Originally published in the MISAHA Newsletter, #36-#39, edited by Savely

Savva, May 2003. Subsequently published in Life and Mind: In search of the

physical basis. Edited by Savely Savva. Trafford, 2007.

Alternative Physical Models of the Universe

by James E. Beichler, Ph.D.

Abstract: As the new millennium begins, science is entering a new era with a high expectation of another

scientific revolution. Pundits and academics have all agreed that twentieth century science was dominated by

physics, but the twenty-first century would witness a shift to biology. However true this may be, it would still

seem more likely that physics and biology would come together to define life, mind and consciousness in the

coming century. Recent trends in physics, characterized by changing attitudes toward the recognition of

alternative physical models of the universe that are friendlier and more oriented toward biological

interpretations, support this view of the future of science. Within the physics community, most of twentieth

century physics was dominated by the strict interpretation of the quantum worldview and paradigm at the

expense of relativity theory and the space-time continuum. Yet, since the 1970s the acceptance of Einstein’s

personal goal of unification as a goal for all of physics and science, including progress toward a ‘theory of

everything’, has come to be regarded as a good thing. Still, most efforts toward this goal have come from

within the quantum paradigm as represented by the successes and extensions of ‘unified field theories’. The

various ‘unified field theories’ have been unbelievably successful in describing specific aspects of nature, but

they are not without serious problems. In answer to those problems and shortcomings of the new extended

quantum theories, new and novel attempts at unification have been undertaken from outside of the quantum

paradigm while attempting to retain the accepted scientific features and successes of the quantum theories.

These alternative models of reality are more conducive to explaining life, mind and consciousness as well as

those aspects of nature that are presently considered paranormal by science, such as the various alternative

forms of healing.

Science is entering a new and exciting millennium of fundamental change and research,

probably to the extent of a third scientific revolution, just as human society has moved into the new

millennium prescribed by our common calendar. At the beginning of the last century, a Second

Scientific Revolution developed around the discovery of the quantum and relativity. Not only did

these new theories alter the worldview of physicists, but both of these advances in physics

influenced the worldview of society as a whole as well as other branches of science. As astounding

as it may seem, this revolution in thought and attitude was born from the successes of the previous

worldviews and theories of reality, Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetic theory and

thermodynamics, rather than their inability to explain reality, as well as new and unexpected

discoveries such as radioactivity. Yet scientists did not realize at the time that a new revolution in

science was looming. To the contrary, the scientific community thought that it was on the verge of

solving all of the problems of the universe and physical reality with its current theories at the end of

the nineteenth century.

Today, similar conditions exist and many scientists believe that we are on the verge of another

scientific revolution that will again change our worldview. Most physicists believe that quantum

theory will solve all of the questions of physical reality, ignoring the growing signs of problems

cropping up with the further successes of quantum theory. Yet there is also a small but growing

realization within the scientific community that the physics of the twentieth century is incomplete

and that new theories and a new worldview are necessary to complete our view of physical reality.

Scientists further believe that biology and the biological sciences will play as important a role in the

newly developing science as physics played over the last century, but physics cannot be ignored and

the unification of physics and biology in a theory of life, mind and consciousness would seem more

likely.

During the first three decades of the twentieth century, quantum mechanics has evolved into

the role of the dominant theory governing research in physics by offering what was assumed to be

the sole theoretical basis of physical reality. The other candidate for such leadership, general

relativity, suffered because it was not as readily applicable as the quantum theory. (Graves, 232) Due

to the space program and the corresponding growth of astrophysics, the popularity and interest in

relativity within the scientific community has been increasing since the 1960s. This increase in good

fortunes has been marked by the development of new research programs. Relativity theory is now

beginning to challenge quantum theory as a possible basis for a new physical model of the universe.

