Heart Fields

Many believe that conscious awareness originates in the brain alone. Recent scientific research suggests that consciousness actually emerges from the brain and body acting together. A growing body of evidence suggests that the heart plays a particularly significant role in this process.

Far more than a simple pump, as was once believed, the heart is now recognized by scientists as a highly complex system with its own functional “brain.”

Research in the new discipline of neurocardiology shows that the heart is a sensory organ and a sophisticated center for receiving and processing information. The nervous system within the heart (or “heart brain”) enables it to learn, remember, and make functional decisions independent of the brain’s cerebral cortex. Moreover, numerous experiments have demonstrated that the signals the heart continuously sends to the brain influence the function of higher brain centers involved in perception, cognition, and emotional processing.

In addition to the extensive neural communication network linking the heart with the brain and body, the heart also communicates information to the brain and throughout the body via electromagnetic field interactions. The heart generates the body’s most powerful and most extensive rhythmic electromagnetic field.Compared to the electromagnetic field produced by the brain, the electrical component of the heart’s field is about 60 times greater in amplitude, and permeates every cell in the body. The magnetic component is approximately 5000 times stronger than the brain’s magnetic field and can be detected several feet away from the body with sensitive magnetometers.

The heart generates a continuous series of electromagnetic pulses in which the time interval between each beat varies in a dynamic and complex manner. The heart’s ever-present rhythmic field has a powerful influence on processes throughout the body. We have demonstrated, for example, that brain rhythms naturally synchronize to the heart’s rhythmic activity, and also that during sustained feelings of love or appreciation, the blood pressure and respiratory rhythms, among other oscillatory systems, entrain to the heart’s rhythm.

In an unlikely marriage of quantum physics and neuroscience, tiny particles called quantum dots have been used to control brain cells for the first time.

Having such control over the brain could one day provide a non-invasive treatment for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, depression and epilepsy. In the nearer term, quantum dots could be used to treat blindness by reactivating damaged retinal cells.

“Many brain disorders are caused by imbalanced neural activity,” says Lih Linat the University of Washington, Seattle. “Manipulation of specific neurons could permit the restoration of normal activity levels.”

Methods to stimulate the brain artificially already exist, though each has its drawbacks. Deep brain stimulation is used in Parkinson’s disease to trigger brain cell activity and prevent the abnormal signalling that causes debilitating tremors, but placing the electrodes required is highly invasive. Transcranial magnetic stimulation can stimulate brain cells from

outside the head, but is not highly targeted and so affects large areas of the brain at once. Researchers in optogenetics can control genetically modified brain cells using light but because of these modifications, the technique is not yet deemed safe to use in humans.

Lin’s team has now come up with an alternative using quantum dots – light-sensitive, semiconducting particles just a few nanometres in diameter.

First, they cultivated prostate cancer cells on a film covered with quantum dots. The cell membranes of the cancer cells were positioned next to the dots. The team then shone light onto the nanoparticles.

Energy from the light excites electrons within the quantum dot which causes the surrounding area to become negatively charged (see diagram). This caused some of the cancer cells’ ion channels, which are mediated by a voltage, to open, allowing ions to rush in or out of the cells.

In nerve cells, opening ion channels is a crucial step in generating action potentials – the signals by which the cells communicate in the brain. If the voltage change is large enough, an action potential is generated.

When Lin’s team repeated their experiment with nerve cells, they found that stimulating the quantum dots caused ion channels to open and the nerve cell to fire.

In humans, quantum dots would need to be delivered to brain tissue. Lin claims this shouldn’t be a problem. “A significant advantage is that their surface can be modified with various molecules,” she says. These molecules could be attached to the quantum dots in order to target specific brain cells and could be administered intravenously.

A key hurdle would be delivering the light source to the brain. For this reason, Lin reckons the first use for the technique would be in reactivating damaged cells in the retina, which naturally absorb light. Co-author Fred Reike, who specialises in retinal disease, says that quantum dots have great potential in this area because they directly affect ion channels, which play a key part in the signalling pathways of vision.

“Quantum dots have a great future for biomedical applications,” agrees Kevin Critchley at the University of Leeds, UK, but adds that there are limitations such as potential toxicity issues.

“Based on what we have observed, we are optimistic about the potential of this technology in helping us [answer] biological questions, and eventually diagnose and treat human diseases,” Lin says.

