- Email: [email protected]
A new perspective on “the placebo effect”: Untangling the entanglement
Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Medical Hypotheses journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mehy
A new perspective on ‘‘the placebo effect’’: Untangling the entanglement Nisha J. Manek a,⇑, William A. Tiller b a b
Division of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 May 2011 Accepted 27 June 2011
a b s t r a c t It is generally accepted that a placebo in a standard, randomized, controlled trial (RCT), being an inert substance, cannot itself produce any effects. Yet, the magnitude of the placebo effect has increased remarkably in the last three decades. We propose that macroscopic information entanglement potentially explains a change in the placebo such that it no longer behaves as an isolated and inert element in a RCT. In modeling a theoretical perspective for the placebo effect, we will first show that human intention can change physical properties of target materials or biological systems. Second, we will explain how human intention appears to raise the gauge symmetry state of the experimental space from the normal electric, atom molecule level [U(1) gauge state] to a higher gauge symmetry level with magnetic wave information properties [SU(2) gauge state]. Under normal circumstances, these two separate gauge states do not interact with each other. Human intention is able to ‘‘condition’’ space so that the U(1) and SU(2) gauge states can interact or become ‘‘coupled’’. Intention effects are robust in the coupled space. Entanglement or connectivity of systems is seen by virtue of the SU(2) magnetic wave information component in coupled space. A medical trial has several ‘‘subsystems’’ including the doctors, subjects, treatment, and placebo. Although these subsystems in U(1) gauge state appear to be separate, they are entangled by the magnetic information wave component. Thus, the placebo becomes information entangled with the other subsystems in the overall experiment, including the treatment, and the end result is that the treatment and the placebo may behave in a very similar fashion. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction The world of medical research used to be a much simpler place. Thirty years ago, we lived in a normal universe where an inert element such as a placebo yielded expected null results compared with the active treatment in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) [1]. This normal, classical view made sense in the early 1980s when the placebo effect (or response) was almost zero. As time went on, the response rate increased significantly, up to a point where one might reasonably conclude that some clinical trials failed because of high placebo response rates (approximately 70% in the following three decades) [1]. The inert placebo that had come to serve an important scientific function in RCTs suddenly did not always behave as expected by any rational researcher or doctor [2]. The paradox here is that if something is inert, it is by definition unable to elicit any specific effect [3]. Adjusting to this new universe has been a tall order for medicine. Medical researchers have constructed complex ratiocinations to account for the placebo response [3,4]. Psychobiologic mecha⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Division of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. Tel.: +1 507 284 2002; fax: +1 507 284 0564. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.J. Manek). 0306-9877/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2011.06.047
nisms attributable to the overall therapeutic context are the more accepted theories in current conventional thinking [3]. The placebo effect has also been evaluated as a clinical treatment in itself when administered in a non-concealment fashion [5]. These are convenient theories based primarily on mind–body connections driving physiological changes and add much to our understanding of the placebo response. However, no one knows why the magnitude of the placebo effect has increased in the past 30 years, perhaps because of the lack of investigation into its underlying dynamics. What does this rapid change in the placebo response rate over time tell us about the actual laws of nature, as distinct from our assumptions about them? Perhaps the increase in the placebo effect is a result of a change in the physics of our universe.
Role of macroscopic information entanglement in the placebo effect In this paper, we present the hypothesis that macroscopic information entanglement plays a key role in the placebo effect. We will explain how a placebo is connected or entangled with all other parts or subsystems of a RCT. Consequently, we extend conventional medical thinking by exploring the limits imposed by medical science that all players in a system are separate and isolated from
615
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
each other in space and time. Physicists recognize that entanglement is of paramount importance in the overall behavior of any system in nature; even a small amount of entanglement can produce significant results in the macroscopic world [6]. The derivation of many key results differentiates this analysis from the usual presentation in that they are shown to follow logically from one crucial fact: that there are at least two unique levels of the physical space which are also known as gauge symmetry states: U(1) and SU(2). We will show that human intention can raise the gauge symmetry state of a space where entanglement effects occur. Intention opens a new window to our understanding of human consciousness, another phenomenon that is little understood. To set up a new framework for understanding the placebo effect, we will first review important data showing the effects of human intention on physical matter. Human intention can change material properties of matter The unstated assumption of conventional science in today’s world is that no human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, or mind can directly influence properties of physical matter. The second author (WAT) and his colleagues chose to test this unstated assumption by carefully designing four target experiments [7–10]. A novel 2-stage procedure was chosen for each experiment. In the first stage, a specific human intention from a deep meditative state was first imprinted mentally and emotionally into a simple ‘‘host’’ electrical device. In the second stage, this intention host device (IHD) was utilized to produce significant effects in an in vivo or in vitro biological experiment merely by electrically turning the IHD ‘‘on’’ in the immediate vicinity of an operational target experiment. The target experiments were (1) to increase or (2) to decrease the pH of a standard water sample by one full pH-unit without adding any chemical components (the measurement accuracy was ±0.01 pH units); (3) to increase (approximately 30% at p < 0.001) the in vitro chemical activity of the liver enzyme alkaline phosphatase (ALP); (4) to increase the in vivo ratio of Adenosine50 -triphosphate to Adenosine diphosphate (ATP/ADP) in the cells of fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster larvae so that they would have a significantly reduced (approximately 25% at p < 0.001) larval developmental time to the adult fly stage. All four target experiments were successful and the results were published [7–10]. Thus, human intention can have a robust influence on the physical properties of target materials or biological systems, contrary to the unstated assumption of conventional medical science. We will now define the conditions wherein intention effects are seen. Unique levels of the physical space in experiments During the replication process of their water pH experimental data, WAT discovered a remarkable phenomenon. Using an IHD continuously for 3–4 months, the laboratory experimental space itself became changed or ‘‘conditioned’’ and the state of that conditioning determined the robustness of the target experiments [11,12]. The typical time-evolution pattern is shown in Fig. 1. For example, in the water pH experiments, after 1–2 months, oscillations in the laboratory air temperature, water pH, and direct current (DC) magnetic field polarity effects were observed (see Fig. 2) [11,12]. The experimental space appeared to change from U(1) electromagnetic (EM) gauge symmetry state to the next higher SU(2) EM gauge symmetry state [13,14]. Not only were the target experiment’s physical properties changing in line with the original intention, but the space in which the experiments were being conducted also exhibited a different level of thermodynamics. The U(1) gauge state consists of purely electric atom-molecule substance; this level constitutes our everyday reality and it is in
Some volume fraction of SU (2) gauge
U (1) gauge Conventional physics
Transitional physics
New physics
QM1 Unconditioned space “uncoupled”
QM
(normal reality)
Conditioned space “coupled” (enhanced reality)
Partial conditioning
QM0 t0
t1
t2
Processing time with activated IHD Fig. 1. The time-evolution pattern of the intention target experiments. The measured property, QM, of a particular material (e.g., pH of water) is shown as a function of time (t) of exposure of the experimental space to the intention host device IHD). The measurement at t = 0 is QM0, the value expected at the normal electric charge-based U(1) gauge state. After approximately t t1, between one and two months, the QM(t) data begin to change in a sigmoidal fashion, always in the direction of the specific intention, to a value close to QM1 QM0 + DQM(intention). The U(1) gauge state has also been called an ‘‘uncoupled’’ state and the SU(2) gauge the ‘‘coupled’’ state of physical reality wherein we observe the effects of the IHD. Here, some volume fraction of SU(2) gauge state material forms within the matrix of U(1) state material to change the overall properties of the material. U(1) gauge symmetry state = unconditioned or uncoupled (normal reality) space; SU(2) gauge symmetry = conditioned or coupled space.