In the past few decades, the increasing popularity and reputation of relativity theory has been

marked by a growing movement within the quantum camp to unify these two theories, but the

fundamental basis of nearly all such attempts at unification are based upon the quantum perspective

of reality. From the quantum perspective, the continuous gravitational field must be reduced to

another ‘quantum field’ even though gravity has been explained successfully as an effect of space-

time curvature by general relativity since before the 1920s. So, nearly all work toward developing a

“theory of everything” (a TOE) that incorporates gravitation has been based upon the quantum

model and it is enlightening to trace the development of the concept of TOEs from the quantum

perspective.

In the late 1940s and 1950s, quantum electrodynamics (QED) was developed to account for

special relativity within the context of quantum mechanics, but it was not a true unification of the

two theories. QED merely accounted for relativistic corrections in its theoretical model of the

electron. In order to develop this ‘relativistic’ quantum model, an artificially introduced ‘fudge factor’

called ‘renormalization’ was introduced into science. Then came quantum chromodynamics (QCD),

which was a theory of quarks. It offered an explanation of the strong nuclear force.

During the 1960s, Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam used weak gauge symmetry to unify the

electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces without depending upon the same type of renormalization

process that was necessary in QED to prevent infinite masses. With the success of this ‘electroweak’

theory, emphasis in the theoretical research of quantum field theories changed from inventing

renormalization methods that had no physical basis, but gave finite and interpretable solutions, to

applying the correct gauge symmetries. Unlike renormalization in QED, symmetries are a common

characteristic of physical bodies and systems, so renormalization in the Weinberg-Salam model

became physically acceptable. Capitalizing on this success, the next wave of unification theories was

based upon the various symmetries inherent in nature.

Grand unification theories (GUTs) and supergravity, developments of the 1970s, both

capitalized on these symmetries. Many physicists would consider both to be alternative theories of

the universe because the whole scientific community does not accept them, even though they are

quantum-based theories. GUTs were attempts to combine the electroweak theory with QCD, thus

unifying electromagnetism, the weak and strong forces, by embedding the gauge symmetries of each

of the individual theories within a larger all embracing gauge group. Unfortunately, the GUTs that

were developed predicted the existence of magnetic monopoles and an extremely large but finite

half-life for protons. Neither of these predictions has ever been verified, so GUTs have been

seriously hampered. Also, the various GUT models did not include the force of gravity and general

relativity within their framework, so they were not TOEs in today’s sense of the phrase. However,

supersymmetries were applied to some GUT models and thus did include gravity, initiating a new

class of theories known by the term supergravity. Experiments and research in this area are still

conducted by some scientists, so these theories are still valid alternatives to the standard models of

quantum theory.

In the older quantum field theories, gravitational forces were always mediated by particles called

gravitons. The graviton has never been observed in nature. The new supergravity theories predicted

that not only the graviton acted as the conveyor of gravity, but a new particle called the gravitino

should also exist in that role. Like gravitons, the gravitino was very weakly interactive with matter

and would therefore be very difficult to detect in nature. In spite of this shortcoming, supergravity

did reintroduce an older (and virtually forgotten) concept into the search for a TOE: extra-

dimensional spaces. In supergravity, the geometrical structure of space-time was greatly simplified

when the unified force was recast within an eleven-dimensional framework.

This discovery gave a new impetus to the search for hyperspatial theories of unification and

physicists rediscovered the Kaluza-Klein theory in the early 1980s. When the theory of supergravity

was rewritten as an eleven-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, all of the forces of nature were reduced

to nothing more than different forms or adjuncts of a single gravitational field, thus the name

supergravity.

The extra dimensions had no physical meaning within the original supergravity theory.

However, in the Kaluza-Klein modification they were interpreted as real physical dimensions that

were rolled up in such minute proportions that they were effectively unobserved as well as

unobservable in nature. The extra dimensions were associated with various abstract gauge

symmetries that were independent of the minuscule size of the extra dimensions. Unfortunately, the

supergravity theories suffered from a rather crucial and perhaps fatal flaw. The weak nuclear force

violates a special type of left-right mirror symmetry, referred to as violating parity. This property is

called chirality and can be shown to exist only in odd-dimensioned spaces. This property therefore

requires any unified field theory that includes the weak nuclear force to use a framework with an odd

number of spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. Such a configuration would yield a total

number of dimensions that is even. The eleven-dimensional space-time continuum of supergravity is

odd, so it clearly does not fulfill this requirement.