Journal reference: Biomedical Optics Express, DOI: 10.1364/boe.3.000447

Source: Case Western Reserve press release

http://astrobio.net/pressrelease/4522/new-theory-of-life-claims-to-unite-fields-of-science

The Earth is alive, asserts a new scientific theory of life emerging from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The trans-disciplinary theory demonstrates that purportedly inanimate, non-living objects — for example,planets, water, proteins, and DNA — are animate, that is, alive.  Erik Andrulis, PhD, assistant professor of molecular biology and microbiology, advanced his controversial framework in his manuscript “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life,” published in the peer-reviewed journal, Life. His theory explains not only the evolutionary emergence of life on Earth and in the Universe but also the structure and function of existing cells and biospheres.  In addition to resolving long-standing paradoxes and puzzles in chemistry and biology, Andrulis’ theory unifies quantum and celestial mechanics. His unorthodox solution to this quintessential problem in physics differs from mainstream approaches, like string theory, as it is simple, non-mathematical, and experimentally and experientially verifiable.  The basic idea of Andrulis’ framework is that all physical reality can be modeled by a single geometric entity with life-like characteristics: the gyre. The so-called “gyromodel” depicts objects — particles, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and cells — as quantized packets of energy and matter that cycle between excited and ground states around a singularity, the gyromodel’s center. A singularity is itself modeled as a gyre, wholly compatible with the thermodynamic and fractal nature of life. An example of this nested, self-similar organization is the Russian Matryoshka doll.  By fitting the gyromodel to facts accumulated over scientific history, Andrulis confirms the proposed existence of eight laws of nature. One of these, the natural law of unity, decrees that the living cell and any part of the visible universe are irreducible. This law formally establishes that there is one physical reality.  Another natural law dictates that the atomic and cosmic realms abide by identical organizational constraints. Simply put, atoms in the human body and solar systems in the universe move and behave in the exact same manner.  James Lovelock proposed the Gaia hypothesis, in which Earth is a self-regulating organism. Image Credit: Comby Institute “Modern science lacks a unifying, interdisciplinary theory of life. In other words, current theories are unable to explain why life is the way it is and not any other way,” Andrulis says. “This general paradigm furnishes a fresh perspective on the character and meaning of life, offers solutions to protracted problems, and strives to end divisive debates.”  One debate swirls around the scientific merit of James Lovelock’s popular Gaia hypothesis. By showing that the Earth is theoretically synonymous with life, Andrulis’ paradigm substantiates the Gaian premise that all organisms and their surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single self-regulating complex system.  Another legendary quarrel is that between biblical creationists and neo-Darwinian evolutionists. In demonstrating that the origin and evolution of life is a consequence of natural laws and physical forces, this theory synthesizes arguments and dispels assumptions from both sides of the creation-evolution debate.  To test his paradigm, Andrulis designed bidirectional flow diagrams that both depict and predict the dynamics of energy and matter. While such diagrams may be foreign to some scientists, they are standard reaction notation to chemists, biochemists, and biologists.  Andrulis has used his theory to successfully predict and identify a hidden signature of RNA biogenesis in his laboratory at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is now applying the gyromodel to unify and explain the evolution and development of human beings.  For more information, see “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life,” Life, Vol. 2:1-105 (2012).

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 28 January 2012 12.00 GM

Werner Heisenberg, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, once observed that history could be divided into periods according to what people of the time made of matter. In his book Physics and Philosophy, published in the early 60s, he argued that at the beginning of the 20th century we entered a new period. It was then that quantum physics threw off the materialism that dominated the natural sciences of the 19th century.

Rupert Sheldrake in the Living Matrix movie

Of materialism, he wrote:

“[This] frame was so narrow and rigid that it was difficult to find a place in it for many concepts of our language that had always belonged to its very substance, for instance, the concept of mind, of the human soul or of life. Mind could be introduced into the general picture only as a kind of mirror of the material world.”

Today we live in the 21st century, and it seems that we are still stuck with this narrow and rigid view of the things. As Rupert Sheldrake puts it in his new book, published this week, The Science Delusion: “The belief system that governs conventional scientific thinking is an act of faith, grounded in a 19th-century ideology.”

That’s provocative rhetoric. Science an act of faith? Science a belief system? But then how else to explain the grip of the mechanistic, physicalist, purposeless cosmology? As Heisenberg explained, physicists among themselves have long stopped thinking of atoms as things. They exist as potentialities or possibilities, not objects or facts. And yet, materialism persists.

