers

Scientist and academic

By the time Hagelin had received his Ph.D. from Harvard, he had already published "several serious papers" on particle theory. In 1981, Hagelin won a postdoctoral research appointment at CERN (the European Center for Particle Physics) in Switzerland, and in 1983 was recruited by SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), CERN's North American counterpart. Hagelin's move to MIU in 1984 surprised and puzzled his colleagues. Hagelin is also identified as the Founding President of Maharishi Central University, which was announced in 2007. Central University was under construction in Smith Center, Kansas at the site of a previously-announced Peace Palace until early 2008, when, according to Hagelin, the project was put on hold while the TM organization dealt with the death of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Theoretical physics research

During his time at CERN, SLAC and Maharishi University of Management (MUM), Hagelin worked on supersymmetric extensions of the standard model and grand unification theories. Several were described as "core papers" that were among the 20 most cited references in physics in their respective years, according to Current Contents magazine. This includes his work on the "flipped SU(5), heterotic superstring theory" that is considered one of the more successful unified field theories or "theories of everything" and was highlighted in a cover story in Discover magazine.

Hagelin co-authored a 1983 paper entitled "Weak symmetry breaking by radiative corrections in broken supergravity", which is included in a list of the 103 articles in the physical sciences that were cited the most times during the years 1983 and 1984. A 1984 study titled "Supersymmetric relics from the big bang", had been cited over 500 times as of 2007.

Critics of Hagelin have included physicist Peter Woit and journalist Christopher Andersen. Peter Woit in his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and The Search for Unity In Physical Law, precedes his critical remarks by acknowledging Hagelin as having published papers in prestigious journals that would eventually be cited in over a hundred other papers. Christopher Anderson wrote in a 1992 news article in Nature that Hagelin, co-developer of one of the "better-accepted" unified field theories known as the Flipped SU(5) model, "is by all accounts a gifted researcher well known and respected by his colleagues". These papers discuss the Vedic understanding of consciousness as a field and compares it with theories of the unified field derived by modern physics. Hagelin argues that these two fields have almost identical properties and quantitative structure, and he presents other theoretical and empirical arguments that the two fields are actually one and the same — specifically, that the experience of unity at the basis of the mind achieved during the meditative state is the subjective experience of the very same fundamental unity of existence revealed by unified field theories. In 1999, the study, which controlled for effects of temperature changes and showed a highly statistically significant drop in crime, was published in Social Indicators Research. During the eight weeks of the study, the overall level of violent crime (homicides, rapes, and assaults) decreased by 23%, with rapes declining by 58%. Homicides averaged 10 a week during the study—the same as in the weeks preceding and following the study. For most of the eight weeks of the study the homicide rate declined, but gang fighting resulted in ten murders in a 36 hour period. Robert L. Park, research professor and former chair of the Physics Department at the University of Maryland and well known skeptic of paranormal claims, dismissed the study as a "clinic in data manipulation" and accused Hagelin and his team of scientific misconduct. Maxwell Rainforth, Assistant Professor of Physiology and Health and Statistics at Maharishi University of Management and a coauthor of the Washington, D.C. study, characterized Park's criticisms of the study as "superficial, highly polemical" and "willfully misleading".

Reception of Hagelin's connection of unified field of physics to the Maharishi Effect

Hagelin's interest in the connection between quantum physics and the Maharishi Effect has been discussed by both colleagues and critics. Hagelin was invited to be a plenary speaker at the 2007 Quantum Mind conference in Salzburg, Austria, organized by Stuart Hameroff (University of Arizona) and Gustav Bernroider (University of Salzburg). Hagelin was a featured scientist in the popular movies, What the Bleep Do We Know!?, What the Bleep? Down the Rabbit Hole (2006) and The Secret, which renewed interest in the quantum mind paradigm. Science writer Simon Singh questioned the credibility and motives of the interviewees in the film, and advised against seeing What the Bleep Do We Know!? as it would leave viewers misinformed. Anderson says Hagelin's investigations into how the extension of grand unified theories of physics to human consciousness could explain the way Transcendental Meditation is said to influence world events "disturbs many researchers" and "infuriates his former collaborators." According to Woit, Hagelin began connecting consciousness and the unified field in the late 1970s as a Ph.D. student at Harvard. Hagelin's collaborative work in particle physics continued until 1994. Anderson says that John Ellis, director of CERN, was worried about guilt by association. Anderson quotes Ellis as saying "I was afraid that people might regard [Hagelin's assertions] as rather flaky, and that might rub off on the theory or on us."