Meanwhile, lurking in the shadows of theoretical physics was an answer to this latest

predicament in the form of another alternate theory of the universe. Even before the advent of the

supergravity theories, the concept of strings had been introduced into the physics of quantum fields.

The quantized motion of a vibrating string was first used by Gabrielle Veneziano to model hadrons.

Then John Schwarz and André Neveu discovered a second group of strings for modeling fermions.

When QCD theory was introduced, the string model was all but abandoned by its advocates. Yet

Schwarz and Joel Scherk continued to develop the string model. While strings did not seem to

correspond to any of the known elementary particles found in nature, they did have properties

similar to gravitons, which suggested that they might be ideal for a TOE. (Applequist, Chodos and

Freund, 1986) No other quantum field theory had been able to account for gravitons and the

gravitational field. Still, GUTs and supergravity overshadowed string theory and only a few members

of the scientific community paid it any attention. But string theory did profit from the prior

development of these theories since they popularized and legitimized the use of hyper-dimensional

models in physics and brought supersymmetries to the attention of physicists. Scientists no longer

ignored theories that assumed space-times of dimensions greater than four, and the symmetries

seemed to justify their application.

Supersymmetry is deeper and more powerful than the normal symmetries of space and time. Its

most endearing feature is that “it provides a geometrical framework within which fermions and

bosons receive a common description.” (Davies and Brown, 44) However, supersymmetry requires

the addition of five more dimensions of space to Kaluza’s five-dimensional space-time. The concept

is not without problems, since there is no “unequivocal confirmation in nature” of such

supersymmetries. (Davies and Brown, 47) Yet the application of supersymmetry yields startling

results. Simple string theory utilizes the supersymmetry to unify the four forces of nature within a

single common geometrical framework and is thus called superstring theory. In essence, the

supersymmetry allows matter and radiation to be combined. Within this framework hyper-

dimensional strings can represent all elementary particles. Schwarz, Michael Green and Edward

Witten developed the superstring theory in the early 1980s.

Superstring theory postulates a space-time continuum of either ten or twenty-six dimensions.

Only these configurations give reproducible and understandable results. In this model, the extra

dimensions are every bit as real as the normal three dimensions of space, but we cannot detect or

otherwise perceive the higher dimensions because they are curled up or contracted to Planck length

sizes, about 10-33

centimeters. This restriction guarantees that the strings are of such minute size that

they are virtually impossible to detect. Such small sizes can only be reached experimentally by

applying energies far greater than any that science can even dream of at this time, let alone reach in

high-energy physics laboratories. With the direct detection of strings so far out of the

experimentalist’s grasp, their existence cannot be directly confirmed. So, belief in the validity of the

theory must depend on its ‘beauty,’ simplicity and logical structure. It is hoped that the mathematics

will eventually yield predictions that will confirm the theory at much lower, and thus attainable,

energies. However, even this path presents a problem since mathematics is not yet advanced enough

to solve the problems associated with the superstring theory. Only approximate solutions to the

superstring model exist. Many scientists consider superstrings a theory of the next century that

happened to fall into this era accidentally. (Witten, 102; Kaku, 160)

The various quantum field theories assume that particles are non-extended mathematical points

in space. This conception guaranteed the infinite masses and meaningless divergent expressions that

required renormalization. In this practice, quantum field theory is not alone. In both quantum

mechanics and classical mechanics, in fact in nearly all other branches of physics, particles have been

portrayed as points without internal structure. So science has generally shied away from questions

concerning the interior portion of elementary particles. The mathematical point assumption is no

longer necessary in the superstring model. Superstring theory replaces these points with one-

dimensional curves called strings. One advantage of discarding points for strings is the

disappearance of divergences, but there are other advantages such as the explanation of anomalies.