this level where conventional medical science measurements attempt to be made. The SU(2) gauge state, which consists of magnetic information wave substance, is not normally accessed by our typical measuring instruments unless the space is first conditioned to a higher symmetry level. These two unique levels of physical realities are always available in nature, and therefore in any space, but they do not normally interact with each other. Here, the U and SU are group theory symbols where these numbers are considered to be the electron charge wave function phase angle and magnetic charge wave function phase angle, respectively [13]. Gauge theory plays a key role in describing the interconnections between fundamental forces of nature such as electricity and magnetism and various particles in nature. Gauge invariance, a basic symmetry, can be used to derive the theory of electromagnetism, and also other forces such as the ‘‘strong force’’ of the nucleus. Electromagnetism has U(1) as its gauge group. The YangMills Fields, needed to deal with neutron-proton exchange reactions via the strong force, function at the SU(2) EM gauge symmetry state level [15].
The master equation of coupling of the two levels of physical space We can pedagogically represent the zeroth-order coupling of the two levels of physical space shown in Fig. 1 by the following approximate mathematical formulation:
Q M ðtÞ ¼ Q e þ aeff ðtÞQ m ðtÞ
ð1Þ
Here: QM(t) = the physical measurement of a material property, Q, of magnitude, QM (this might be water pH, air temperature, electrical conductivity, etc.) with experimental time (t), Qe = magnitude of the contribution of the normal U(1) gauge state electric atom/molecule value, Qm = magnitude of the SU(2) gauge state, physical vacuum, magnetic information wave value, and aeff = the coupling coefficient
616
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
Macroscopic information entanglement exists between measurement systems separated by distance and time
Fig. 2. The direct current (dc) magnetic field polarity effect of a conditioned space. One experimental signature of a conditioned space is the direct current (DC) magnetic field polarity effect. In a normal unconditioned laboratory state [U(1) gauge], the polarity of a magnetic field applied to a jar of water should not influence the measured pH of water because the force and energy of a magnetic dipole is independent of geometrical orientation in space. However, DpH values as large as 3=4 pH units have been observed when the same experiment is carried out in a conditioned space [partially SU(2) gauge]. This graph illustrates pH changes over time for pure water for north pole up and south pole up axially aligned DC magnetic fields at 100 and 500 gauss. The neutral pH changes to alkaline with the south pole pointing into the water and acidic with the north pole pointing into the water. One interpretation of this behavior is that, for the SU(2) gauge level, the measuring instrumentation is accessing individual magnetic charges or single poles, a phenomenon that is not observed in normal everyday reality and that indicates a fundamental change in the electromagnetic nature of the laboratory space with the imprinted IHD.
between the two physical substance realities with values between 0 and 1. The important fact here is that the space wherein the intention is to manifest must first be ‘‘raised’’ or conditioned to a higher EM gauge symmetry state, that is, the SU(2) gauge. Then, aeff will be greater than zero for the magnetic information wave equation aspects of the quantity Qm to become operational in our measurement world. As aeff decreases toward zero, the coupled state of the space returns to the normal ‘‘everyday,’’ uncoupled state of physical reality and no change in the material property is observed. However, as one conditions the space with the use of the IHD, the mixed U(1)/SU(2) symmetry state of the experimental space changes so that the magnetic information wave value, Qm, of Eq. (1) begins to interact with Qe, allowing the measured material property, QM(t), to change in accordance with the specific intention embedded in the IHD. Mathematically, Qe and Qm can possess different constituent qualities. The magnetic information, Qm, is the physical vacuum value (seemingly ‘‘empty space’’) between the fundamental particles that make up the electric atoms and molecules of the normal U(1) gauge state level of physical reality [16]. It is important to note that the U(1) gauge substances (Qe) are very often mathematically scalar quantities (only one number is needed to define a property at one point in space) whereas SU(2) gauge symmetry substances or Qm (being wave-like with magnetic information wave properties) generally exhibit vector or tensor mathematical qualities (magnitude, direction, phase and geometric mapping define the property at any one point in space) [16].