Hagelin's linkage of quantum mechanics and unified field theory with consciousness was critiqued by University of Iowa philosophy and sociology professors Evan Fales and Barry Markovsky in the journal Social Forces. They wrote that Hagelin's equating consciousness with the unified field relies on a similarity between quantum mechanical properties of fields and consciousness, and that his arguments rely on ambiguity and obscurity in characterizing these properties. They dismiss Hagelin's parallels between the Vedas and contemporary unified field theories as a reliance on ambiguity and vague analogy supported by constructing arbitrary similarities. David Orme-Johnson and Robert Oates, retired colleagues of Hagelin from MUM, replied to this critique in the Journal of Scientific Exploration and said, in part, that Fales' and Markovsky's accusation of "vagueness" and "ambiguity" on Hagelin's part are in themselves vague and ambiguous and that there is no standard against which they can be evaluated.

Entrepreneur

In 1990, Hagelin founded Enlightened Audio Designs Corporation (EAD) with electronics engineer Alastair Roxburgh. In 1996, EAD was the first company in the world to develop and commercialize home theater surround-sound processors incorporating multi-channel digital surround-sound technologies, such as Dolby Digital and DTS. In 2001, EAD Corporation was sold to the Oregon-based company Alpha Digital Technologies.

Politician

Natural Law Party

The Natural Law Party (NLP) was founded in 1992 in Fairfield, Iowa by Hagelin and a group of 12 educators, scientists, business leaders, and other professionals who desired a more scientific approach to national administration that would promote field-tested solutions to the nation's problems. The party platform included preventive health care, sustainable agriculture and renewable energy technologies. During his campaigns, Hagelin favored abortion rights without public financing, campaign-finance law reform and improved gun control. He proposed a flat tax and no tax for families earning less than $34,000 a year. Hagelin also campaigned to eradicate PACs and soft money campaign contributions and advocated safety locks on guns. He endorsed school vouchers and efforts to prevent war in the Middle East by reducing "people's tension".

Hagelin ran for President again in the 2000 Presidential election, being nominated both by the NLP and by the Perot wing of the Reform Party, which disputed the nomination of Pat Buchanan. Hagelin's running mate in the 2000 election was Nat Goldhaber, an entrepreneur who, like Hagelin and Tompkins, was a practitioner of Transcendental Meditation. As part of the ruling, the Reform Party convention that nominated Hagelin was declared invalid. In spite of the ruling, Hagelin remained on several state ballots as the Reform Party nominee, due to the independent nature of various state affiliates. He also was the national nominee of the Natural Law Party, and in New York was the Independence Party nominee. and Politically Incorrect (2000), NBC's Meet the Press (2000), CNN's Larry King Live, PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Inside Politics, CNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

Hagelin's Presidential electoral results: 1992 - Ballot status in 32 states - 39,212 votes 1996 - Ballot status in 43 states - 113,659 votes

In the middle of the 2000 campaign, Hagelin said the party would have won if its principles reached the "marketplace of ideas" and are co-opted by the Democrats and Republicans.

In April 2004, the U.S. Natural Law Party officially disbanded its national organization, although a few state parties may still be active. In the 2004 primary elections, Hagelin and the Natural Law Party endorsed Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich.

In 2010, Hagelin married Kara Anastasio, the former vice-chair of the Natural Law Party of Ohio. According to their website, he has met with members of Congress and officials at the Department of State, and the Department of Defense on the issue of terrorism.

Hagelin helped to write a paragraph in Hillary Rodham Clinton's 10,000-page health proposal. He says that it was the only paragraph in the document that concerned health and preventive care.

In 1998, Hagelin gave testimony to the National Institutes of Health, DNA Advisory Committee on germ-line technologies, stating that recombinant DNA technology is inherently risky because of the high probability of unexpected side-effects.

Hagelin moderated a panel on stress at a June 3, 1999 Congressional Prevention Coalition caucus.