Speaking from his own experience, Schwarz explains that he and his colleagues were surprised at this

result in superstring theory. When “the quantum corrections to gravity for string theory” were made,

he and his colleagues began “to get numbers that did make sense, numbers that were given by finite

expressions.” (Schwarz, 75) Simply put, the theory overcomes many of the major problems inherent

in earlier quantum field theories such as supergravity and GUTs.

Even the mathematical points that represent empty space may well turn out to be no more than

superstrings. (Green, 125) In relativity theory, space and time only exist relative to the bodies with

mass that constitute the universe. In the general expression of this idea, matter either curves space-

time or matter reduces to the curvature of space-time. So, if curvature is the true reality and is

associated with material particles and thus superstrings, it is not a far stretch of the imagination to

speculate that relative points of space are themselves superstrings. Each and every point of space

could be no more than an object of higher dimensionality that is curled up in a little ball or loop.

The group of all such loops would constitute a “stringy space-time” which is an “approximation” of

a far “richer structure” of superstrings. (Green, 131) All of physical reality seems to be covered

within this notion. Superstrings have become the material particles, the forces between material

particles as well as the relative point positions between particles, leaving little else to exist in the

physical world. But it is from this broad application of superstrings that a major weakness of the

string theory emerges. The superstring theories are only true TOEs if and when they can fulfill their

promise.

Yet superstring theories seem strong contenders for a TOE within the physics community, if

indeed such a theory is possible. But it is even more important that most physicists are now at least

thinking in terms of a single complete theory that explains everything in nature for the very first

time. The evolution of this attitude is significant because it marks the trend toward the unification of

physics, be it in whatever form appears, when only Einstein and a few other scientists thought in

these terms a half-century ago. Many scientists now believe that a TOE is a distinct possibility in the

near future. It would be prudent, then, to ask just what one might expect of a theory that seems to

cover ‘everything’ in its wake. Davies and Brown have considered just this question. (Davies and

Brown, 5) Their criteria are simple. A TOE must explain (1) matter, (2) the forces affecting matter,

and finally (3) the space-time framework of matter as well as unify the quantum and relativity

theories. Although they have placed the unification of physics last in their own wish list, it should be

placed first. The foremost task in theoretical physics must be to unify the quantum and relativity, the

discrete and continuous aspects of physical reality and nature, but it is also expected that this

unification will lead to a theory of life and consciousness. Whether or not a theory of ‘everything’ is

even possible under these or any criteria is still an arguable point as John Barrow has pointed out.

(Barrow, 230-231, 282) But unification in physics is an essential task independent of any particular

unification theory that claims to describe all of nature, so the basis of unification is not limited to the

quantum alone even though most theorists follow this course of action.

It is also questionable whether superstrings can fulfill this notion of ‘everything.’ The problem

of defining and understanding space and time is quite formidable. Michael Faraday, the founder of

electromagnetic theory and the concept of field, ran into a similar problem a century and a half

earlier when he tried to conceive the ‘continuous’ electric and magnetic fields between particles. He

sidetracked the problem of continuity by talking about the ‘contiguous’ points of charge that carry

the electromagnetic field through space. Historians and philosophers of science still argue about the

meaning of Faraday’s use of the word ‘contiguous.’ There are also modern analogies to this problem.

A few decades ago, quantum theorists also speculated about the discrete nature of both time

and space, but no new science ever came from this speculation. The modern superstring theories

carry the same stigma. At best, they can only speculate about the actual points of space as ‘curled up

dimensions.’ However, this view is no solution to the discrete/continuous debate. It merely

forestalls the debate to a later point in time and a much smaller unit of discreteness, the Planck

Length.