Heisenberg recommended staying in touch with reality as we experience it, which is to say holding a place for conceptions of mind and soul. The mechanistic view will pass, he was certain. In a way, Sheldrake’s scientific career has been devoted to its overthrow. He began in a mainstream post as director of studies in cell biology at Cambridge University, though he challenged the orthodoxy when he proposed his theory ofmorphogenetic fields.

This is designed to account for, say, the enormously complex structure of proteins. A conventional approach, which might be described as bottom-up, has protein molecules “exploring” all possible patterns until settling on one with a minimum energy. This explanation works well for simple molecules, like carbon dioxide. However, proteins are large and complicated. As Sheldrake notes: “It would take a small protein about 10²⁶ years to do this, far longer than the age of the universe.”

As a result, some scientists are proposing top-down, holistic explanations. Sheldrake’s particular proposal is that such self-organising systems exist in fields of memory or habit. These contain the information required to make the structure.

Fearlessly, he extends the speculation to embrace a range of phenomena that many people experience. Telephone telepathy is one, when you are thinking about someone just as they phone. Or the sense of being stared at. The idea, roughly, is that our intentions can be communicated across mental fields that are like morphogenetic fields. They connect us – though in the modern world, with its ideological and technological distractions, we are not very good at noticing them.

Sheldrake has continually to fight his corner. In the new book, he records an encounter with Richard Dawkins, when the eminent atheist was making his 2007 TV series Enemies of Reason. Sheldrake suggested they discuss the actual evidence for telepathy. Dawkins resisted. “There isn’t time. It’s too complicated. And that’s not what the programme is about,” Sheldrake reports Dawkins saying, before himself retorting that he wasn’t interested in taking part in another “low-grade debunking exercise”. Dawkins reportedly replied: “It’s not a low-grade debunking exercise; it’s a high-grade debunking exercise.”

I admire Sheldrake for his extraordinary good humour, given the decades of abuse he has endured. This manner comes across in The Science Delusion because, at heart, it is a passionate plea for the materialist worldview, finally, definitively, to be challenged.

Whether or not his own theories will stand the test of time is another question. In a paper published in the Journal of Consciousness Studiesin November 2011, Fraser Watts examines them at face value and, broadly, finds them suggestive but wanting. For example, Sheldrake conceives of mental fields via the analogy of an amoeba: as an amoeba extends its pseudopodia and touches the environment around it, similarly telepathy and the like would be the result of “mental pseudopodia” extended into the world around us.

The analogy has the benefit of naturalising extrasensory perception, Watts notes. But it also raises problems. For example, how would it be possible mentally “to touch” objects that don’t exist, as would happen when contemplating a centaur? Watts concludes: “An adequate account of the mind must encompass both first- and third-person description whereas the idea of a ‘field’, along with the other spatial descriptions that Sheldrake uses, seem to be exclusively third-person type descriptions.” Oddly, this is a strikingly 19th century attitude to have.

Nonetheless, Sheldrake must welcome such serious engagement with his work. He may not be right in the details. But he is surely right, with Heisenberg, in insisting that the materialist world view must go.

A barrage of experiments seems to show that we can predict the future – but they may tell us more about the scientific method

FEW sounds quicken the pulse like the clatter of the roulette ball as it drops. Fortunes can be won or lost as it settles into its numbered slot. Find a way to predict where it will come to rest, and you would soon become the envy of every other gambler and the worst nightmare of every casino.

Are you being influenced by the future?

Michael Franklin thinks he might be able to make that claim. Over thousands of trials, he seems to have found a way to predict, with an accuracy slightly better than chance, whether the ball will fall to red or black. You’ll find no divining rods or crystal balls about Franklin’s person. Nor does he operate from a murky tent swathed in lace and clouded with the fumes of burning incense; he works in a lab at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Franklin is one of a small group of psychologists who are investigating precognition – the ability to foretell the future. Astonishingly, some of the groups, including Franklin’s, are returning positive results. “I still want to see that I can actually win money with this,” says Franklin, who rates his confidence in the data so far at about 7.5 out of 10. “As a scientist, I need to be agnostic.”