US Peace Government and Invincible America

in Lower Manhattan, headquarters of the Center for Leadership Performance. When traveling to New York City, John Hagelin resides in one of the luxury apartments on its upper floors.]] Hagelin established the US Peace Government (USPG) on July 4, 2003, as an affiliate of the Global Country of World Peace. The US Peace Government and the Global Country of World Peace were created to promote evidence-based and sustainable solutions as well as policies of governance that are aligned with Natural Law. Hagelin presides over a national assembly of USPG state representatives or governors, who in turn preside over US Peace Government assemblies and capital buildings in their respective states. The offices for the U.S. Peace Government are located in Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, and the office of the President was at The Jefferson hotel, Washington, D.C. in 2004.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi appointed Hagelin as the "Raja of Invincible America" on November 19, 2007. Hagelin organized the Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa which began in July 2006. The assembly consists of a group of individuals practicing the Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi techniques in a group, twice daily. Hagelin stated in a press release announcing the project that "for the United States, with a population of just over 300 million, the required number of peace-creating experts is 1,730". According to the Global Good News website "on 28 November 2006, the United States achieved invincibility and is stabilizing the number of Yogic Flyers—rising from 1,600 to 1,730—assembled at the Invincible America Assembly in Fairfield, Iowa". In addition, Hagelin's Institute for Science Technology and Public Policy web site says that the Invincible America Assembly in Iowa "is rising quickly toward its target of 2,500".

In July, 2007, Hagelin predicted that when the number of assembly participants reached 2,500, which he said would happen within a year, America would have a major drop in crime, and see the virtual elimination of all major social and political woes in the United States. Hagelin said that the Assembly was responsible for the Dow Jones Industrial Average reaching a record high of 14,022 earlier that month, and predicted that the Dow would top 17,000 within a year.

Awards

In 1992, Hagelin was honored with a Kilby International Award which "recognizes scientists who have made major contributions to society through their applied research in the fields of science and technology". Chris Anderson questioned the value of the award in an article about Hagelin published in Nature. The Master of ceremony and award's founder Mark Abrahams called it the world's most "(un)coveted award for achievements that cannot or should not be reproduced" which are given to "honor the world's largely overlooked scientists and other contributors to modern culture, who bring smiles and guffaws to others, whether intentional or not." Hagelin received the prize for his "experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18 percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C."

Books

References

Further reading

Hagelin, J.S. Manual for a Perfect Government: How to Harness the Laws of Nature to Bring Maximum Success to Governmental Administration. Maharishi University of Management Press, 1998.

Freedman, David H: The new theory of everything. Discover, 1991, pp 54–61.

Hagelin, J: Is consciousness the unified field? A field theorist's perspective. Modern Science and Vedic Science 1, 1987, pp 29–87.

Hagelin, JS: Restructuring physics from its foundation in light of Maharishi's Vedic Science. Modern Science and Vedic Science 3, 1989, pp 3–72.

External links

Official site

MUM Faculty

PBS Bio

Invincible America Assembly daily tally

Political Platform

PBS Interview, 2000

LA Yoga Interview 2006

Category:1954 births Category:Dartmouth College alumni Category:Harvard University alumni Category:Ig Nobel Prize winners Category:Living people Category:Particle physicists Category:Politicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Category:Quantum mysticism Category:Transcendental Meditation practitioners Category:Transcendental Meditation researchers Category:United States presidential candidates, 1992 Category:United States presidential candidates, 1996 Category:United States presidential candidates, 2000 Category:Natural Law Party (United States) politicians

Howard Zehr (born 2 July 1944) is Professor of Restorative Justice at Eastern Mennonite University's Center for Justice and Peacebuilding in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Zehr previously served 19 years as director of Mennonite Central Committee’s Office on Crime and Justice. He is considered a pioneer in the field of restorative justice, a response to criminal justice that focuses on repairing harm rather than establishing deterrence.

Zehr is the author of The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice and numerous other books. He received his B.A. from Morehouse College in 1965, M.A., from the University of Chicago and Ph.D. from Rutgers University. Zehr was awarded the 2003 International Prize for Restorative Justice by Prison Fellowship International’s Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. He is the recipient of the 2006 Community of Christ International Peace Award.