Beyond the already stated problems with superstrings, other problems are inherent in these last

speculations: (1) If space is no more than little ‘loops’ of curled up higher dimensions, then what are

those little ‘loops’ moving within when they follow trajectories through time? This paradox leads to

the next problems. (2) What then is time? (3) In what dimension are the strings vibrating (and/or

curved) if the strings themselves constitute space itself in the higher dimensions? A TOE should

make some definitive statement about the nature of time, but superstring theory does not seem to

do so. These are only some of the fundamental problems with the theory of superstrings and they

are not the only problems. There still remain the obvious difficulties that are overlooked or shunted

aside by stating that superstrings are a theory of the future. The developers of superstring theories

can safely defer confirmation of their theory to late in the next century if not later, which seems to

forestall any attempt at falsification of the theory. And finally, there is one last problem that has

rarely, if ever, been mentioned within the context of superstrings.

During the past two decades, other important trends have developed in physics. One of the

most important of these trends is to define or discover the relationship between consciousness and

physics and thereby solve the mind/body dichotomy. This particular trend comes during the same

historical time frame as the change in scientific attitude toward the acceptance of the possibility of a

TOE as well as the growth of evidence supporting the reality of psi and the small but determined

movement to develop a physical theory to explain psi phenomena. This convergence of seemingly

different trends or strands of evolution in human thought would seem to indicate that the

development of a TOE and the discovery of a role for life, mind and consciousness in physics are

intimately connected at the most fundamental level of physical reality, but superstring theorists have

not adequately addressed these issues. Nor is there any evidence that they could ever address the

issues of life and related ‘qualities.’ So far, superstring theory is just a highly mathematical version of

a purely physical theory and as such it has no room for life and consciousness. So it cannot, at this

time, be used to make any statement concerning the mind/matter paradox, if indeed it ever can.

Even though any theory contending for the title of a TOE should, by definition, treat even these

aspects of our commonly perceived reality. These criticisms serve to emphasize the fact that there is

surely more room in modern physics for alternative theories of unification. There are certainly other

options for unification without the premature declaration that superstrings represent the last word in

physics and the ultimate TOE that must eventually include the relationship between physics and life.

Even the standard model in quantum theory, which has formed the basis of all the modern

quantum models for the past four decades, is facing new problems. The independence of quarks, as

specified in the model, has never been verified. Quarks have been proven to exist only within the

elementary particles that are constructed from those same quarks, so questions regarding the reality

of quarks as ‘independent’ particles, as opposed to special internal energy states of real elementary

particles, have never been solved. Such problems are largely ignored by the scientific community

because it is convenient to do so. However, the scientists involved do not realize that these ignored

problems grow ever more serious and unpredictable with new advances in the flawed theories, no

matter how many different instances otherwise prove the theories’ value and validity. More recently,

the existence of Higgs bosons within the range of energies predicted by the standard model has not

been confirmed. And finally, the international “Muon g-2” team at Brookhaven National Lab has

recently discovered that the standard model’s muon spin predictions cannot be completely verified

by lab measurements. (Vergano, 9D) While the standard model itself would never be abandoned due

to these failures, it is becoming ever more likely that portions of the theory could at least require

serious modification and it is always possible that an alternative theory could be developed to

explain all the results previously explained by the standard model as well as account for the

discrepancies in that theory.

All attempts to unify physics that proceed from the quantum to relativity run counter to the

original unification attempts made by Einstein. From the 1920s until his death in 1955, Einstein

sought to develop a unified field theory, based directly upon general relativity and continuity instead

of the quantum, rather than the other way around. He thought that the quantum would eventually

evolve out of the mathematics used to describe his single field model. However, all previous

attempts at unification of the quantum and relativity have run into the same problems as Einstein

faced: The barrier between the continuity of the field and the discreteness of the quantum has so far

proven impossible to surpass from either direction. All unification theories, especially the quantum-

based theories of physical reality, suffer from the same philosophical problem. The quantum and

relativity are mutually incompatible under present circumstances. Any quantum-based theory of

physical reality must explain everything in terms of the discrete nature of particles, while any

relativity-based theory must proceed from the continuity of the space-time structure. Since nearly all

attempts to unify physics have proceeded from the quantum point-of-view, basing physical reality

upon the continuum of relativity theory has consequently been relegated to the role of an alternative

physical model of the universe.

