It is true that everything was energy immediately after the Big Bang. It is still true that matter can be transformed into energy; in a nuclear reaction or when matter and anti-matter annihilate each other, the classic example being two 0.52 MeV gamma rays emitted when an electron and positron collide and destroy each other. It is also true that Einstein gave us an equation for the energy equivalent of matter and that de\u00a0Broglie related such energy to the wavelength or frequency<\/a> of a particle, a concept of wave-particle duality. Thus we have:<\/p>\n $$E = m c^2 = h \\nu = h c \/ \\lambda \\textrm{,}$$<\/p>\n Where \\(E\\) is energy, \\(m\\) is mass, \\(c\\) is the speed of light, \\(h\\) is Planck’s constant, and \\(\\nu\\) and \\(\\lambda\\) are the de\u00a0Broglie frequency and wavelength, respectively. Note that \\(\\nu\\) and \\(\\lambda\\) depend on a particle’s energy but not how you think about it. This is physics.<\/p>\n Matter can be transformed into energy, although it has proven difficult to do so in a controlled manner (i.e. in controlled fusion). Such conversion is what powers the sun (via the proton-proton<\/a> chain reaction), although, even there, the mass loss between the reactant protons and the helium produced is a very small fraction of the mass involved.<\/p>\n A conversion from matter to energy is not symbolic. It destroys any material structure existing in the original matter. The results are also not healthy for those nearby. The annihilation of a mere 46\u00a0\u00b5g (millionths of a gram) of matter yields the equivalent energy<\/a> of a ton of TNT. It is not conducive to a continued professional health practice to incinerate your clients or yourself; far better to leave matter as matter and stick with the energy released in the chemical reactions of metabolism.<\/p>\n As a physicist, it’s sad to see the word quantum, stemming from the meaning discrete or countable (i.e. not continuous), take on the anything goes connotation of something magic; of something that allows one to “roll” your own cosmos as you wish. In the Quark and the Jaguar, Noble Laureate Physicist Murray Gell-Mann calls this move to pseudo-scientific word-salad “quantum flapdoodle<\/a>“. Particle physicist Victor Stenger just stuck with rebutting it as quantum quackery<\/a>.<\/p>\n It’s unfortunate that the use of the term “the observer” as one doing a measurement has led to over interpretation of the role of the observer and to a lack of focus on the process of measurement. Unlike experiments in the macro world, the observer of an experiment on the quantum scale, for example involving electron beams passing through a double slit, has no way of making an observation without disrupting what would have occurred otherwise. Richard Feynman provided a thorough discussion<\/a> under Volume III, Chapter 1, Section 6 of the Feynman Lectures<\/em>.<\/p>\n If a stream of (light) photons capable of localizing electrons is used, the electrons are perturbed and they act as particles. If the energy of the photons is decreased to where they don’t perturb the experiment, the wavelength (\\(\\lambda = h c \/ E\\)) is too long to determine the electron path and wavelike behavior by the electrons is observed. It is not the thoughts of the observer that are important, but how or if the observer proceeds to make observations.<\/p>\n Feynman also addresses under philosophical implications<\/a> that effectively having free will does require quantum mechanics, since even the classical world become unpredictable without absolute initial knowledge.<\/p>\n Of course we must emphasize that classical physics is also indeterminate, in a sense. It is usually thought that this indeterminacy, that we cannot predict the future, is an important quantum-mechanical thing, and this is said to explain the behavior of the mind, feelings of free will, etc. But if the world were classical\u2014if the laws of mechanics were classical\u2014it is not quite obvious that the mind would not feel more or less the same.\u00a0\u2026 It is therefore not fair to say that from the apparent freedom and indeterminacy of the human mind, we should have realized that classical \u201cdeterministic\u201d physics could not ever hope to understand it, and to welcome quantum mechanics as a release from a \u201ccompletely mechanistic\u201d universe. For already in classical mechanics there was indeterminability from a practical point of view.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If one wants to call upon quantum mechanics as a paradigm, it helps to learn something about it from reliable sources. One could do worse than Leonard Susskind’s The Theoretical Minimum<\/a>. An introduction to quantum mechanics is one of the core courses and has an accompanying book<\/a>.<\/p>\n Scientific research pretty much characterized EM fields and emissions from the human body. The dominant one is infrared radiation characteristic of temperature. We and all objects around us emit and absorb such (blackbody) radiation.