Works

Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice. Akron, Pennsylvania: Mennonite Central Committee. 1997* Justice: Retribution or Restoration?. Peacework Magazine on the web, April 1999. 1999

Restorative Justice: When Justice and Healing Go Together. Track Two. 6(3&4) 1997

"Restorative Justice Signposts: Victim Involvement". OVA Newsletter, Mary Achilles, Victim Advocate, Vol. 4, Issue 1. 2000

"Family Group Conferences: A Challenge to Victim Offender Mediation?". Victim Offenders Mediation Association Quarterly 7(1):4-8. 1996

"Justice Paradigm Shift? Values and Visions in the Reform Process." Mediation Quarterly 12(3):207-216. 1995

Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice.. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 271p. 1990

"Justice: Stumbling Toward a Restorative Ideal.". In: P. Arthur (ed.), Justice: The Restorative Vision. New Perspectives on Crime and Justice (Issue #7). Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee Office of Criminal Justice, pp. 1-15. 1989

"Retributive Justice, Restorative Justice.". New Perspectives on Crime and Justice (Issue #4). Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee Office of Criminal Justice, September, 16p. 1985

"Mediating the Victim-Offender Conflict.". New Perspectives on Crime and Justice (Issue #2). Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee Office of Criminal Justice, September, 30p. 1980

"Victim Offender Reconciliation: An Incarceration Substitute?". Federal Probation 46(4):63-68. 1982

Doing Life: Reflections of Men and Women Serving Life Sentences.. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. 1998

"Justice that heals: The practice. Paper presented at the Making Crime Pay conference. Wellington, New Zealand, June 1994.". Stimulus 2 (August): 69-74. 1994

Restorative Family Group Conferences: Differing Models and Guidelines for Practice. Federal Probation. 60(3): 24-29. 1996

"Restorative justice for crime victims: The promise and the challenge.". In Restorative community justice: Repairing harm and transforming communities, ed. Gordon Bazemore and Mara Schiff, 87-99. With an introduction by Gordon Bazemore and Mara Schiff. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. 2001

"Restorative Justice: The Concept.". Corrections Today. 59(7):68-70. 1997

"Ways of knowing for a restorative worldview.". Photocopied draft. 2000

Restorative justice sign posts.. Conciliation Quarterly 20 (3): 11. 2001

Journey to Belonging: Flight from shame. Reflections: A Journal of the Conflict Transformation Program 1: 6-9. 2002

Restoring Justice: Envisioning a Justice Process Focused on Healing - Not Punishment. The Other Side 33(5), Sept - Dec 1997. 1997

Restorative justice and substance abuse: The path ahead. In Bringing restorative justice to adolescent substance abuse, ed. Kathryn G. Herr. Special issue of Youth & Society 33 (December), 314-328. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2001

Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice. Contemporary Justice Review. 1: 47-55. Reprinted in Restorative Justice. Declan Roche (2003), ed. Pp. 73-81. The International Library of Essays in Law & Legal Theory, Second Series. Aldershot, Hants, England: Dartmouth/Ashgate. 1998

Victim offender conferencing in Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system. Harrisonburg, PA: Eastern Mennonite University, Conflict Transformation Program. 1998

Restorative justice. Corrections Today. 59(7): 68-114 1997

Journey to belonging. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Restorative Justice for Juveniles, October (Tübingen, Germany). 2000

Journey to Belonging. Paper presented at the Just Peace? Peace Making and Peace Building for the New Millennium conference, held in Auckland, New Zealand, 24-28 April. Auckland, New Zealand: Massey University, School of Social and Cultural Studies, Centre for Justice and Peace Development. 2000

Paradigms of justice- old and new. In Spiritual roots of restorative justice: A collection of faith community perspectives, 37. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Multifaith Council on Spiritual & Religious Care. 2000

Journey to Belonging. In, Elmar G.M. Weitekamp and Han-Jurgen Kerner, Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations. Deon, UK: Willan Publishing. Pp. 21-31. 2002

The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. 2002

Re-Thinking Criminal Justice: Restorative Justice. Re-Thinking Criminal Justice. 1(May): 1-13. 1995

Restoring justice. In God and the victim: Theological reflections on evil, victimization, justice, and forgiveness, ed. Lisa Barnes Lampman and Michelle D. Shattuck, 131-159. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; and Neighbors Who Care: Washington, D.C. 1999

Rethinking God, Justice, and Treatment of Offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 35(3/4): 259-285. 2002

Critical Issues in Restorative Justice: An Inadequate and Overlapping Outline. VOMA Connections 12 (Autumn). Downloaded 22 June 2004. 2002

Taking Victims and Their Advocates Seriously: A Listening Project. Harrisonburg,VA: Institute for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University.

