Here’s the Preface and first chapter of my new book Solving Reality. I should be publishing it soon. When it’s available to buy, I’ll tweet and blog about it and update this page with relevant links.
Nearly a century ago, a group of brilliant, Nobel Prize winning scientists discovered how reality worked. They used cutting-edge physics and sharp logic to explain out how our universe comes into being, how we connect to it and what we are, fundamentally. Their idea is profound; it could transform our understanding of life, the universe and everything. Unfortunately, it has lain buried for nearly a century, ignored by our scientific publications and our mass media. This book will bring that scientific idea back to life.
I’ve written this book in a light-hearted way. I did it this way so that as many people as possible can enjoy its ideas. Nevertheless, its humour doesn’t belie the truth or importance of those physicists’ discovery. I think it’s vital that we understand what these twentieth-century luminaries discovered. It not only seems to be right, it could profoundly change our lives for the better.
1. That’s funny
‘The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but “that’s funny…”.’
Science is all about accepting the weird. It has to be, otherwise it wouldn’t work. Many things in our universe work in a way that, at first glance, seems completely mad. For example, it seems obvious, when we look up at the sky, that our sun goes around our Earth. Our sun rises every morning, loops through the sky and descends out of sight at dusk. The idea that we’re actually going around it seems bonkers, but it’s true. Many key aspects of our understanding of the universe are like this. For example, the fact that we’re on a ball of a planet, that all things fall at the same acceleration, however heavy they are, that plants get their material from the air; all are non-intuitive. Fortunately, through experiment, logic, theory and a complete disinterest in what might be self-evident, science has overcome these false-assumptions and showed us how the universe truly works. Science has shown us, in a way, that everything is weird; it just looks normal.
Our understanding of the universe is therefore all about embracing the weird, but that doesn’t stop it being hard for many of us to accept odd phenomena, even ones that have been carefully observed and measured in scientific experiments. Most of us have spent our entire lives developing a particular view of the universe, and so any evidence that blows a hole in that view isn’t welcome for a lot of people. Some such people, in defence of their established viewpoint, may talk about ‘common sense’, ‘gut-feeling’ and ‘being reasonable’, as a way to dismiss such strange evidence, when in fact scientific truth has nothing to do with any of these traits. In fact, it stops working when such irrational tactics are employed. This is the problem with familiarity, it can make a person forget how fundamentally bizarre the truth can be.
With all that in mind, let’s now look at some weird experiments that seem to show that our current, official, scientific description of the universe isn’t correct. These experiments show that things are going on in our world that are officially impossible. Reality seems to be weirder than its official description. To start with, let’s look at an experiment that shows the spooky lengths to which baby birds will go to be loved.
In the early 1990’s, a French scientist, René Peoc’h, was thinking about the strong, emotional bond that young birds form with their parent when they’re born. He knew that birds can be very flexible about who or what they attach to. For example, it had been shown that young gulls can even emotionally bond with just a stick marked with two dots because those dots, for the young gulls, are the signifying feature of their parents. René was therefore aware that chicks could bond emotionally to practically anything, if that was the first thing they saw when they emerged from their shell.
Peoc’h conducted an experiment that took advantage of this behaviour. He constructed a specially designed robot, whose movements were based on the output from a random number generator, an RNG machine. In other words, the robot would move around randomly as soon as it was turned on, its movements being governed by quantum-level randomness of specific circuits in its CPU chip. He then built a cage with two compartments. In one compartment, he put the robot and some chicks that had just emerged from their shells. He knew that the robot would be the first thing the chicks saw, and so they’d immediately emotionally bond with it. As far as the chicks were concerned, the robot was their parent. Understandably, they would want it to be close to them all the time. The chicks clustered around the robot; they showed all the signs that they believed the robot was their mum or their dad.
Peoc’h then did something upsetting for the chicks. He took the robot out of their cage and placed it in an adjoining, empty cage. He turned the robot on and let it wander around randomly. He then observed what happened.
According to standard science, the chicks should have done nothing more than look forlornly at the randomly moving robot and probably cheep plaintively. Instead, something very different happened. The robot’s movements, that should have been random, became clearly biased towards the cage, where the chicks lived. Somehow, the chicks were influencing the robot’s random movements to make it move closer to them. To make sure that the robot’s movements were random, Peoc’h had already tested the robot’s movements. When the chicks weren’t around, it did move randomly.