If precognition does turn out to be real, it will shake the foundations of science and philosophy. Few researchers will be putting money on this conclusion, though; most expect that the puzzling results will begin to evaporate as others attempt to repeat the experiments. Even so, that could change science as we know it. Franklin and his colleagues are all using standard research methods that normally go unquestioned. If those methods can lead respected scientists to such startling errors, how many other studies might be similarly flawed?

A closer look

Despite widespread scepticism from mainstream scientists, studies of precognition and other forms of extrasensory perception crop up time and again. In the 1940s it was card-guessing, in the 1980s the ability to influence random-number generators, and in the last decade so-called “presentiment” – in which volunteers showed changes in skin conductance just before they saw disturbing images. In every case, however, independent researchers failed to repeat the initial results, eventually concluding that they were the result of procedural flaws or coincidence.

However, a year ago even the sceptics had to take a closer look when Daryl Bem, a well-respected psychologist at Cornell University, New York, reported some positive results in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (vol 100, p 407). “When Daryl Bem speaks, we listen,” says Jeff Galak, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The appeal of Bem’s work is that he used well-accepted psychological experiments, but with a twist. Countless studies, for example, have established that writing out a list of words makes it easier to recall those words later. Bem merely switched the order of the two events. His subjects viewed the list briefly and were tested on their initial recall. They were then given a smaller, random selection of words from the same list, which they were asked to type out and memorise. Surprisingly, they were more likely to have remembered these words during the initial memory test - before they had even seen the list. The difference between the two sets of words was slight – only 2.27 per cent – but statistically significant.

Another of Bem’s experiments focused on a psychological effect known as habituation; if volunteers are asked to choose between two similar images, they will tend to prefer an image they have seen before over one they have not. Again, Bem reversed the sequence – he showed subjects two new images, and asked them to choose which one they liked better, before showing them one of the images again immediately afterwards. Bem found that about 54 per cent of the time, people preferred the image they would end up seeing again later.

He reported nine such time-reversed experiments, in eight of which later events appeared to influence people’s earlier behaviour. The effects were subtle, typically swaying the results by 2 to 4 per cent, but Bem’s statistical tests suggested that they were unlikely to have occurred by chance. Taken together, the experiments strongly suggested that people could indeed “feel the future”, Bem concluded.

Since Bem’s study appeared, two other researchers presented similar results at the Towards a Science of Consciousness conference in Stockholm, Sweden, in May 2011. Franklin was one of them. He asked volunteers to identify certain complex geometric shapes, some of which they would use for practice later on. In line with Bem’s results, their performance on the first task seemed to be affected by the shapes they saw in the later practice run.

Franklin wondered whether he could adapt his method to make more useful predictions. Suppose the choice of practice shapes was determined by the spin of a roulette wheel, for example. He could then use the subject’s test results to predict whether the ball would fall on red or black ahead of time.

“If you know which practice condition they’re going to get, then you can say OK, I’m going to predict that the roulette spin is going to be red,” Franklin says. Sure enough, when he actually tried this he correctly called the fall of a roulette ball in another room about 57 per cent of the time – enough to make a tidy profit, had he bet real money on a game.

Dick Bierman, a physicist and cognitive psychologist at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, meanwhile, showed volunteers a standard optical illusion known as a Necker cube – a two-dimensional drawing of a cube that appears to alternate between top and bottom views (see diagram). The subjects had to indicate which view they saw and when their perception switched.

Then Bierman showed each volunteer a filled-in drawing of a cube that was unambiguously either top or bottom view. Those who later saw the top view spent more time perceiving the Necker cube in top view, while those who later saw the bottom view tended to see the Necker cube in bottom view, he found. It was as if their initial view predicted what they would be shown the second time. As with Bem’s study, the difference was slight – about 3 per cent – but unlikely to have occurred by chance.

At a first glance, these experiments appear to blow the conventional notion of cause and effect out of the water. It would suggest your hunches may really tell you something about the future. Perhaps you could even “remember” next week’s lottery results.

Surprisingly, none of this would break the laws of physics as we know them, since the equations of physics are mostly “time-symmetric”, notes Daniel Sheehan, a physicist at the University of California, San Diego. “If you were to say the past influences the present, everyone would say OK. But you can equally say that the future boundary conditions affect the present,” says Sheehan, who organised a symposium on reverse causation in 2011 for a regional meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego. “The future has an equal say in the present as does the past.”