The philosophical problems presented by the differences between the discrete and continuous

are barely recognized in the physics community. However, a few physicists have been brave enough

to question the established norms of modern physics in this regard. In his book A Unified Grand

Tour of Theoretical Physics, Ian D. Lawrie has confirmed the uneasiness felt by physicists although

he has not clearly defined the cause of his concerns beyond stating the modern physicists “do not

properly understand what it is that quantum theory tells us about the nature of the physical world”

even though “there are respectable scientists who write with confidence on the subject.” Evidently,

“the conceptual basis of the theory is still somewhat obscure.” (Lawrie, 95) Mendel Sachs is far more

straightforward with his criticisms. Sachs has noted two distinct and separate strains of scientific

progress within modern physics.

The compelling point about the simultaneous occurrence of these two revolutions (relativity and the

quantum) is that when their axiomatic bases are examined together, as the basis of a more general

theory that could encompass explanations of phenomena that require conditions imposed by both

theories of matter (such as current ‘high energy physics”), it is found that the widened basis, which is

called ‘relativistic quantum field theory’, is indeed logically inconsistent because there appear, under

a single umbrella, assertions that logically exclude each other. (Sachs, 1988, 236-237)

Sachs is, of course, referring to the logical and mutually exclusive nature of the quantum (the

discrete) and the field (the continuous). He does little to hide either this fact or his criticism of the

shortcomings of present day physics. Sachs has concluded that “neither the quantum theory nor the

theory of relativity are in themselves complete as fundamental theories of matter,” (Sachs, 1988,

256) due to the fact that they represent incompatible fundamental concepts of the discrete and

continuous aspects of nature.

Quite frankly, none of the various quantum-based attempts at unification, including the

alternatives of GUTS, supersymmetry and superstrings, has proven overwhelmingly satisfactory in

spite of the many individual successes of the earlier quantum models. Perhaps the quantum and thus

the discrete point of view has run its course to completion. They are all flawed at the fundamental

level of reality where the discrete and continuous merge, and it is precisely at this level where life can

be found and a theory of life should emerge from the physics. Niels Bohr, one of the founders of

the quantum theory, argued that life could never be explained by the quantum theory because the

chemical functions associated with life would, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, be

disrupted by disturbances that would probably kill the living organism. (Bohr, 1958) More recently,

the physicist Brian Josephson has revisited these arguments and considers the real possibility that

living organisms pose serious limits to the commonly accepted universality of quantum mechanics.

(Josephson, 1988) These flaws imply the existence of a common and universal basis for the various

problems experienced by the different quantum models with the overall quantum theory that cannot

be solved from within quantum theory itself.

Since all of the quantum-based theories suffer from the same fundamental problems, it could be

assumed that the different problems that plague the various quantum theories of reality are rooted in

the physical discrepancies between the discrete and continuous aspects of matter and space-time.

The quantum models can neither avoid nor bypass this simple fact of nature. In the end, a material

particle can never be regarded as either a point (as in quantum theory) or any similar mathematical

entity (such as a one-dimensional string), because real material particles are extended in all three of

the normal dimensions of space. So, the field can never be reduced to the discrete quantum. The

quantum theory, by definition, is not a proper basis for a complete theory of physical reality.

However, the reverse is true: It is possible to construct a model of reality by building the

discreteness of material particles from the continuity of the field, as modeled in general relativity,

even though Einstein was unable to overcome this very same problem. So, relativity theory offers

the only valid alternative for a new theory of physical reality.

Within this context, several possible candidates for an alternative theory have been developed:

David Bohm’s holographic universe, James Beichler’s five-dimensional single field theory (SOFT),

William Tiller’s reciprocal subspaces and various torsional models, to mention only a few. Unlike the

classical quantum-based theories that are discrete and indeterministic in nature, these theories are

capable of accounting for life, mind, and consciousness as well as the existence of psi phenomena.