Replication of the DpH = +1.0 pH-unit experiment has been successfully conducted at 4 IHD host sites in the U.S. [10,11,17]. During the replication phase, a second remarkable phenomenon was observed. Multiple control sites 2–20 miles apart with identical equipment running continuously but with no such IHD ever being present in that space, displayed a very similar pH (t) profile. This type of behavior would never occur in a U(1) gauge state laboratory; the control site laboratory space had become conditioned. The transfer of the DpH +1 unit charge from the IHD-conditioned site to the control site has been labeled ‘‘macroscopic information entanglement’’ by WAT. This entanglement was sequentially observed, first at 100 m, then at 2–20 miles, next at 1500 miles and finally at around 5000–6000 miles [11,17,18]. These observations show that not only is the intention information entangled over large distances but also that maintaining control sites is very difficult if not impossible. Of note, too, is that this macroscopic entanglement appears to be different than quantum entanglement which, in essence, deals with the interconnectivity of quantum states of particles such as photons and electrons, even when widely separated from one another by distance and time [19]. Successful experiments on quantum entanglement have been carried out at extremely low temperatures (near absolute zero), usually with tiny systems but recently in larger systems such as small crystals [20]. On the other hand, macroscopic information entanglement phenomena are observed at room temperature, between physical laboratory sites, approximately 103–104 cubic feet in volume, and separated from each other by up to 6000 miles. It has been proposed by WAT that the ‘‘macroscopic information entanglement’’ effect phenomenon sheds light on the change that can be expected with the placebo entity in a RCT. Theoretical modeling for a placebo effect In any system, the U(1) and SU(2) gauge levels are separate but can be connected or coupled in an IHD-conditioned space. As noted above, the U(1) gauge substances (Qe) are very often scalar quantities whereas SU(2) gauge symmetry substances (Qm) exhibit vector and tensor mathematical qualities [16]. In any experimental system, composed of a number of subsystem with SU(2) gauge vectors, each vector must be appropriately added to the next in a head to tail arrangement to form the total SU(2) gauge system magnetic wave contribution (see Appendix) [21]. For the simplest scalar/single vector case in Eq. (1), we have:
Q M ðtÞ Q e þ aeff ðtÞRm ðkÞ exp½ihm ðkÞ
ð2Þ
Here, we consider that Qe has a scalar value. The Qm magnetic wave contribution is derived from amplitude, Rm(k) of the vector as a function of wave number, k, (related to frequency), and hm(k) is the phase angle of the vector, while i is the imaginary quantity (i2 = 1) and exp represents the exponential function. For a more complex case such as a double-blind RCT with placebo wherein we abstractly represent each individual part (or subsystem) like Eq. (2) with doctor, D, treatment, T, placebo, P, and subjects, s, the U(1) gauge aspects, Qe, of these four parts can most simply be considered as non-interacting scalar quantities (Fig. 3). However, in an information sense, the SU(2) gauge wave aspects (Qm) for each component or subsystem of the RCT must be added vectorially. The Qm term is determined by four sub-system vector contributions defined with subscripts D, T, P, and s (in a head to tail addition) to form an entire system vector, RmS ðkÞ exp½ihmS ðkÞ, which yields:
617
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
Cosmos
Rather, the placebo becomes information-entangled with all other items in the overall experiment, including the treatment. The end result is entangled information and the result of treatment alone can appear to be no different than the result with the placebo. This consequence does not mean that the treatment is not medically efficacious; it only means that, in the types of experiments being conducted, the information entanglement issues dominate to make every item become connected to every other item in the experiment both locally and non-locally. Ultimately, the coupled state RCT is much more complex than presently appreciated and it will take considerable effort for medical science to sort things out properly. However, in the meantime we must be circumspect about rejecting a medical treatment because its presently measured efficacy is little different from that produced by the placebo in the entangled experiment!
Patient
Physics – (electromagnetic gauge symmetry level of the space) Placebo or Treatment or Both
Doctor
Some further theoretical perspectives Fig. 3. Entanglement between parts of medical experiments. In any RCT, the important qualities of interest are at least vectors and thus, for a system of multiple parts, there is always an information entanglement between parts unless they are totally isolated from each other. In a coupled reality, there is entanglement between the placebo and physician as well as the patient. This is a simple picture of the key factors involved in the general relationship. The human biofields are significantly involved in the interaction (both quality and magnitude).
Q MS ðtÞ
s X
eff ðtÞ Q ej þ a
j¼D
s X
Rmj ðkÞexp½ihmj ðkÞ
ð3Þ
j¼D
Experimentally, it is not RmS ðkÞ exp½ihmS ðkÞ that one is able to measure but rather the intensity, IS ðkÞ ¼ R2mS ðkÞ, for the system vector. This quantity is obtained theoretically by multiplying the system vector by its complex conjugate, RmS ðkÞ exp½ihmS ðkÞ, which eliminates the ‘imaginary’ part to give a mathematically ‘real’ quantity. This is where entanglement between the four items (D, T, P, s) enters the picture! To simplify the mathematics, yet illustrate this information entanglement process, let us look at what happens to the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (3) as a consequence of this multiplication procedure to obtain IS(k) for a comparison. Neglecting k (the vector coordinate), IS becomes as shown in Eq. (4):
(
a 2eff ½R2mD þ R2mT þ R2mP þ R2ms þ 2
"
ms cosðhD hs Þ RmD RmT cosðhD hT Þ þ RmD RmP cosðhD hP Þ þ RmD R ms cosðhP hs Þ þRmT RmP cosðhT hP Þ þ RmT Rms cosðhT hs Þ þ RmP R
Here, we see the crux of the issue. If the placebo acted in the RCT as an inert item, it would not be represented at all in the second square bracket in the above result. However, as can be readily seen, the contribution connected to the placebo, P, is given by:
n
a 2eff R2mP þ 2RmP ½RmD cosðhD hP Þ þ RmT RmP cosðhT hP Þ ms cosðhP hs Þ þR
In medical research in the 1980s, the usual experimental assumption that the placebo in the experimental protocol was an inert participant was a good approximation to the truth at that time. To explain why temporal trends in placebo response have increased, we ask: Is something happening in nature to cause aeff to increase over time, but in an accelerating fashion so that the magnetic wave contribution, Qm, could be of negligible size in the mid1980s and yet of a significant portion in 2010? It is the working hypothesis of WAT that the cosmic scale process appearing to happen and grow in amplitude everywhere during this general period (about 1980–2010) and the basic physics behind this section’s experimental observations are related so as to increase entanglement between subsystems. For example, since 1998, astronomers have discovered that 95% of the cosmos is dark energy and dark matter combined. The concept of dark energy as a property of space arose to explain the observed finding of an accelerating expansion of the cosmos. The rest—everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all our instruments, all normal matter—adds up to less than 5% of the universe. In fact, it has been suggested that normal matter should not be called ‘‘normal’’ at all, since it is such a small fraction of the physical universe [23].
ð5Þ
Thus, although the placebo is essentially inert at the electric atom-molecule level (QeP 0), the QmP is not zero provided that the system is functioning at the partially coupled state of physical reality where aeff > 0 [22]. Since the overall event involves humans and their biofields, the RCT is always to some degree at a partially coupled state of physical reality. The bottom line is that, when one conducts a double-blind RCT with a placebo, all the players (doctor, subject, placebo and treatment) are not isolated from each other in the magnetic wave domain; the wave aspects macroscopically interact with the particle aspects and we can no longer assume that the placebo in the experiment behaves in an inert fashion.
#) ð4Þ
Information and the second law of thermodynamics Changes in Gibb’s thermodynamic free energy are what drive all the processes in nature that have so far been discovered. The Gibb’s thermodynamic free energy function, G, can be obtained by the following master equation:
G ¼ PV þ E T
S0
X
!
DI j
j
where P = pressure, V = volume, E = internal energy, T = temperature, and S = entropy, a measure of disorder, and I = information. Thus, all the terms in changes of G, that is, DG, (PDV, VDP, DE, TDS, and SDT) are equally important for producing significant changes in our world. Since the 1940s and the time of Shannon’s [24] original work on information and subsequent work by Brouillion [25] and others, we have known that a process in nature that increases the information (I) content of the universe by DI also de-
618
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
y
creases the thermodynamic entropy (S) content of the universe by exactly the same amount; that is, DS equals negative information (DI). The term in the brackets, S0, is the original entropy, minus P the sum, , over all the different types (denoted: j), of information change (denoted: DIj), which are active in the process. Human consciousness and intention manipulates and is a source of information such as numbers, letters, or symbols, which increases information and leads to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy. Information changes such as these, therefore, have the ability to do work.