Cracks appear

Indeed, even some physics experiments can be interpreted as causation moving backward in time. A photon passing through one or two narrow slits will behave as either a wave or a particle, depending on how many slits are open – even if the slits are adjusted after the photon has passed through (Science, vol 315, p 966). The experiment can also be explained without invoking reverse causation, but the arguments tend to be tortuous, says Sheehan.

The vast majority of scientists won’t be embracing these interpretations just yet. “Before you jump to attempts to accommodate these phenomena in physics, show us that the phenomena are there,” says James Alcock, a psychologist at York University in Toronto, Canada. And if you take a closer look at the latest studies, cracks begin to appear in their seemingly convincing facade.

To begin with, the statistical analyses, which are meant to weed out results that could have occurred by chance, may in fact be hiding false positives. Using the standard technique, researchers try to estimate the probability of their results occurring under a so-called “null hypothesis” that nothing unusual is going on – in this case, the idea that precognition does not occur. If this probability is suitably small, they conclude that an alternative hypothesis must be true instead – in these experiments, the idea that precognition really exists.

But nowhere in this process do the experimenters calculate how likely the observations would be under the alternative hypothesis. When you do perform this calculation, using a different method known as Bayesian statistics, the results can be disconcerting. Suppose you toss a coin a 1000 times, and end up getting 527 tails. The odds of getting this far away from a 50:50 divide using a fair coin are a little less than 1 in 20. It’s tempting to think this means the odds are 20 to 1 that the coin is biased – but that’s not the case, says Jeff Rouder, a psychologist at the University of Missouri in Columbia. Even the best alternative – a coin that gives tails 52.7 per cent of the time – yields a probability of just 0.025 of getting exactly 527 tails, which is only a four-fold improvement over the odds of producing exactly 527 tails with a fair coin. “In other words, this new alternative is not much more probable than the one I rejected,” says Rouder. Other alternatives – that the coin comes up tails 55 per cent of the time, say – offer even less of an edge over the null.

Looking at Bem’s data in this way, Bayesian reanalyses by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, a mathematical psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, and Rouder found the case for precognition to be unconvincing. Such analyses have their own issues, though, since Bayesian statisticians must initially estimate the size of the possible effect – in this case, how much precognition should sway the results of the tests. Bem argues that Wagenmakers’s estimate was too high. His own Bayesian analysis concluded that his experiments, taken as a group, provided odds of about 13,000 to 1 in favour of precognition.

Whatever the outcome of this debate, most sceptics agree that another factor – prevalent throughout science – may have boosted the chances of producing these puzzling results. The issue arises from the difficulties of setting up a study, when you choose which variables to measure, how many samples to take, and which confounding factors to consider.

Ideally, all these decisions are made ahead of time, before any measurements have been collected. But in practice, experimenters often wing it, adjusting their techniques based on the results they see. For example, a researcher might measure two related variables, then report the one that gives the clearer (that is, more significant) result – providing two places for a false positive to pop up. The common practice of “optional stopping”, which involves analysing the data, then collecting more if the result is not quite significant, can also sway the chances of a false result.

Torturing the data

When researchers pick over their results in this way, they are in essence “torturing the data until they confess”, says Wagenmakers. The effect can be huge: a study with four common errors of this sort could end up with false positives more than 60 per cent of the time, according to simulations by Leif Nelson, a psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley, and his colleagues.

Bem says he has been careful to avoid these pitfalls. However, the sceptics – and even some who are inclined to think the results are real – wonder whether some unknown factors may have remained unchecked. “There’s a genuine concern that these effects – including the ones that I’ve observed – could be a product of all the different ways that you could analyse the data to make the research fit the hypothesis,” says Jonathan Schooler, a psychologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who is a co-author of Franklin’s study.

Fortunately, there is a straightforward way to settle the question – repeating the studies, with all procedures specified ahead of time in a public forum where everyone can see them. This eliminates the flexibility that can inflate the risk of false positives. If these studies still find evidence of precognition, then it deserves a closer look. If they do not, then the initial results were probably just false positives.

Bem, to his credit, has made this easier by making his set-up available to other researchers, and several replications have already been done. One, by Eugene Subbotsky of the University of Lancaster, UK, found results almost identical to Bem’s, while six others, including tests by Galak and Nelson, Schooler, Wagenmakers and Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire, UK, have failed to find any supporting evidence. Franklin, too, has finished a replication of his results that gave just barely significant support for precognition.