The accompanying illustration of the robot’s movement shows the chicks’ effect. The top image shows the robots movement when the chicks were absent from the adjacent, right-hand cage (in other words, when there was no influence on the robot). It is clearly random. The bottom image shows the robot’s movement when the chicks were in the adjacent, right-hand cage. It seems clear from the huge change in the robot’s pattern of movement that the chicks had significantly influenced the robot’s RNG unit.
René Peoc’h published a scientific paper, describing his findings, in 1995, entitled, psychokinetic action of young chicks on the path of an illuminated source. This is an important thing to note, as it shows that Peoc’h was being entirely thorough and scientific about his work. The implications of his experiments, nevertheless, are strange and profound. How did the chicks affect the robot? Is this ability confined to small birds? Is it a more general ability in any living creatures? Fortunately, a senior engineer also studied the ability of living things to affect RNG machines. His name was Dr Robert Jahn.
In the 1980’s, Dr Robert Jahn was the Dean of the Engineering Faculty at Princeton University in the United States. He was a highly regarded rocket engineer. One day, one of Jahn’s graduate students showed him the results of an experiment that he had carried out. In the graduate student’s experiment, a test subject had attempted to influence the results of a random number generator, or RNG, a device that produces a random result using electronic noise, which itself is produced by quantum randomness. The data from the experiment seemed to show that the test subject had influenced the output of the RNG. Jahn was intrigued. With help from his colleague, Brenda J. Dunne, he set up a lab in which students could attempt to influence the output from random number generators, set up behind a glass screen. In order to relax the students and make them feel comfortable, Jahn and Dunne fitted out the lab with sofas, cushions and comfy chairs. Jahn and Dunne then carried out a huge number of experiments. The results were unequivocal. The students could influence the output of the random number generators, skewing the numbers in a chosen direction. Just like Peoc’h’s chicks, Jahn’s students seemed to be able to influence the quantum events that were going on in an RNG machine, and change its output in the way they desired. The changes weren’t huge but they were consistent; they could not be regarded as being simply down to chance. The following graph shows the results of these experiments. The odds of getting the positive swing, for example, by chance is shown to be extremely low.
Jahn then extended the scope of the experiments. He asked students to try and influence the outputs of the lab’s RNG machines while they were out of the country. This also worked; in fact it produced almost identical results. It seemed that distance was irrelevant when influencing an RNG machine.
Jahn’s work didn’t go down well with the Princeton administration. Even though he performed his experiments with scientific thoroughness, they were clearly controversial. His Wikipedia page contains a sample of reactions and criticisms:
“The physicist Milton Rothman wrote that most of the faculty at Princeton considered the work of PEAR an embarrassment. Robert L. Park said of PEAR, “It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton”.
These criticisms didn’t stop Jahn and Brenda J Dunne carrying out further research in their organisation, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research unit or PEAR. Their work is described in their excellent book Margins of Reality.
Jahn’s work has been continued by others, in particular Dr Dean Radin at the Institute for Noetic Studies, based in California, founded in 1973 by the Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell. Dr Radin has spent decades studying the effect of human influence on physical devices. He has produced several books on the subject and many scientific papers. The results of one experiment he was involved in is particularly strange and thought-provoking.
The Global Consciousness Project is a collection of random number generators placed around the world in approximately seventy locations. The output of these RNG machines is gathered centrally to see if their output is shifting away from a random result. Jahn had shown, years before, that people could affect an RNG machine physically distant from them. The aim of the Global Consciousness Project was to see if all minds on Earth might somehow influence these RNG machines, dotted around our planet. One day, the GCP’s showed that this may very well be true; that day was 9/11.