<\/p>\n Because we contain water and water absorbs and emits in the microwave portion of the spectrum (used by atmospheric weather sensors), we also produce low level thermal emissions of microwaves.<\/p>\n We do emit a few biophotons in the UV-Visble<\/a> (1-1000 \\(photons\\; cm^{-2} sec^{-1}\\)), based on the presence of reactive oxygen species in our bodies and the electron energy-state transitions they undergo. Such photons are technically a form of bioluminesence. There have been proposals that such photons could be used as a health diagnostic<\/a>. Imaging technology has also recently progressed to where such imaging is feasible<\/a> in reasonable times. There are indications that emission of such photons may be reduced by meditation<\/a>. There is no reason or research that I’m aware of that would suggest an ability of conscious control of the oxidative stress leading to such emissions. As noted in the articles above, formation of free radicals is one of the side effects of energy metabolism involving oxygen. Thus, you can forget anything you might read that says these are likely to be influenced by conscious mental processes.<\/p>\n We generate a very weak magnetic field in the immediate vicinity (i.e. near field) of our bodies because of small electric currents in our heart, long muscles, and brain. These are weak enough (at least 10,000 times weaker than ambient magnetic noise) that they require a shielded room and a cryogenic sensor (SQUID) to detect. These are also near-field, not EM wave emissions which require an oscillating charge to generate (think antennas and radio waves). Although it anthropomorphizes the universe a bit, this writeup on antenna basics<\/a> discusses how accelerating charges are fundamental to EM far-field radiation. The human body is simply not equipped to be an oscillating charge generator.<\/p>\n David Cohen, a pioneer in human biomagnetic research, gave an overview of such research in his Jones Seminar presentation<\/a> to the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth on 7 Nov 2008. The lecture is also available on YouTube<\/a>. The following graph showing relative magnetic field strengths is taken from that lecture.<\/p>\n Human Magnetic Field Strengths. Taken from David Cohen’s “Jones Seminar” at the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth, 7 Nov 2008.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n Magnetic fields result from electric currents. Looking at the figure, we see that the urban background magnetic noise is about 0.002\u00a0Gauss. We can estimate the current that would be required in the human body to generate a magnetic field that strong using the equation for a long wire.<\/p>\n $$B = 0.2 \\frac{I}{r} \\textrm{,}$$<\/p>\n where \\(B\\) is the magnetic field strength in Gauss, \\(I\\) is the current in Amperes, and \\(r\\) is the radial distance of the measurement in cm. If we measure at 10\u00a0cm, the field will be 0.002\u00a0G when the current is 0.1\u00a0A. That’s a current large enough to electrocute; simply not something that is going to be generated in the body. We aren’t electric eels. Compared to background noise, the magnetic fields generated by the human body are very small because the currents generating them are equally small. You do need the shielded room and cryogenic sensor to detect them.<\/p>\n All in all, we humans are well-equipped to communicate directly by sound (compression waves in air) and touch but direct communication in the electromagnetic spectrum is simply not a feasible part of human-to-human interaction, apart from nonverbal communication in visible light (i.e. gesture and body language). What we can do by the ingenuity of our minds to create technology is another matter.<\/p>\n Cohen, D, EA Edelsack, and JE Zimmerman. 1970. \u201cMagnetocardiograms Taken Inside a Shielded Room with a Superconducting Point-Contact Magnetometer.\u201d Applied Physics Letters 16:278-280. DOI: http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1063\/1.1653195<\/a>.<\/p>\n Cohen, D, and E Givler. 1972. \u201cMagnetomyography: magnetic fields around the human body produced by skeletal muscles.\u201d Applied Physics Letters 21:114-116. DOI: http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1063\/1.1654294<\/a>.<\/p>\n Cohen, D. 1975. \u201cMagnetic fields of the human body.\u201d Phys. Today 28(8):34-43. DOI: http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1063\/1.3069110<\/a>.<\/p>\n Cohen, D, Y Palti, B N Cuffin, and S J Schmid. 1980. \u201cMagnetic Fields Produced by Steady Currents in the Body.\u201d Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 77 (3): 1447\u201351. URL: http:\/\/www.pnas.org\/content\/77\/3\/1447.abstract<\/a><\/p>\n It’s generally at this stage of the discussion that someone advances the thought that “science doesn’t know everything” or that “science hasn’t proven that some other energy doesn’t exist”.