Qs QR θs QD θR
θD 0
x -θR
Conflict of interest None.
Q*R
Appendix: Macroscopic information entanglement In a simple example, we can take a system of two interacting participants and metaphorically represent them by vectors: the doctor, D, and the subject (or patient), s. Fig. A1 shows two vectors, QD and Qs, their phase angles, hD and hs, and the projected components QDx and Qsy, plus their complex conjugates Q D and Q s , (mirror reflection in the x-axis, broken gray arrows). Fig. B1 illustrates the vector addition of QD and Qs to obtain the resultant vector, QR, and its complex conjugate (broken gray arrow). Although the magnitude of the resultant wave amplitude in Fig. B1 is an important quantity, it is the resultant intensity pattern, IR, that can be experimentally measured. This is given by the square of QR (i.e., Q 2R ). In Fig. B1 using the mathematics of the Pythagorean Theorem, the intensity can be calculated as follows:
IR ¼ Q 2R ¼ ½Q 2D þ Q 2s þ 2ðQ Dx Q sx þ Q Dy Q sy Þ
Here cos means the cosine function. In this equation, where the product of both vectors’ amplitudes appears, this term always represents an information entanglement between the two vectors. Thus, the aeff Qm part of Eq. (1) (main text) involves coupled vectors of amplitude RD and Rs and the phase angles hD and hs. In the general case, where N-vectors compose the total system, a term is present for each vector pair Qi Qj in the entire system multiplied by a cosine of the phase angle difference, hi hj. This term is the information entanglement. As an illustrative example, we know that physician characteristics, such as the therapeutic relationship with patients, or physiy
QD Qs
θD 0
-θD
θs QDx
x
-θs
Q*s -QDy
cian behavior and enthusiasm can influence the success of treatments outcomes. In the cosine term in the above mathematical expression, when the doctor and subject are totally in phase with each other (in tune), the cosine = + 1, (hD = hs) and maximum information entanglement occurs. When the two humans are antagonistic to each other (totally out of phase), the cosine equals 1 and a setback occurs in the clinical encounter.
References
¼ ½Q 2D þ Q 2s þ 2RD Rs cosðhD hs Þ
QDy
Fig. B1. Diagram showing vector summation for Doctor, QD and subject, Qs, to obtain the resultant vector QR. D = Doctor; s = subject; Q = vector magnitude; R = vector amplitude; h = vector phase angle.
Q*D
Fig. A1. Phasor diagram of rotating vectors for Doctor and subject showing individual vectors where D = Doctor; s = subject; Q = magnitude of vector; and h = vector phase angle.
[1] Enserink M. Can the placebo be the cure? Science 1999;284:238–40. [2] Kaptchuk TJ. Powerful placebo: the dark side of the randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1998;351:1722–5. [3] Finniss DG, Kaptchuk TJ, Miller F, Benedetti F. Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects. Lancet 2010;375:686–95. [4] Miller FG, Colloca L, Kaptchuk TJ. The placebo effect: illness and interpersonal healing. Perspect Biol Med 2009;52:518–39. [5] Kaptchuk TJ, Friedlander E, Kelley JM, et al. Placebos without deception: a randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PLoS One 2010;5:e15591. [6] Vedral V. Quantum physics: entanglement hits the big time. Nature 2003;425:28–9. [7] Tiller WA, Dibble WE, Kohane MJ. Conscious acts of creation: the emergence of a new physics. Walnut Creek, California: Pavior Publishing; 2001. [8] Tiller WA, Kohane MJ, Dibble WE. Can an aspect of consciousness be imprinted into an electronic device? Integr Physiol Behav Sci 2000;35:142–62 [discussion 163]. [9] Kohane MJ, Tiller WA. Biological processes, quantum mechanics and electromagnetic fields: the possibility of device-encapsulated human intention in medical therapies. Med Hypotheses 2001;56:598–607. [10] Pajunen GA, Purnell MJ, Dibble Jr WE, Tiller WA. Altering the acid/alkaline balance of water via the use of an intention-host device. J Altern Complement Med 2009;15:963–8. [11] Tiller WA, Dibble Jr WE, Nunley R, Shealy CN. Toward general experimentation and discovery in conditioned laboratory spaces: Part I. Experimental pH change findings at some remote sites. J Altern Complement Med 2004;10:145–57. [12] Tiller WA, Dibble WE. Expanding the thermodynamic perspective for materials in an su(2) electromagnetic gauge symmetry space. Mat Res Innov 2008;11:163. [13] Moriyasu K. An elementary primer for gauge theory. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.,; 1983. [14] Tiller WA, Dibble WE. Toward general experimentation and discovery in conditioned laboratory and complementary and alternative medicine spaces: part v. Data on 10 different sites using a robust new type of subtle energy detector. J Altern Complement Med 2007;13:133–49. [15] Yang CN, Mills RL. Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance. Phys Rev 1954;96:191–5. [16] Tiller WA. Psychoenergetic science. a second copernican scale revolution. Walnut Creek: Pavior Publishing; 2007. p. 82. [17] Tiller WA, Dibble Jr WE, Shealy CN, Nunley RN. Toward general experimentation and discovery in conditioned laboratory spaces: Part II. pH-
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
[18]
[19] [20] [21]
change experience at four remote sites, 1 year later. J Altern Complement Med 2004;10:301–6. Tiller WA, Dibble WE, Orlando G, Migli A, Raiteri G, Oca J. Toward general experimentation and discovery in conditioned laboratory spaces: part IV. Macroscopic information entanglement between sites approximately 6000 miles apart. J Altern Complement Med 2005;11:973–6. Aczel A. Entanglement. London: Penguin; 2003. Ghosh S, Rosenbaum TF, Aeppli G, Coppersmith SN. Entangled quantum state of magnetic dipoles. Nature 2003;425:48–51. Tiller WA. On understanding the very different science premises meaningful to CAM versus orthodox medicine: part I – the fundamentals. J Altern Complement Med 2010;16:327–35.