In the end, most scientists expect that most replications will fail and the current controversy over precognition will fade away, as all previous theories about ESP have before. “People are going to fail to replicate it, and that’s what’s going to make his statistics unimpressive in the end,” says Rouder.

But even if precognition does amount to nothing, Bem and Franklin may have made an important contribution to science by drawing our attention to how easily good researchers can be misled. After all, ESP researchers are not the only ones who torture their data. Thanks to increased computing power, researchers in every field have started to test one variable after another in search of interesting results, laying the ground for false positives to pop up like mushrooms after rain. “I think an awful lot of what’s published out there is wrong,” says Jim Berger, a statistician at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

To remedy this, Schooler, Nelson and others are calling for a more rigorous approach, in which researchers routinely do what some are now doing for Bem’s work: declare the experimental set-up beforehand, and report the results no matter what they look like.

The proposal may be more radical than it seems, because most researchers are reluctant to do “mere replications” that aren’t breaking new ground.

“It’s systemic,” says Wiseman. “Funders don’t like funding replications, scientists don’t like carrying them out, and journals don’t like publishing them.” Changing that mindset may be the biggest challenge of all.

Bob Holmes is a consultant for New Scientist based in Edmonton, Canada

11 January 2012 by Bob Holmes

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328471.800-esp-evidence-airs-sciences-dirty-laundry.html?full=true

Are you being influenced by the future?

This is interesting with regards to bio-stimulation devices that utilise electromagnetic and magnetic fields..

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083803/Hopes-cancer-breakthrough-treatment-using-electromagnetic-fields-shrink-tumours.html#ixzz1itYeuqqK

Scientists may have discovered a breakthrough in treating cancerous tumours by using low-intensity electromagnetic fields.

Patients taking part in the clinical trials were given a spoon-like antenna told hold in their mouths which then delivered the magnetic fields to their bodies.

A small number who were treated three times a week showed significant improvements.

Some of the tumours shrank and others stopped growing, while healthy cells in the surrounding tissue were unaffected.

But the group of scientists, from Switzerland, France, Brazil and the U.S, who reported their findings in the British Journal of Cancer, said the discovery was still in its early stages and would need further research in the coming years.

Professor Boris Pasche of the University of Alabama, Brimingham, said the treatment could be tolerated for long periods of time and used in conjunction with other therapies.

Pasche said that he had received permission from the US Food and Drug Administration to carry out trials on large groups of cancer patients and was currently in discussion with countries across the world to try and get funding for future research.

The findings showed that low-level electromagnetic fields at precise frequencies, ranging from 0.1Hz to 114kHz, halted the cancer growth in a small number of patients. Different types of cancer responded differently to different frequencies.

The exact reasoning for the process was not detailed in the journal but it is though that low-level electromagnetic fields interfere with the activity of genes in cancer cells.

In certain cases it affected the cancers ability to grow and in some cases the tumours began to shrink while others stopped growing.

The form of treatment may be controversial considering recent claims that technology such as mobile phones and electricity pylons can trigger cancer and leukaemia.

But Pasche insisted that his experiments used a lower intensity of electromagnetic fields that were between 100 and 1,000 times lower than those from a mobile phone.

Eleanor Barrie, of Cancer Research UK, welcomed the news. ‘This research shows how specific low frequencies of electromagnetic radiation can slow the growth of cancer cells in the lab,’ she told the Observer.

‘It’s still unclear why the cancer cells respond in this way, and it’s not yet clear if this approach could help patients, but it’s an interesting example of how researchers are working to find new ways to hone in on cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed.’

Interesting article on the Global Consciousness Homepage. Does this suggest that focused and synchronised human consciousness can effect the behaviour of random systems (such as random event generators)? How are we then influencing each other with our thoughts and intentions?

From the Daily Mail online:

As the fallen leader of one of America’s biggest foes, Kim Jong-Il would have been prominent on any U.S. intelligence watch-list. But still North Korea’s ‘dear leader’ managed to pass away on a train on Saturday night (Dec 17 20:30) without the outside world knowing for a whole two days. The remarkable intelligence blunder has left the world pondering the lack of American intelligence on one of the world’s most secretive nations.

Until a North Korean state TV announcement on Monday, South Korean officials had no idea Kim had died at 8:30pm on Saturday. Cautious U.S. officials were still quoting press reports well into Monday. The intelligence delay and failure to pick up on any clues shows the level of secrecy in the North Korean regime, reported the New York Times.