Bohm’s theory is well known, while the most recent form of the SOFT model developed by Beichler

is not yet that well known, in spite of its earlier origins in the work of Einstein and his colleagues.

Tiller has published two books and several articles explaining aspects of his theory and the torsional

theories have been popular, particularly in Russia, for the past few decades. Among all of these

theories, Bohm’s is by far the leading contender in the field of alternative theories of the universe.

Bohm’s physical model was developed over four decades beginning in the early 1950s. (Bohm, 1951)

Bohm began his quest by questioning the inherent indeterminacy of quantum theory. He reasoned

that the indeterminacy of measurements at the quantum level of physical reality originated in our

inability to discover all of the variables that are necessary for completely accurate measurements.

(Bohm, 1952) These undiscovered variables were termed ‘hidden variables.’ By invoking the

existence of ‘hidden variables,’ Bohm rendered quantum theory deterministic and causal, as well as

lending quantum theory a philosophical completeness that it had been shown lacking by the

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen arguments of the 1930s. (Einstein, et.al.,1935) The hypothesized existence

of ‘hidden variables’ inaugurated a new era of philosophical criticism of quantum theory, which

eventually progressed to real physical and experimental changes in our worldview and quantum

theory itself.

Bohm’s own worldview progressed toward a more specific theory of physical reality when he

developed the concept of a ‘quantum potential field.’ In classical quantum mechanics, each and

every event or measurement results from a conscious act of ‘collapsing the wave packet,’ whereby a

single reality (or real event) evolves from an infinite number of possibilities (or quantum states). But

in this classical quantum model, each event is separate and distinct from all the other events that

constitute our complete physical (and mental) reality. Nothing could be said, inferred or determined

regarding any underlying reality from this individual quantum event. However, in Bohm’s new

model, the ‘quantum potential field’ constituted a region of overlap between the quantum-generated

possibilities of all the events (measurements) that constitute physical reality. (Bohm and Hiley, 29-

30) This new model emphasized the interconnectedness of the events constituting reality and served

as the precursor to the concept of quantum entanglement.

The neuro-physiologist Karl Pribram proposed a holographic model of thought and the mental

processes of the brain. (Pribram, 1969) This was followed by Bohm’s independent suggestion that

the physical universe may be holographic. (Bohm, 1971) Pribram and Bohm’s ideas were brought

together shortly thereafter as the holographic universe. Bohm and his colleagues elaborated this

model over the next two decades. (Bohm, 1980; Bohm and Hiley, 1993) In Bohm’s model, the

present moment in time is unfolded, and thus becomes explicate, from the implicate order of the

universe. Unfolding is his model’s equivalent of the classical notion of ‘collapsing the wave packet.’

As the present moment passes, the explicate order, our measurable physical reality, is enfolded back

into the implicate order. This process of unfolding and enfolding is equivalent to a dynamic

movement through a hologram called a holomovement. (Bohm in Weber, 1982) Consciousness and

life are related to this process since living and conscious beings can choose the particular temporal

course through the hologram, or rather, choose how the implicate order unfolds into the explicate

order and thus construct the holomovement, our measurable physical reality.

So, Bohm’s physical model is directly related to life and consciousness. Many scientists believe

that theories of life and consciousness will eventually emerge from Bohm’s holographic model.

(Josephson and Pallikari-Viras, 1991) This theory is also conducive to an explanation of psi

phenomena. (Talbot, 1991) Bohm’s explicate order, the unfolded aspect of physical reality, is merely

an appearance that is “abstracted from an intangible, invisible flux that is not comprised of parts; it

is an inseparable interconnectedness.” (Wilber, 6) If we, as living and conscious beings, have the

ability to unfold our physical reality from the implicate order, we must do so from our knowledge of

the interconnectedness of all things within the implicate order. Since this interconnectedness

transcends normal space and time, it can bypass the normal physical quantities and actions that we

measure only within the explicate order, as denoted by particle movements and their energies. This

is the basis of all psi phenomena. In other words, psi does not represent a transmission through

space-time that requires a transfer of energy, but psi is a product of that interconnectedness because

life cognizes different events within space-time as “potentially simultaneous and everywhere.”