619
[22] Tiller WA. On understanding the very different science premises meaningful to CAM versus orthodox medicine: part II–applications of part I fundamentals to five different space-time examples. J Altern Complement Med 2010;16:507–16. [23] N.A.S.A. (NASA). Dark energy, Dark matter 2011.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Medical Hypotheses journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mehy
A new perspective on ‘‘the placebo effect’’: Untangling the entanglement Nisha J. Manek a,⇑, William A. Tiller b a b
Division of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 May 2011 Accepted 27 June 2011
a b s t r a c t It is generally accepted that a placebo in a standard, randomized, controlled trial (RCT), being an inert substance, cannot itself produce any effects. Yet, the magnitude of the placebo effect has increased remarkably in the last three decades. We propose that macroscopic information entanglement potentially explains a change in the placebo such that it no longer behaves as an isolated and inert element in a RCT. In modeling a theoretical perspective for the placebo effect, we will first show that human intention can change physical properties of target materials or biological systems. Second, we will explain how human intention appears to raise the gauge symmetry state of the experimental space from the normal electric, atom molecule level [U(1) gauge state] to a higher gauge symmetry level with magnetic wave information properties [SU(2) gauge state]. Under normal circumstances, these two separate gauge states do not interact with each other. Human intention is able to ‘‘condition’’ space so that the U(1) and SU(2) gauge states can interact or become ‘‘coupled’’. Intention effects are robust in the coupled space. Entanglement or connectivity of systems is seen by virtue of the SU(2) magnetic wave information component in coupled space. A medical trial has several ‘‘subsystems’’ including the doctors, subjects, treatment, and placebo. Although these subsystems in U(1) gauge state appear to be separate, they are entangled by the magnetic information wave component. Thus, the placebo becomes information entangled with the other subsystems in the overall experiment, including the treatment, and the end result is that the treatment and the placebo may behave in a very similar fashion. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction The world of medical research used to be a much simpler place. Thirty years ago, we lived in a normal universe where an inert element such as a placebo yielded expected null results compared with the active treatment in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) [1]. This normal, classical view made sense in the early 1980s when the placebo effect (or response) was almost zero. As time went on, the response rate increased significantly, up to a point where one might reasonably conclude that some clinical trials failed because of high placebo response rates (approximately 70% in the following three decades) [1]. The inert placebo that had come to serve an important scientific function in RCTs suddenly did not always behave as expected by any rational researcher or doctor [2]. The paradox here is that if something is inert, it is by definition unable to elicit any specific effect [3]. Adjusting to this new universe has been a tall order for medicine. Medical researchers have constructed complex ratiocinations to account for the placebo response [3,4]. Psychobiologic mecha⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Division of Rheumatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. Tel.: +1 507 284 2002; fax: +1 507 284 0564. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.J. Manek). 0306-9877/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2011.06.047
nisms attributable to the overall therapeutic context are the more accepted theories in current conventional thinking [3]. The placebo effect has also been evaluated as a clinical treatment in itself when administered in a non-concealment fashion [5]. These are convenient theories based primarily on mind–body connections driving physiological changes and add much to our understanding of the placebo response. However, no one knows why the magnitude of the placebo effect has increased in the past 30 years, perhaps because of the lack of investigation into its underlying dynamics. What does this rapid change in the placebo response rate over time tell us about the actual laws of nature, as distinct from our assumptions about them? Perhaps the increase in the placebo effect is a result of a change in the physics of our universe.
Role of macroscopic information entanglement in the placebo effect In this paper, we present the hypothesis that macroscopic information entanglement plays a key role in the placebo effect. We will explain how a placebo is connected or entangled with all other parts or subsystems of a RCT. Consequently, we extend conventional medical thinking by exploring the limits imposed by medical science that all players in a system are separate and isolated from
615
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
each other in space and time. Physicists recognize that entanglement is of paramount importance in the overall behavior of any system in nature; even a small amount of entanglement can produce significant results in the macroscopic world [6]. The derivation of many key results differentiates this analysis from the usual presentation in that they are shown to follow logically from one crucial fact: that there are at least two unique levels of the physical space which are also known as gauge symmetry states: U(1) and SU(2). We will show that human intention can raise the gauge symmetry state of a space where entanglement effects occur. Intention opens a new window to our understanding of human consciousness, another phenomenon that is little understood. To set up a new framework for understanding the placebo effect, we will first review important data showing the effects of human intention on physical matter. Human intention can change material properties of matter The unstated assumption of conventional science in today’s world is that no human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, or mind can directly influence properties of physical matter. The second author (WAT) and his colleagues chose to test this unstated assumption by carefully designing four target experiments [7–10]. A novel 2-stage procedure was chosen for each experiment. In the first stage, a specific human intention from a deep meditative state was first imprinted mentally and emotionally into a simple ‘‘host’’ electrical device. In the second stage, this intention host device (IHD) was utilized to produce significant effects in an in vivo or in vitro biological experiment merely by electrically turning the IHD ‘‘on’’ in the immediate vicinity of an operational target experiment. The target experiments were (1) to increase or (2) to decrease the pH of a standard water sample by one full pH-unit without adding any chemical components (the measurement accuracy was ±0.01 pH units); (3) to increase (approximately 30% at p < 0.001) the in vitro chemical activity of the liver enzyme alkaline phosphatase (ALP); (4) to increase the in vivo ratio of Adenosine50 -triphosphate to Adenosine diphosphate (ATP/ADP) in the cells of fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster larvae so that they would have a significantly reduced (approximately 25% at p < 0.001) larval developmental time to the adult fly stage. All four target experiments were successful and the results were published [7–10]. Thus, human intention can have a robust influence on the physical properties of target materials or biological systems, contrary to the unstated assumption of conventional medical science. We will now define the conditions wherein intention effects are seen. Unique levels of the physical space in experiments During the replication process of their water pH experimental data, WAT discovered a remarkable phenomenon. Using an IHD continuously for 3–4 months, the laboratory experimental space itself became changed or ‘‘conditioned’’ and the state of that conditioning determined the robustness of the target experiments [11,12]. The typical time-evolution pattern is shown in Fig. 1. For example, in the water pH experiments, after 1–2 months, oscillations in the laboratory air temperature, water pH, and direct current (DC) magnetic field polarity effects were observed (see Fig. 2) [11,12]. The experimental space appeared to change from U(1) electromagnetic (EM) gauge symmetry state to the next higher SU(2) EM gauge symmetry state [13,14]. Not only were the target experiment’s physical properties changing in line with the original intention, but the space in which the experiments were being conducted also exhibited a different level of thermodynamics. The U(1) gauge state consists of purely electric atom-molecule substance; this level constitutes our everyday reality and it is in
Some volume fraction of SU (2) gauge
U (1) gauge Conventional physics
Transitional physics
New physics
QM1 Unconditioned space “uncoupled”
QM
(normal reality)
Conditioned space “coupled” (enhanced reality)
Partial conditioning
QM0 t0
t1
t2
Processing time with activated IHD Fig. 1. The time-evolution pattern of the intention target experiments. The measured property, QM, of a particular material (e.g., pH of water) is shown as a function of time (t) of exposure of the experimental space to the intention host device IHD). The measurement at t = 0 is QM0, the value expected at the normal electric charge-based U(1) gauge state. After approximately t t1, between one and two months, the QM(t) data begin to change in a sigmoidal fashion, always in the direction of the specific intention, to a value close to QM1 QM0 + DQM(intention). The U(1) gauge state has also been called an ‘‘uncoupled’’ state and the SU(2) gauge the ‘‘coupled’’ state of physical reality wherein we observe the effects of the IHD. Here, some volume fraction of SU(2) gauge state material forms within the matrix of U(1) state material to change the overall properties of the material. U(1) gauge symmetry state = unconditioned or uncoupled (normal reality) space; SU(2) gauge symmetry = conditioned or coupled space.
