Bockris-Beichler Exchange And The Function Of Spin

Savely L. Savva, MS

James Beichler’s article “Alternative Physical Models” published in the last issue evoked a rather extensive exchange between Dr. Bockris and Dr. Beichler. The material is too long and too specific for MISAHA Newsletter and I will try to present here the essence and sparkling points of the debate, as I understand it.

In his initial comments Dr. Bockris suggested that Einstein’s fundamental Special Relativity assumption regarding constancy of speed of light and nonexistence of ether was challenged by results of many experimenters following Michelson-Morley measurement of the speed of light on earth’s surface (along and across the vector of surface velocity). These results indicate variation of the speed of light within 10 km/sec that suggest a partial drag of ether by rotating earth.

 Also, experimental results of Fry and Thompson in the 70’s and Aspect in the 80’s present a challenge to Special Relativity. These experiments, following Einstein, Podorsky, Rosen’s suggestion and Bell’s theorem, established that two entangled quantum particles (photons) flying in opposite direction with the speed of light do communicate among themselves while Special Relativity sets the speed of light in vacuum as the absolute speed limit.

Dr. Beichler strongly believes that accumulated experimental results overwhelmingly support the validity and heuristic value of Einstein’s both Special and General Relativity theories. Aspect’s results neither confirm nor negate Special Relativity because measured in the experiment were spins of quantum particles and spin is an internal property of elementary particles. “Special relativity, as it now stands, does not require quantum properties such as spin to adhere to the speed of light limit on signal transmission. … For one thing, if spin data were transmitted between particles, either locally or non-locally by electromagnetic waves, then there would be a consequent energy level drop in one particle and a subsequent energy level increase in the other particle as the e-m waves were emitted and absorbed. … Evidently there is some other mechanism at work when particles communicate their spin states to each other, either locally or non-locally.”   

This is how the discussion started.

It is important to note that both Dr. Bockris and Dr. Beichler strongly believe that the current scientific paradigm is insufficient, that the field (Relativity) and particle (Quantum Mechanics) approaches to describe nature are irreconcilable, and that the new paradigm must include a conceptual basis for life, mind and mind-related phenomena. Yet, both Dr. Bockris and Dr. Beichler agree that in spite of inconsistence with some experimental data Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are very effective in application to the technical progress we observe.  

Then, in the course of the exchange (where I found myself in hot water) Dr. Bockris sent me Chapter 3 of his book “Challenging the Paradigm” (now in publication). I found the 180 page Chapter “Shaking Pillars of the Paradigm” very educational and interesting for readers of this publication since the pillars include not only Relativity and Quantum Mechanics but also current dominant views on inception of life on the planet, on Darwinian evolution, chemistry and cosmology.

I will mention only a few of the shaking paradoxes analyzed in the chapter, those close to my heart.

n Life couldn’t emerge on the earth by chance out of available materials and under any imaginable conditions because any living system is a thermodynamically open system and it must have a mechanism for degrading external energy (I call it ‘maintenance program of the biofield’). Pre-life molecules do not possess such mechanisms. Why would they grow in complexity and maintain themselves against the second law of thermodynamics (it is if the current paradigm is sufficient)?

n Evolutionary changes in species, as perceived by Darwin and Darwinists, occur as results of random genetic mutations and adaptation selection. But these changes require not just a single mutation but a complex series of consecutive mutations, which till such series is accomplished, does not provide any advantage in adaptation. Why would the process go on? (Perhaps, a single spontaneous mutation in a zygote may significantly restructure the biofield and cause consecutive genetic mutations. But then, if the biofield exists, the biofield itself could influence a directional mutogenesis to begin with.)

n Low temperature atomic reactions are the field in which Dr. Bockris made a substantial personal contribution. His own experimental results as well as results of a growing number of other scientists, though still ignored by the scientific establishment, indicate that some unknown forces may affect nuclear interaction. (In a previous article [MISAHA NL # 24-27, 1999] I described Dr. Bockris’ experiment – as he shared with me – where in an ‘alchemical’ setting from 100 to 300 ppm gold emerged in four runs while the initiator of the experiment—the “alchemist”— was around. Then later, when the initiator was absent, 11 runs in the same setting showed no gold. Could it be that human biofield may influence some nuclear reactions?)

Current scientific paradigm is definitely insufficient but it is not the end of science. The problem is in our human social psychology – we, the majority of us, need stability and security first even though science is about breaking though in obtaining new knowledge.   

Based on experiments conducted in Russia on living organisms’ interaction with other living organisms and material objects, Boldyreva and Sotina propose in this issue that these interactions occur on the quantum level. Perhaps, further study of spin interactions may shed light on physics of life, mind and mind-related phenomena.