The GCP RNG machines were running on 9/11, the day that planes were flown into the Twin Towers in New York, and the attack on the Pentagon in Washington. The GCP machines show a marked shift away from random results that day, a very similar shift to the ones Jahn’s experiments demonstrated when a person deliberately influences an RNG machine. It was as if everyone on Earth had become more alert, more mentally intense that day, and had affected those machines as a result. The strangest element of the results were that the RNG machines markedly shifted their output three hours before the attacks occurred. They then reached a peak of aberration during the attacks, then tailed off, returning to a base-noise level approximately seven hours after the attacks ended. Here is a black&white-friendly version I’ve created, based on the graph from the GCP site:
The small rectangles on the black line mark the time when the 9/11 attacks occurred. The solid line is the change in the RNG results in the GCP machines around the world. The dotted line demonstrates random fluctuations.
Jahn and Radin’s work seems to show that people can influence the output of RNG machines, just like Peoc’h’s chicks. What is even stranger is that the Global Consciousness Project results seem to indicate that everyone on Earth can somehow become affected by their future. Is this possible? Can we be affected by our own future? This idea could be quickly dismissed if it wasn’t for the work of a highly-regarded psychologist. His name is Daryl Bem.
In 2011, Daryl Bem, working at Cornell University, New York, reported some very interesting results in a paper entitled, Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 100, p 407. To quote from the paper’s abstract:
This article reports 9 experiments, involving more than 1,000 participants, that test for retroactive influence by “time-reversing” well-established psychological effects so that the individual’s responses are obtained before the putatively causal stimulus events occur.
One experiment worked as follows. Bem was aware of a well-known psychological fact, that writing out a list of words usually makes it easier to recall those words later. He decided to give it a twist. He asked his subjects to view a list of words briefly. Shortly afterwards, they were tested on their initial recall. So far, so normal, but he then gave them a smaller, random selection of words from the same list, which they were asked to type out and memorise. At first glance, this additional work by the subjects seems pointless and stupid. Why had Bem told the students to memorise some words after they’d done the test? The benefit of this extra work came out when he analysed the results from the test. He found that the subjects who were given the smaller, random set of words after the test, and memorised them, were more likely to have remembered those words during the test. In other words, their efforts after the test somehow improved their results in the test. It is as if they were being positively affected by their own future work in memorising some of the words. The difference in success-rate between the two sets of words was slight, only 2.27 per cent, but Bem carried out a lot of tests. Eventually, the likelihood of the difference being down to random luck became incredibly small. It seemed that something was definitely going on. Somehow, people could be affected by their own future.
Bem carried out another experiment, involving a standard psychological effect known as habituation. Habituation is the idea that people prefer things they’re used to. For example, if a person is asked to choose between two similar images, he or she will tend to prefer an image that they’ve seen before rather than one they haven’t. Bem’s twist to this experiment was that he showed subjects two new images and asked them to choose which one they liked better. A short time after, he then showed them one of those two images again, at random. There should have been no change to the odds of the subjects’ initial choice of the two images, but there was. This experiment was published as Precognitive Habituation: Replicable Evidence for a Process of Anomalous Cognition, in 2003. In its abstract, it states:
To date, more than 400 men and women have participated in 9 variations of the PH experiment, including an independent replication by a skeptical investigator. Collectively the studies provide strong support for the two predicted effects. Across the six basic studies, the hit rate was significantly above 50% on negative trials (52.6%, t(259) = 3.17, p = .0008) and significantly below 50% on erotic trials (48.0%, t(149) = -1.88, p = .031).
Once again, the probability that the results were down to random chance were extremely small, small enough for them to be declared a verified phenomenon in most scientific journals. For example, many of the medical tests that labs carry out are assumed to show a repeatable phenomena if their p-value is below 0.05. Some of Bem’s results were far lower. Bem’s results therefore should be deemed, scientifically, to be showing a real effect. It would seem that people truly are affected by their own future.
What can we make of the work of Peoc’h, Jahn, Radin and Bem? All four scientists carried out carefully structured experiments and published their findings as scientific papers. According to scientific methods, their results are as valid as any scientific work but what their experiments tell us about people and animals is profound. It turns out that such strangeness isn’t confined just to people. If we look into experiments on plants and even bacteria, the results are just as weird. To begin that story, we need to look at what happened when someone interrogated a pot-plant.