this level where conventional medical science measurements attempt to be made. The SU(2) gauge state, which consists of magnetic information wave substance, is not normally accessed by our typical measuring instruments unless the space is first conditioned to a higher symmetry level. These two unique levels of physical realities are always available in nature, and therefore in any space, but they do not normally interact with each other. Here, the U and SU are group theory symbols where these numbers are considered to be the electron charge wave function phase angle and magnetic charge wave function phase angle, respectively [13]. Gauge theory plays a key role in describing the interconnections between fundamental forces of nature such as electricity and magnetism and various particles in nature. Gauge invariance, a basic symmetry, can be used to derive the theory of electromagnetism, and also other forces such as the ‘‘strong force’’ of the nucleus. Electromagnetism has U(1) as its gauge group. The YangMills Fields, needed to deal with neutron-proton exchange reactions via the strong force, function at the SU(2) EM gauge symmetry state level [15].
The master equation of coupling of the two levels of physical space We can pedagogically represent the zeroth-order coupling of the two levels of physical space shown in Fig. 1 by the following approximate mathematical formulation:
Q M ðtÞ ¼ Q e þ aeff ðtÞQ m ðtÞ
ð1Þ
Here: QM(t) = the physical measurement of a material property, Q, of magnitude, QM (this might be water pH, air temperature, electrical conductivity, etc.) with experimental time (t), Qe = magnitude of the contribution of the normal U(1) gauge state electric atom/molecule value, Qm = magnitude of the SU(2) gauge state, physical vacuum, magnetic information wave value, and aeff = the coupling coefficient
616
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
Macroscopic information entanglement exists between measurement systems separated by distance and time
Fig. 2. The direct current (dc) magnetic field polarity effect of a conditioned space. One experimental signature of a conditioned space is the direct current (DC) magnetic field polarity effect. In a normal unconditioned laboratory state [U(1) gauge], the polarity of a magnetic field applied to a jar of water should not influence the measured pH of water because the force and energy of a magnetic dipole is independent of geometrical orientation in space. However, DpH values as large as 3=4 pH units have been observed when the same experiment is carried out in a conditioned space [partially SU(2) gauge]. This graph illustrates pH changes over time for pure water for north pole up and south pole up axially aligned DC magnetic fields at 100 and 500 gauss. The neutral pH changes to alkaline with the south pole pointing into the water and acidic with the north pole pointing into the water. One interpretation of this behavior is that, for the SU(2) gauge level, the measuring instrumentation is accessing individual magnetic charges or single poles, a phenomenon that is not observed in normal everyday reality and that indicates a fundamental change in the electromagnetic nature of the laboratory space with the imprinted IHD.
between the two physical substance realities with values between 0 and 1. The important fact here is that the space wherein the intention is to manifest must first be ‘‘raised’’ or conditioned to a higher EM gauge symmetry state, that is, the SU(2) gauge. Then, aeff will be greater than zero for the magnetic information wave equation aspects of the quantity Qm to become operational in our measurement world. As aeff decreases toward zero, the coupled state of the space returns to the normal ‘‘everyday,’’ uncoupled state of physical reality and no change in the material property is observed. However, as one conditions the space with the use of the IHD, the mixed U(1)/SU(2) symmetry state of the experimental space changes so that the magnetic information wave value, Qm, of Eq. (1) begins to interact with Qe, allowing the measured material property, QM(t), to change in accordance with the specific intention embedded in the IHD. Mathematically, Qe and Qm can possess different constituent qualities. The magnetic information, Qm, is the physical vacuum value (seemingly ‘‘empty space’’) between the fundamental particles that make up the electric atoms and molecules of the normal U(1) gauge state level of physical reality [16]. It is important to note that the U(1) gauge substances (Qe) are very often mathematically scalar quantities (only one number is needed to define a property at one point in space) whereas SU(2) gauge symmetry substances or Qm (being wave-like with magnetic information wave properties) generally exhibit vector or tensor mathematical qualities (magnitude, direction, phase and geometric mapping define the property at any one point in space) [16].