Ways of Knowing for a Restorative Worldview. In, Elmar Weitekamp and Hans-Jurgen Kerner, eds. Restorative Justice in Context: International Practice and Directions.Devon, UK and Portland Oregon: Willan Publishing. Pp. 257-271. 2003

Justice as Restoration, Justice as Respect. Justice Professional. 11: 71-87. 1998

Mediating the Victim-Offender Conflict. Mennonite Central Committee. Victim Offender Reconciliation Program. 1980

Critical Issues in Restorative Justice. Monsey, New York and Cullompton, Devon, UK: Criminal Justice Press and Willan Publishing. 2004

A Restorative Framework for Community Justice Practice. In, Kieran McEvoy and Tim Newburn,eds., Criminology, Conflict Resolution and Restorative Justice. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK and New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Pp. 135-152. 2003

A call for thoughtful response: Conflict Transformation staff thoughts on trauma and healing. Harrisonburg, VA: Eastern Mennonite University, Conflict Transformation Program. 2001

Listening to Victims—A Critique of Restorative Justice Policy and Practice in the United States. Federal Probation. 68(1): 32-38. 2004

Family group conferences: A challenge to victim offender mediation?. Accord, a publication of Canadian Mennonite Central Committee. 1996

Transcending: Reflections of Crime Victims. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. 2001

The Meaning of Life: Working at the Healing Edge. Offender Program Report. 11:71-87. 1998

Justice Alternative: A Restorative Approach. The Corrections Psychologist. 30(1). 1998

Justice Alternatives: A Restorative Perspective. Imbizo. February. 1996

Restitution Reduces Recidivism. Crime and Justice Network Newsletter. Oct 1990 - Mar 1991. p7. Downloaded 20 January 2005. 1990

Evaluation and Restorative Justice Principles.. In Elizabeth Elliott and Robert M. Gordon, eds., New Directions in Restorative Justice: Issues, Practice, Evaluation. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing. Pp. 296-303. 2005

The little book of family group conferences: New Zealand style.. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. 2004

Restaurando relaciones: Una manera distanta de hacer justicia. San Salvador, El Salvador: Asociación Bienestar Yek Ineme 2001

The ideas of engagement and empowerment. in, Gerry Johnstone and Daniel W. Van Ness, eds., Handbook of Restorative Justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing. pp. 41-58 2007

Avaliação e princípios da justiça restaurativa.. en, Catherin Slakmon, Maíra Rocha Machado and Pierpaolo Cruz Bottini (eds.), Novas Direções na Governança da Justiça e da Segurança (Brasília- D.F.: Ministry of Justice of Brazil, United Nations Development Programme – Brazil, and the School of Law of the Getulio Vargas Foundation - São Paulo). pp. 411- 417. 2006

Maneiras de conhecer para uma visão restaurativa de mundo.. en, Catherin Slakmon, Maíra Rocha Machado and Pierpaolo Cruz Bottini (eds.), Novas Direções na Governança da Justiça e da Segurança (Brasília- D.F.: Ministry of Justice of Brazil, United Nations Development Programme – Brazil, and the School of Law of the Getulio Vargas Foundation - São Paulo). pp. 419-432. 2006

El pequeño libro de la justicia restaurativa.. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. 2007

Why Can't We Just Apologize?. The Crime Victims Report. 11(3):38. 2007

Notes

External links

Restorative Justice Blog at Eastern Mennonite University

Professional Page at Eastern Mennonite University

Article on Restorative Justice by Howard Zehr

Class Notes: Howard Zehr '65 Wins Prestigious Award

Category:Living people Category:University of Chicago alumni Category:Morehouse College alumni Category:Rutgers University alumni Category:Eastern Mennonite University Category:Penologists Category:1944 births Category:Place of birth missing (living people)