Polygraph machines are designed to detect if someone is hiding something, or lying. The principle of how they work is straightforward. If someone is lying, their stress levels should increase. This in turn causes a rise in the person’s heart-rate, as well as increased perspiration and a change in the person’s skin’s voltage level. Therefore, if detectors are attached to that person’s skin, it should be possible to spot when that person is lying in response to specific questions. Polygraph machines have become very popular in police detective work. Unfortunately, they’re not entirely accurate. For example, psychopaths often don’t have an emotional reaction to lying, and so they don’t become stressed when they lie. At the other end of the spectrum, someone who fears that they are going to be framed by the police might experience high stress levels when being interrogated, which again would produce a false reading. But, if the devices are used with these shortcomings in mind, a polygraph can perform a useful function.
According to Annie Jacobsen’s book Phenomena, Cleve Backster was a key pioneer of the use of polygraph machines. On page 120, she states:
“Backster was a deception researcher and interrogation expert, a man rooted in the intelligence community, where he worked for more than twenty-five years. He had earned his stripes in World War II, in the Army’s Counter Intelligence Corps, where he conducted narco-interrogations of enemy forces, early attempts to get POWs to reveal military secrets using so-called truth serums. After the war, Backster joined the CIA, where he cofounded the Agency’s polygraph program.”
Backster eventually moved to New York City, where he founded The Backster School of Lie Detection. He taught N.Y.P.D. detectives and F.B.I. agents how to use the polygraph, as well as other techniques for lie detection. He testified in courtrooms and before Congress. His famed Backster Zone Comparison Technique, a methodology for conducting polygraphs, is still widely used. His career might have continued in this vein, in an illustrious and conventional way, if it wasn’t for one event on the 2nd of February, 1966. That morning, Backster was pouring himself a cup of coffee when he noticed a houseplant, a Dracaena Fragrans, that his secretary had brought in to the office. Out of curiosity, he decided to hook the plant up to his polygraph. Logically, this should have been a waste of time, since a lie-detector is designed to pick up changes in the voltage levels on the surface of someone’s skin, a.k.a. the galvanic skin response. According to standard science, a plant is nothing more than a biological machine, with no brain or nerves, and so nothing interesting should have happened. He decided to do it anyway, out of curiosity. To create a response that the polygraph might pick up, he decided to try and induce anxiety in the plant, just like a suspect in a police interrogation. To do this, he decided to set fire to one of its leaves. He reached for a matchbox but before he could light a match, the polygraph registered an intense reaction on the part of the Dracaena. Somehow, the plant seemed to have read his mind.
Backster was astonished at this reaction. He performed more tests, including carrying out actions seemingly impossible for a plant to detect, such as boiling a brine shrimp in another room. The plant nevertheless reacted, creating a tell-tale polygraph reading.
Backster realised that plants must have an undiscovered sense, which he called primary perception. He believed that they are able to detect and respond to human thoughts and emotions. He carried out many experiments, testing such living creatures as chicken eggs and sperm. His results convinced him that there was a fundamental connection between all living things. This connection was not bounded by physical distance or physical perception. He publicised his findings in a paper entitled Evidence of a Primary Perception in Plant Life, in the International Journal of Psychology, in 1968. Two colleagues, Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, used his findings in their bestselling book The Secret Life of Plants.
Backster’s discovery supported the ideas of an earlier investigator, the brilliant polymath, physicist, biologist and biophysicist Jagadish Chandra Bose. He had discovered similar evidence, decades before. He played certain kinds of music in the area where plants grew and discovered that this caused the plants to grow faster. He used a crescograph to measure plant response to various stimuli. He showed that this evidence demonstrated feeling in plants. Based on further work – the analysis of the variation of the cell membrane potential of plants under different circumstances – he hypothesised that plants can “feel pain, understand affection etc”. He wrote two books about it, in 1902 and 1926.
It would seem that plants’ sensing ability is far more than simply physical. This idea gained more support very recently, with an experiment that showed a plant could even grow in a particular direction using a unknown form of perception.