Replication of the DpH = +1.0 pH-unit experiment has been successfully conducted at 4 IHD host sites in the U.S. [10,11,17]. During the replication phase, a second remarkable phenomenon was observed. Multiple control sites 2–20 miles apart with identical equipment running continuously but with no such IHD ever being present in that space, displayed a very similar pH (t) profile. This type of behavior would never occur in a U(1) gauge state laboratory; the control site laboratory space had become conditioned. The transfer of the DpH +1 unit charge from the IHD-conditioned site to the control site has been labeled ‘‘macroscopic information entanglement’’ by WAT. This entanglement was sequentially observed, first at 100 m, then at 2–20 miles, next at 1500 miles and finally at around 5000–6000 miles [11,17,18]. These observations show that not only is the intention information entangled over large distances but also that maintaining control sites is very difficult if not impossible. Of note, too, is that this macroscopic entanglement appears to be different than quantum entanglement which, in essence, deals with the interconnectivity of quantum states of particles such as photons and electrons, even when widely separated from one another by distance and time [19]. Successful experiments on quantum entanglement have been carried out at extremely low temperatures (near absolute zero), usually with tiny systems but recently in larger systems such as small crystals [20]. On the other hand, macroscopic information entanglement phenomena are observed at room temperature, between physical laboratory sites, approximately 103–104 cubic feet in volume, and separated from each other by up to 6000 miles. It has been proposed by WAT that the ‘‘macroscopic information entanglement’’ effect phenomenon sheds light on the change that can be expected with the placebo entity in a RCT. Theoretical modeling for a placebo effect In any system, the U(1) and SU(2) gauge levels are separate but can be connected or coupled in an IHD-conditioned space. As noted above, the U(1) gauge substances (Qe) are very often scalar quantities whereas SU(2) gauge symmetry substances (Qm) exhibit vector and tensor mathematical qualities [16]. In any experimental system, composed of a number of subsystem with SU(2) gauge vectors, each vector must be appropriately added to the next in a head to tail arrangement to form the total SU(2) gauge system magnetic wave contribution (see Appendix) [21]. For the simplest scalar/single vector case in Eq. (1), we have:
Q M ðtÞ Q e þ aeff ðtÞRm ðkÞ exp½ihm ðkÞ
ð2Þ
Here, we consider that Qe has a scalar value. The Qm magnetic wave contribution is derived from amplitude, Rm(k) of the vector as a function of wave number, k, (related to frequency), and hm(k) is the phase angle of the vector, while i is the imaginary quantity (i2 = 1) and exp represents the exponential function. For a more complex case such as a double-blind RCT with placebo wherein we abstractly represent each individual part (or subsystem) like Eq. (2) with doctor, D, treatment, T, placebo, P, and subjects, s, the U(1) gauge aspects, Qe, of these four parts can most simply be considered as non-interacting scalar quantities (Fig. 3). However, in an information sense, the SU(2) gauge wave aspects (Qm) for each component or subsystem of the RCT must be added vectorially. The Qm term is determined by four sub-system vector contributions defined with subscripts D, T, P, and s (in a head to tail addition) to form an entire system vector, RmS ðkÞ exp½ihmS ðkÞ, which yields:
617
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
Cosmos
Rather, the placebo becomes information-entangled with all other items in the overall experiment, including the treatment. The end result is entangled information and the result of treatment alone can appear to be no different than the result with the placebo. This consequence does not mean that the treatment is not medically efficacious; it only means that, in the types of experiments being conducted, the information entanglement issues dominate to make every item become connected to every other item in the experiment both locally and non-locally. Ultimately, the coupled state RCT is much more complex than presently appreciated and it will take considerable effort for medical science to sort things out properly. However, in the meantime we must be circumspect about rejecting a medical treatment because its presently measured efficacy is little different from that produced by the placebo in the entangled experiment!
Patient
Physics – (electromagnetic gauge symmetry level of the space) Placebo or Treatment or Both
Doctor
Some further theoretical perspectives Fig. 3. Entanglement between parts of medical experiments. In any RCT, the important qualities of interest are at least vectors and thus, for a system of multiple parts, there is always an information entanglement between parts unless they are totally isolated from each other. In a coupled reality, there is entanglement between the placebo and physician as well as the patient. This is a simple picture of the key factors involved in the general relationship. The human biofields are significantly involved in the interaction (both quality and magnitude).
Q MS ðtÞ
s X
eff ðtÞ Q ej þ a
j¼D
s X
Rmj ðkÞexp½ihmj ðkÞ
ð3Þ
j¼D
Experimentally, it is not RmS ðkÞ exp½ihmS ðkÞ that one is able to measure but rather the intensity, IS ðkÞ ¼ R2mS ðkÞ, for the system vector. This quantity is obtained theoretically by multiplying the system vector by its complex conjugate, RmS ðkÞ exp½ihmS ðkÞ, which eliminates the ‘imaginary’ part to give a mathematically ‘real’ quantity. This is where entanglement between the four items (D, T, P, s) enters the picture! To simplify the mathematics, yet illustrate this information entanglement process, let us look at what happens to the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (3) as a consequence of this multiplication procedure to obtain IS(k) for a comparison. Neglecting k (the vector coordinate), IS becomes as shown in Eq. (4):
(
a 2eff ½R2mD þ R2mT þ R2mP þ R2ms þ 2
"
ms cosðhD hs Þ RmD RmT cosðhD hT Þ þ RmD RmP cosðhD hP Þ þ RmD R ms cosðhP hs Þ þRmT RmP cosðhT hP Þ þ RmT Rms cosðhT hs Þ þ RmP R
Here, we see the crux of the issue. If the placebo acted in the RCT as an inert item, it would not be represented at all in the second square bracket in the above result. However, as can be readily seen, the contribution connected to the placebo, P, is given by:
n
a 2eff R2mP þ 2RmP ½RmD cosðhD hP Þ þ RmT RmP cosðhT hP Þ ms cosðhP hs Þ þR
In medical research in the 1980s, the usual experimental assumption that the placebo in the experimental protocol was an inert participant was a good approximation to the truth at that time. To explain why temporal trends in placebo response have increased, we ask: Is something happening in nature to cause aeff to increase over time, but in an accelerating fashion so that the magnetic wave contribution, Qm, could be of negligible size in the mid1980s and yet of a significant portion in 2010? It is the working hypothesis of WAT that the cosmic scale process appearing to happen and grow in amplitude everywhere during this general period (about 1980–2010) and the basic physics behind this section’s experimental observations are related so as to increase entanglement between subsystems. For example, since 1998, astronomers have discovered that 95% of the cosmos is dark energy and dark matter combined. The concept of dark energy as a property of space arose to explain the observed finding of an accelerating expansion of the cosmos. The rest—everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all our instruments, all normal matter—adds up to less than 5% of the universe. In fact, it has been suggested that normal matter should not be called ‘‘normal’’ at all, since it is such a small fraction of the physical universe [23].
ð5Þ
Thus, although the placebo is essentially inert at the electric atom-molecule level (QeP 0), the QmP is not zero provided that the system is functioning at the partially coupled state of physical reality where aeff > 0 [22]. Since the overall event involves humans and their biofields, the RCT is always to some degree at a partially coupled state of physical reality. The bottom line is that, when one conducts a double-blind RCT with a placebo, all the players (doctor, subject, placebo and treatment) are not isolated from each other in the magnetic wave domain; the wave aspects macroscopically interact with the particle aspects and we can no longer assume that the placebo in the experiment behaves in an inert fashion.
#) ð4Þ
Information and the second law of thermodynamics Changes in Gibb’s thermodynamic free energy are what drive all the processes in nature that have so far been discovered. The Gibb’s thermodynamic free energy function, G, can be obtained by the following master equation:
G ¼ PV þ E T
S0
X
!
DI j
j
where P = pressure, V = volume, E = internal energy, T = temperature, and S = entropy, a measure of disorder, and I = information. Thus, all the terms in changes of G, that is, DG, (PDV, VDP, DE, TDS, and SDT) are equally important for producing significant changes in our world. Since the 1940s and the time of Shannon’s [24] original work on information and subsequent work by Brouillion [25] and others, we have known that a process in nature that increases the information (I) content of the universe by DI also de-
618
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
y
creases the thermodynamic entropy (S) content of the universe by exactly the same amount; that is, DS equals negative information (DI). The term in the brackets, S0, is the original entropy, minus P the sum, , over all the different types (denoted: j), of information change (denoted: DIj), which are active in the process. Human consciousness and intention manipulates and is a source of information such as numbers, letters, or symbols, which increases information and leads to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy. Information changes such as these, therefore, have the ability to do work.