South Korean officials only found out what happened when North Korean state media reported the news in a 12pm announcement on Monday. ‘This shows a big loophole in our intelligence-gathering network on North Korea,’ South Korean politician Kwon Seon-taek told the New York Times.

Given the intense news coverage and geopolitical concerns that began upon the announcement, we chose this time rather than the time of Kim Jong-Il’s death for the GCP event. It was set for 24 hours beginning with the noontime (03:00 UTC) announcement on Monday, Dec 19. The result is Chisquare 86463.704 on 86400 df, for p = 0.438 and Z = 0.155.

The Higgs Boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. Its existence is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in the Standard Model. Experiments attempting to find the particle are currently being performed using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, and were performed at Fermilab’s Tevatron until Tevatron’s closure in late 2011.

On 12 December 2011, the ATLAS collaboration at the LHC found that a Higgs mass in the range from 145 to 206 GeV was excluded at the 95% confidence level.

Theories that do not need the Higgs boson also exist and would be considered if the existence of the Higgs Boson was ruled out. They are described as Higgsless models.

The wave only theory of reality is such a Higgless model - what are the implications?

http://www.anh-europe.org/campaigns/risk-assessment

The use of good science by regulators is vital if we are not to see unnecessary restriction of natural health.

Download the ANH A5 leaflet with regards to good science

CAMPAIGN SUMMARY:

• Under the guise of protecting public health, moves to limit access to health-promoting natural health products are being underpinned by poor science and flawed risk-assessments models.

• Conventional risk assessment models, originally developed to assess the impact of toxic drugs and chemicals, are being inappropriately applied to nutrients and botanicals.

• This is being done despite there being virtually no evidence that natural products are causing harm, and much historical, clinical and anecdotal evidence of their beneficial effects on health.

• Selective use of research data works in the best interests of the major pharmaceutical companies, who currently cannot patent naturally- occurring nutrients and botanicals.

• As well as facilitating the banning or limiting of ingredients used in natural health products,  faulty ‘risk assessment’ criteria are also being used to justify limiting maximum doses of nutrients and phytochemicals and restricting what can be said or written about products containing them.

Quantum physics has shown us that in the

quantum realm probabilities and potentials

are the most common factor of creating reality.

But who can answer the question of how the

fundamental order to create our universe arises

out of the chaos where everything is possible?

There must be some idea or plan which the

universe had followed since the very beginning.

In this paper we want to introduce the Global

Scaling phenomenon, which can be characterized

as the most important factor or master plan for

every process in our universe in space and time.

We can say that reality consists of a genotype

and a phenotype, which belong together like

information (mind), and matter. The visible

and measurable material world in the three

dimensions of space and the fourth dimension

of time can be seen as the phenotype and is the

expression of the mind we find in the genotype,

which contains the information how to create

the world. When we know the physical and mathematical laws we find in the genotype, we

are able to recognize the expression in our every

day world.

In medicine we have, among others, the problem

of misunderstanding how chronic diseases

develop over a long period of a life time.

Today medicine is not able to help cure those

conditions. More knowledge about the amounts

of processing of information in our cells or in the

whole body needs new explanations on how our

body is functioning. How does our body master

all its energy and information? To solve all our

problems of health care and medicine we are

looking for new models to explain the world which

we are an undividable part of and stay in constant

energy and information exchange with.

in the eighties of the last century. He also

developed the Global Scaling Theory to describe

the phenomenon scientifically. At that time Dr.

Müller was working at several Soviet universities

and scientific institutes after he had studied

physics, mathematics and philosophy in St.

Petersburg, the former Leningrad in the Soviet

times. When he turned back from Russia to

Germany after 1990 he was not allowed to

talk about Global Scaling by Russian order. In

2001 he founded the Institute of Space Energy

Research (IREF), today the Global Scaling

Research Institute GmbH in memoriam Leonhard

Euler (GSRI) which is situated in Munich and

leaded by Dr. Müller (www.global-scaling-institute.

de). An English version of a compendium on

Global Scaling can be downloaded there.

Global Scaling means the logarithmic scale-

invariance, fractal and hyperbolic structure of our

world. It explains the distribution of all matter in

the universe. What is the reason for the Global

Scaling phenomenon? Swinging, vibrating,

oscillating is the most effective way to move.