In 2020, Paco Calvo at the University of Murcia was studying runner-bean plants. He wondered if they grew their climbing shoots randomly, and simply clung to poles that they touched against, or whether they actually aimed for the poles. Logically, since they had no physical senses for spotting the poles’ location, they shouldn’t have been able to do this. He tested the idea anyway, using time-lapse photography. To his surprise, he found they did. To quote from the Guardian newspaper article, Food for thought? French bean plants show signs of intent, say scientists:
“Using this [time-lapse] footage, they analysed the dynamics of the shoots’ growth, finding that their approach was more controlled and predictable when a pole was present. The difference was analogous to sending a blindfolded person into a room containing an obstacle, and either telling them about it or letting them stumble into it.”
Calvo’s research indicates that plants may be far more than simple, mechanical machines. Many people would think such behaviour belonged purely in the realms of science-fiction, which plants such as John Wyndham’s triffids, from his book the Day of the Triffids, but it seems that solid science is showing something very different.
These anomalous results focus on plants’ behaviour that we can see with our eyes, such as the reaction of plants recorded on polygraphs, or their movement towards bean-poles. But if we study plants’ abilities at microscopic scales, things are equally weird.
In the last few decades, scientists have discovered more and more details about photosynthesis, the process by which plants use the sun’s energy to turn carbon dioxide and water into plant material, in particular the sugars needed for plants to function. The more scientists have analysed photosynthesis, the more amazed they’ve become that plants can do photosynthesis at all.
Our sun produces an enormous amount of radiant energy. A goodly proportion of that falls on Earth, but there is a tricky problem for any Earthly, living creature that wants to harvest that energy. The density of sunlight falling on any particular area of Earth is relatively low. This is a good thing, as we would all get horribly burnt if every square foot of our planet was being hit with vast amounts of UV light and X-rays, but it’s not so good when it comes to power generation. The feeble intensity of sunlight is a bugbear for solar generators or panels. Solar power cells can still only convert into power a small percentage of the sunlight they receive. The sunlight is just too weak and diffuse to be grabbed easily but, astonishingly, plants have somehow developed a photosynthesis process that far outstrips solar panels in terms of efficiency. This isn’t because plants have been around a long time, and so they’ve developed a very clever mechanical system; it’s actually much more than that. The photosynthesis process that plants use for collecting and absorbing light is far greater than the theoretical limits for that process. This seemingly impossible efficiency of plants in harvesting light has been discovered thanks to recent advances in science and technology. For example, in a scientific paper in the journal Nature (4 February 2010) entitled, Coherently wired light-harvesting in photosynthetic marine algae at ambient temperature, the authors explain that marine algae seem to carry out photosynthesis by effectively controlling the behaviour of light at the quantum level. Physical chemist Greg Scholes of the University of Toronto, who led the research group, states in the paper, and then in an interview with David Biello for Scientific American magazine (Feb 3rd 2010):
“The energy of the absorbed light is finding more than one pathway to move along at any one time. We can’t pinpoint the energy of that light. It’s shared in a very special way.”
According to the scientists’ research, when photons of light enters the algae, the algae seems to control all the possible quantum paths that the photons can take through the proteins in the algae’s light harvesting area. By doing this, the algae is able to make use of all the energy of the incoming photons. This is statistically and mechanically impossible. It’s as if the algae had complete mastery of the light at the quantum level. In other words, it’s as if the algae was rolling a dice a thousand time a second and somehow rolling the same number every single time because it had absolute, telekinetic mastery over the dice. From a mechanical, physics standpoint, such an ability makes no sense whatsoever; it should be impossible, and yet the algae have that quantum mastery.
Many scientists working in the fields of quantum biology seem to have realised that a mechanistic description of living creatures – the standard view – doesn’t add up. They’ve noticed that events are occurring all the time in living systems that simply can’t occur if the universe was purely mechanistic. In the scientific paper Plausibility of Quantum Coherent States in Biological Systems, by V. Salari, J. Tuszynski, M. Rahnama, and G. Bernroider, the authors state:
“Making and breaking of chemical bonds, absorbance of frequency specific radiation (e.g. in photosynthesis and vision), conversion of chemical energy into mechanical motion (e.g. ATP cleavage) and single electron transfer through biological polymers (e.g. in DNA or proteins) are all quantum effects. Regarding the efficient functioning of biological systems, the relevant question to ask is how can a biological system with billions of semi-autonomous components function effectively and coherently? While providing a complete explanation remains a major challenge, quantum coherence is a plausible mechanism responsible for the efficiency and co-ordination exhibited by biological systems.”