Qs QR θs QD θR
θD 0
x -θR
Conflict of interest None.
Q*R
Appendix: Macroscopic information entanglement In a simple example, we can take a system of two interacting participants and metaphorically represent them by vectors: the doctor, D, and the subject (or patient), s. Fig. A1 shows two vectors, QD and Qs, their phase angles, hD and hs, and the projected components QDx and Qsy, plus their complex conjugates Q D and Q s , (mirror reflection in the x-axis, broken gray arrows). Fig. B1 illustrates the vector addition of QD and Qs to obtain the resultant vector, QR, and its complex conjugate (broken gray arrow). Although the magnitude of the resultant wave amplitude in Fig. B1 is an important quantity, it is the resultant intensity pattern, IR, that can be experimentally measured. This is given by the square of QR (i.e., Q 2R ). In Fig. B1 using the mathematics of the Pythagorean Theorem, the intensity can be calculated as follows:
IR ¼ Q 2R ¼ ½Q 2D þ Q 2s þ 2ðQ Dx Q sx þ Q Dy Q sy Þ
Here cos means the cosine function. In this equation, where the product of both vectors’ amplitudes appears, this term always represents an information entanglement between the two vectors. Thus, the aeff Qm part of Eq. (1) (main text) involves coupled vectors of amplitude RD and Rs and the phase angles hD and hs. In the general case, where N-vectors compose the total system, a term is present for each vector pair Qi Qj in the entire system multiplied by a cosine of the phase angle difference, hi hj. This term is the information entanglement. As an illustrative example, we know that physician characteristics, such as the therapeutic relationship with patients, or physiy
QD Qs
θD 0
-θD
θs QDx
x
-θs
Q*s -QDy
cian behavior and enthusiasm can influence the success of treatments outcomes. In the cosine term in the above mathematical expression, when the doctor and subject are totally in phase with each other (in tune), the cosine = + 1, (hD = hs) and maximum information entanglement occurs. When the two humans are antagonistic to each other (totally out of phase), the cosine equals 1 and a setback occurs in the clinical encounter.
References
¼ ½Q 2D þ Q 2s þ 2RD Rs cosðhD hs Þ
QDy
Fig. B1. Diagram showing vector summation for Doctor, QD and subject, Qs, to obtain the resultant vector QR. D = Doctor; s = subject; Q = vector magnitude; R = vector amplitude; h = vector phase angle.
Q*D
Fig. A1. Phasor diagram of rotating vectors for Doctor and subject showing individual vectors where D = Doctor; s = subject; Q = magnitude of vector; and h = vector phase angle.
[1] Enserink M. Can the placebo be the cure? Science 1999;284:238–40. [2] Kaptchuk TJ. Powerful placebo: the dark side of the randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1998;351:1722–5. [3] Finniss DG, Kaptchuk TJ, Miller F, Benedetti F. Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects. Lancet 2010;375:686–95. [4] Miller FG, Colloca L, Kaptchuk TJ. The placebo effect: illness and interpersonal healing. Perspect Biol Med 2009;52:518–39. [5] Kaptchuk TJ, Friedlander E, Kelley JM, et al. Placebos without deception: a randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PLoS One 2010;5:e15591. [6] Vedral V. Quantum physics: entanglement hits the big time. Nature 2003;425:28–9. [7] Tiller WA, Dibble WE, Kohane MJ. Conscious acts of creation: the emergence of a new physics. Walnut Creek, California: Pavior Publishing; 2001. [8] Tiller WA, Kohane MJ, Dibble WE. Can an aspect of consciousness be imprinted into an electronic device? Integr Physiol Behav Sci 2000;35:142–62 [discussion 163]. [9] Kohane MJ, Tiller WA. Biological processes, quantum mechanics and electromagnetic fields: the possibility of device-encapsulated human intention in medical therapies. Med Hypotheses 2001;56:598–607. [10] Pajunen GA, Purnell MJ, Dibble Jr WE, Tiller WA. Altering the acid/alkaline balance of water via the use of an intention-host device. J Altern Complement Med 2009;15:963–8. [11] Tiller WA, Dibble Jr WE, Nunley R, Shealy CN. Toward general experimentation and discovery in conditioned laboratory spaces: Part I. Experimental pH change findings at some remote sites. J Altern Complement Med 2004;10:145–57. [12] Tiller WA, Dibble WE. Expanding the thermodynamic perspective for materials in an su(2) electromagnetic gauge symmetry space. Mat Res Innov 2008;11:163. [13] Moriyasu K. An elementary primer for gauge theory. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.,; 1983. [14] Tiller WA, Dibble WE. Toward general experimentation and discovery in conditioned laboratory and complementary and alternative medicine spaces: part v. Data on 10 different sites using a robust new type of subtle energy detector. J Altern Complement Med 2007;13:133–49. [15] Yang CN, Mills RL. Conservation of isotopic spin and isotopic gauge invariance. Phys Rev 1954;96:191–5. [16] Tiller WA. Psychoenergetic science. a second copernican scale revolution. Walnut Creek: Pavior Publishing; 2007. p. 82. [17] Tiller WA, Dibble Jr WE, Shealy CN, Nunley RN. Toward general experimentation and discovery in conditioned laboratory spaces: Part II. pH-
N.J. Manek, W.A. Tiller / Medical Hypotheses 77 (2011) 614–619
[18]
[19] [20] [21]
change experience at four remote sites, 1 year later. J Altern Complement Med 2004;10:301–6. Tiller WA, Dibble WE, Orlando G, Migli A, Raiteri G, Oca J. Toward general experimentation and discovery in conditioned laboratory spaces: part IV. Macroscopic information entanglement between sites approximately 6000 miles apart. J Altern Complement Med 2005;11:973–6. Aczel A. Entanglement. London: Penguin; 2003. Ghosh S, Rosenbaum TF, Aeppli G, Coppersmith SN. Entangled quantum state of magnetic dipoles. Nature 2003;425:48–51. Tiller WA. On understanding the very different science premises meaningful to CAM versus orthodox medicine: part I – the fundamentals. J Altern Complement Med 2010;16:327–35.
619
[22] Tiller WA. On understanding the very different science premises meaningful to CAM versus orthodox medicine: part II–applications of part I fundamentals to five different space-time examples. J Altern Complement Med 2010;16:507–16. [23] N.A.S.A. (NASA). Dark energy, Dark matter 2011.