It needs least energy to keep moving. How do

systems swing most easily? The most effective,

the easiest way of swinging are the natural

oscillations of swinging systems. We should

imagine the universe as a system of coupled

oscillators. Lots of energy move through this

universe, get modified, never can be lost and are

always changed from one form of energy into

another. Everything is possible. But the natural

oscillations on the lowest energy level of matter

with the running of time become the ones to

create long lasting processes like structures in

space and time. We talk, for example, about

such structures in space and time like atoms,

molecules, crystals, cells, organisms, populations,

information amounts, civilizations, moons,

planets, stars and galaxies.

Our universe has dimensional borders: there is

the smallest dimension of quants like photons,

phonons or gravitons. The other dimension is at

the site of bigger structures then mega galaxies.

There exists mathematical work on this, but it

would lead too far to talk about this here. We

have to fix, that the universe has dimensional

borders in the logarithmic world, where waves are

reflected. Repeated reflections of waves lead to a

system of standing waves with a certain pattern

when it is swinging on the lowest energy level. We

find the basic standing waves in it and all the up

tunes, which are always created in nature when

a sound or an oscillation occurs. This system of

standing waves is a harmonic one, the same as

the harmony laws in music and in the cosmic

harmony of Kepler.

The spectrum of the standing wave system on

its lowest energy level is a logarithmic one.

It is fractal and hyperbolic. Scaling is a basic

property of fractal processes. The logarithm is the

natural logarithm, discovered by Leonhard Euler.

In the spectrum we find places with constant

changes, where matter, energy or information

get compressed or decompressed. The spectrum

is, in every dimension, self similar and it has

gaps, where there is nothing. To transfer such

a standing wave system into our visible world, it

must be calibrated with the natural oscillation of

the proton. Why? The natural oscillation of the

proton is the most stabile existing vibration in

the universe. It is always there, for eternity. We

can say so, because the life time of a proton is

at least 1032 years. The electron is the second

one, which is living for a very long time, but it

is 1836 times lighter than the proton, so – on

the lowest energy level – it is always moving; the

proton is leading it. Now it is possible to look,

how structures or patterns as the phenotype of

the universe, we find in our visible material world

in space and time, are related to the genotype

of our universe via the resonance to the natural

oscillations of the proton. This is the most

important thing in the understanding and the

practical usage of Global Scaling for our every day

life but also it is of fundamental importance for

creating new knowledge in the today’s scientific

world to prepare for today ..s and tomorrow ..s

needs.

In Global Scaling we learn about the intelligence

of nature how to use energy most effectively.

The intelligence is to be found in the natural

oscillations of the protons, every matter in the

world consists of, including our bodies.

The state of our health and wellbeing is

depending on the information patterns of our

body to use its energy most effectively. Evolution

has given us the present of our highly organized

body with huge possibilities to move, think and

act in the world that is amazing. The fundamental

information pattern – rule of order must be the

Global Scaling pattern, because it provides a long,

intelligent and easy way of life. Health care and

medicine research and treatment has to include

the knowledge of Global Scaling into life, because

we are learning about ourselves. We will find the

basics of our identity and will be ourselves in

harmonic interconnection with our inner and outer

near and far environment.

The biology of our body follows Global Scaling.

The graphic below shows, for example, the heart

rate. When we are resting, our heart beats 67

times a minute. We can see this rhythm in a

node. This means the heart needs least energy

for beating. If necessary, the heart can beat faster

or slower. Both possibilities need more energy,

but they are important for adapting to different

conditions of life. The possibility of adaptation is

well known as the heart rate variability (HRV).

Research is flowing at Dr. Müller’s institute and

some other companies, who produce health care

products to help people re-activate their self

healing capability, which is given by nature itself

through the intelligence of the natural oscillations

of matter itself. Among others the research work

of NES-Health is more and more based on the

knowledge of Global Scaling.

Probably in spring 2010 there will be a book

available about Global Scaling written by the

author of this small paper.

Source of graphics: Global Scaling Research Institute

GmbH in memoriam Leonhard Euler

The author:

Dr. med. univ./Hungary Rainer Viehweger

Certified NES-Practitioner and International

NES-Trainer

Global Scaling Space-Energy-Consultant

A-5622 Goldegg, Weng 26

www.praxis-viehweger.de

rainerviehweger@t-online.de