In other words, all living organisms seem to exert a masterful quantum influence over molecular activity. They do this by creating sophisticated, coherent quantum states, some of which can act over relatively huge atomic distances. Such abilities are not mechanistic, the product of mechanical processes. Something else seems to be going on.
This strangeness with living organisms doesn’t stop at the plant photosynthesis level. Another scientist investigated the abilities of bacteria. He also came up with surprising results. His name was Luc Montagnier.
Luc Montagnier comes across in documentaries as a friendly, easy-going man but underneath his laid-back persona there is clearly an inner steeliness and will to solve problems. This tenacity led him, in 2008, to jointly win the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his discovery of the HIV virus. Such a discovery and such an accolade could have made another person rest on his laurels, semi-retire to a position of seniority in a prestigious institution but Luc Montagnier did the opposite. He carried out experiments that are both fascinating and controversial. Previous, similar experiments, by the skilled immunologist Jacques Benveniste, produced a storm of criticisms from leading figures in science, in particular the editor of the journal Nature but Montagnier was not deterred by such risks; he used his skills and experience to push ahead. As a result, he make some astonishing discoveries.
In one key experiment, Montagnier placed some living cells, infected with a bacterium, in a flask of purified water. He then filtered the water out of the flask through a grid of tiny holes. The holes were twenty nanometres in size (0.00000002 metres), small enough to stop the bacterium and cells getting through. He was therefore sure that the only thing that got through those holes to the other side of the filter was the water. He then poured this filtered water into another container, containing healthy cells, cells that were not infected by that bacterium. Logically, according to established science, since those healthy cells were only getting water from the flask containing the infected cells, they shouldn’t become infected. Since no bacterium could have passed through the filter to contaminate the water and infect those cells, the cells should be fine. He watched the cells in the ‘disease-free’ container grow and multiply and found, to his astonishment, that they were infected, as if they had received the bacteria that had been in the original batch of cells. Somehow, the bacterium’s infection had been transferred from the first flask to the second, through the nano-scale filter, even though only water was able to pass through those holes. The only logical conclusion seemed to be that the water had carried a ‘ghost presence’ of the bacteria’s infectious ability through the nano-scale filter.
Montagnier was intrigued. How had this occurred? The water somehow seemed to have carried the bacteria’s diseasing-creating ability, but this was impossible according to standard science. He wondered in what form the disease-creating element had reached the healthy cells. Whatever it was, it had to be on the scale of water molecules and yet complex enough to trigger a health cell to become ill. He carefully studied the filtered water that somehow had become infected. He discovered something odd; if the water was agitated, it gave off an unusual emission of electromagnetic radiation. Somehow, it had stored that ’cache’ of electromagnetic radiation. After more careful testing, he concluded that living cells didn’t seem to be able to create such an effect in water. He then tested a wide selection of biological agents to see if they could load water with a cache of electromagnetic energy. After a lot of work, he discovered that certain organisms could do this, particularly certain organisms that caused disease. Somehow, disease-carrying organisms were able to ‘load’ water with a cache of strange electromagnetic radiation. For example, he found that the bacterium in our gut that don’t harm us don’t produce this electromagnetic radiation but ones that do harm us, do produce this radiation. It seemed that the process of bacteria causing disease wasn’t primarily about the bacteria, per se, but their ability to ‘load’ water with certain packets of electromagnetic energy. It was these packets of electromagnetic energy that caused the disease.
Montagnier wondered if these disease-causing bacteria had some special cellular machinery that enabled them to load water with disease-causing electromagnetic packets. To find out, he chopped up the disease-causing bacteria into parts, and then sub-divided them again, hunting for which part of them did the ‘loading’ of the water. In the end, he realised that the key part of the bacteria that ‘loaded’ the water with disease-causing electromagnetic packets were their pieces of DNA, parts of their genetic code.