<\/p>\n It is true that science can’t explain all things, for example, “Why should one attempt to live life well?”. One can weigh costs and benefits of choices, but that never reaches the underlying philosophical question of the purpose. It is also true that there are many areas, for example in biology, that our knowledge is limited. However, as knowledge is slowly won, there is little likelihood of finding something that contradicts the well-established knowledge of chemistry and physics. That lack of contradiction is an important element of plausibility.<\/p>\n In contrast to biological matters such as networks of cell-signalling, areas of physics in fundamental particles, intrinsic types of forces, carrier particles, and types of energy, while not devoid of unknowns, are far simpler and far more evolved. Thus, the level of evidence required to contradict current theory is a lot higher.<\/p>\n It is also true that science cannot detect things that are purely spiritual beliefs or phantoms of our neurological system and lack external reality. This is not going to change in the future except in the ability of science to measure and analyze the processes occurring within our brains. In mentioning future abilities of science to analyze the processes occurring within our brains, I am thinking of this research on retrieving visual images from brain activity<\/a>.<\/p>\n Science does not take on proving that something doesn’t exist. One would be forever chasing wild postulations and trying to nail down special contexts and situations. Instead, science asks if there is positive evidence that something does exist and, if so, under what conditions is it significant. Such proof has not been forthcoming; nor is it likely.<\/p>\n Nature is frugal in her use of available resources. If some other energy existed and interacted with living beings, we would expect to see multiple uses around us. That we don’t is a lack of internal consistency.<\/p>\n The lack of observations from other areas of life and the lack of evolution to specialize in use of any potential extra form of energy (nature is impartial – both negative and positive aspects would exist) is indicative that there is nothing there to detect (imagines spiders lulling\/luring flies with \u2026 energy). Sci-fi writers tend to be much better at hypothesizing such self-consistency than health care providers, Chris Moore’s “The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove<\/a>” comes to mind (comedy, sci-fi).<\/p>\n Finally, simply hypothesizing a new form of energy and leaving it at that is like placing a board in mid-air and expecting it to stay. Consistency demands support through multiple levels of existence. All the known forces depend on virtual particles to carry them (hence carrier particle) across space. For the electromagnetic force, the carrier particles are virtual photons. Electromagnetic radiation also is carried by photons. There has to be a physical means to to get from here to there. A proposed new form of energy, a form of energy that interacts strongly with matter (of which human tissue is an instance), would require such a carrier particle. Reorganizing particle physics to include a new energy and its accompanying particle presumes that something that should have been obvious was overlooked in all the particle experiments analyzed over the years. I wouldn’t hold my breath.<\/p>\n In the end, it is much more likely that what is experienced is consistent with Edzard Ernst’s comments<\/a> on the effectiveness of Reiki.<\/p>\n The results of this study were impressive: reiki did, in fact, make the patients feel better. Specifically, it increased the comfort and wellbeing of the patients in comparison with those who received no such intervention. Intriguingly, however, the sham reiki had exactly the same effects, and there were no differences between real and sham reiki.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In short, whatever is experienced, it is far more likely to be a psycho-social effect than some undetected form of energy communication. The extraordinary evidence required for the latter supposition isn’t there. As humans, we are social animals. We do respond to attention, touch, and caring\u00a0\u2014 no unknown energy required.<\/p>\n Lee, M. S., M. H. Pittler, and E. Ernst. 2008. \u201cEffects of Reiki in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of Randomised Clinical Trials.\u201d International Journal of Clinical Practice 62 (6): 947\u201354. DOI: http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x<\/a>.<\/p>\nQuantum Mechanics doesn’t Justify It<\/h4>\n
Human Electromagnetic Fields aren’t “Out There”<\/h4>\n
![\"Cohen:](\"http:\/\/www.ramblemuse.com\/rmtp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/CohenD_HumanMagneticField-300x205.jpg\")
<\/a>References for Further Reading<\/h5>\n
The Implausibility of Something Unknown<\/h4>\n
References for Further Reading<\/h5>\n