The implications of Montagnier’s research are huge. If electromagnetic signals, or EMS, as Montagnier refers to them, are the active carriers of disease, then it would be possible to analyse the electromagnetic emissions of a blood sample and thereby discover what disease was present in the sample. The clear and very useful article, The Montagnier Paper – a Plain English Account by Rachel Roberts, explains Montagnier’s findings very well. To quote from Rachel Roberts’ article:
The team has carried out further experiments showing that EMS are produced by the human body. Plasma (the liquid portion of the blood) was taken from patients with various diseases, then DNA was isolated from this plasma. The results showed that both complete plasma and DNA extracted from plasma produced similar EMS. This was seen in samples taken from patients suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. The authors suggest that this indicates the presence of bacterial infections in these conditions.
Electromagnetic signals become the way to diagnose disease. Rather than looking at chemical reactions or trying to detect the bacteria themselves, by growing cultures from samples, a scientist can pick up the signs of disease with an electromagnetic scan. As a result, diagnosis would become lightning-fast and highly accurate.
Montagnier expanded his research. He created a technique that could be called ‘digital medicine’. The 2014 documentary Water Memory explains this process. In the process, a known, active biological agent is placed in water. The water is then filtered out so that the biological agent is no longer present. The water is then agitated. Electromagnetic signals emitted by the ‘loaded’ water are detected. The properties of this EMS, its multiple amplitudes and frequencies, are stored as a digital file. This digital file is then sent to another lab, just like any other piece of digital data. The second lab then irradiates a new volume of pure water with electromagnetic radiation, based on the data in the file. This new volume of water will then have the same medicinal effect as the original, biological agent. This process would revolutionise Western medicine. There would be no need to manufacture pills containing chemicals. Instead, a doctor would simply store a digital copy of a medicine’s EMS or electromagnetic signature. When the medicine is needed, the doctor would irradiate some water with the EMS, the electromagnetic signal, based on the stored data file. The doctor then gives that ‘loaded’ water to the patient. This method bears a lot of similarities with homeopathy, such as the removal of the biochemical agent and the need for agitation of the water, but it is a twenty-first-century, high-tech approach, one that makes use of computers, the internet and the latest electromagnetic sensing and irradiation equipment.
Some readers, at this point, might wonder why our entire seas haven’t become one big medicine, or one big disease-carrier. This is because the EMS loading of the water is fragile. Montagnier discovered that heating the loaded water sample to about 70 degrees centigrade, or alternatively chilling it down to freezing, destroyed its EMS content. In addition, the water only emitted EMS signals if it was agitated.
It is hard to believe that a water molecule, consisting of just an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, could be capable of storing such complex information but water has an interesting trick up its sleeve. The three atoms in each water molecule, two hydrogens and an oxygen, are bound together with standard, covalent bonds, but each water molecule can bind loosely with other water molecules using hydrogen bonds. These weaker, looser bonds are responsible for water’s strange properties, such as it being densest at 4˚ Centigrade, rather than 0˚ Centigrade, and the fact that ice is less dense than water, which is odd, since molecules usually get denser as they get colder. There is another interesting property of hydrogen bonds. Their length and strength can be affected by quantum events. Therefore, anything that has some mastery and influence over quantum behaviour could theoretically have the ability to create complex water structures. As we’ve already seen, living things seem to have such a quantum-mastery. It would therefore seem that many bacteria can carry out this quantum-influencing too.
Something very strange seems to be going on in the universe, something that is at odds with our standard scientific description of reality. It may be that one of the scientists, mentioned so far in this chapter, is mistaken in their experimental results but it seems irrational to believe that they are all wrong. These scientists’ results are strange but also consistent; there is a common thread joining all of them, to do with living things and quantum behaviour.
The connection between living things and quantum behaviour will be explored in greater detail later in this book but before that, it’s worthwhile asking why such reports, papers and results are effectively ignored by our mainstream, especially considering their profound implications. Some readers might respond by saying our scientists know how the universe works. Our scientists can then be sure that these anomalous experiments are misleading or plain wrong. This idea, that our scientists do know exactly how the universe works, is deceptive. The next chapter will study a theory that many scientists, and most of us, believe to be absolutely correct but, from a fundamental scientific viewpoint, is actually impossible; it’s the Big Bang.
This is the end of the sample of this book. I’ll keep everyone updated with any news on how and when the full book will be published.