(Wilber, 7)

While SOFT has a different genesis, the end theory corresponds quite well with Bohm’s

holographic model. Theodor Kaluza first derived Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations directly from

a five-dimensional extension of Einstein’s recently developed general theory of relativity. (Kaluza,

1921) Shortly thereafter, Oskar Klein tried to quantize Kaluza’s model, (Klein, 1926, 1927, 1939) but

his attempts were a failure. (Klein in Mehra, 1974; Beichler, 1999a, 113) Yet those failed attempts

have been adopted within both the supergravity and superstring theories.

On the other hand, Kaluza’s original five-dimensional model has never been disproved. Instead,

it has been largely ignored by science as a whole because the five-dimensional model of reality that it

utilizes is impractical, (Tonnelat, 1966a, 403-404; Beichler, 1997, 144) just as Einstein’s general

theory of relativity was virtually dormant from 1925 to 1955. (Graves, 232) Einstein adopted

Kaluza’s model in the late 1930s and tried to extend the theory for further use in physics. (Einstein,

Bergmann, 1938; Einstein, Bergmann, Bargmann, 1941) In Kaluza’s original model, there were only

two mathematical criteria to regulate the fifth dimension. Each mathematical point in four-

dimensional space-time is extended in the fifth direction along an A-line. Those A-lines must be (1)

closed and (2) exhibit uniform length. Kaluza further suggested that the A-lines would only have a

microscopic length since we cannot sense the fifth dimension. It is this suggestion that Klein and

later theorists adapted to develop their own quantified field theories. However, Einstein, in

collaboration with Peter G. Bergmann and Valentin Bargmann, dropped this suggestion and

demonstrated mathematically that the fifth dimension could just as well have macroscopic extension.

This result perplexed Einstein since he assumed that a macroscopically extended fifth

dimension should be detectable, (Einstein, 1956, 127) so he dropped this line of investigation in the

early 1940s.

However, we can have it both ways: The fifth dimension can be both macroscopically extended

and undetectable by incorporating William Kingdon Clifford’s model of space, or in this case space-

time, as a thin ‘sheet’ embedded in a five-dimensional space-time. (Clifford, 1870) This ‘sheet’ does

not have boundaries in the ordinary sense of the word because the single field occupying the fifth

dimension is continuous, but it can be characterized by an ‘effective width’ that determines the

extent of our measurable four-dimensional physical reality in the fifth direction. The quantum of

action upon which quantum theory is based is determined by the ‘effective width’ of the ‘sheet,’ so

all of quantum theory evolves out of the single continuous field. In fact, only the addition of a real

fifth dimension allows both the continuity of field and discreteness of the quantum to co-exist

within a single model of reality. It was both Einstein’s dream and expectation that the quantum

would eventually evolve or naturally emerge from the mathematics of his unified field theory, so

SOFT offers a fulfillment of Einstein’s program of developing a ‘unified field theory’ based on

relativity rather than the quantum.

The four-dimensional ‘sheet’ is actually an extremely dense portion of the five-dimensional

single field. Folds, bends and burble in the ‘sheet’ correspond to protons, electrons and neutrinos.

So material particles are even denser portions of the single field, but the particles are perpendicular

to the overall empty four-dimensional space-time portion of the ‘sheet.’ All other real particles

evolve from this simple basis and all physical phenomena, including a new and complete theory of

the atomic nucleus, (Beichler, 1999b, 1999c and 2001) can be explained in terms of the SOFT

model. A theory of life itself emerges naturally from the chemical characteristics of the model, as do

theories of consciousness and psi. (Beichler, 1999d and 1999e)

In chemical reactions, electrons are exchanged between atoms and molecules. Physicists portray

chemical action as energy change and exchange between atoms and molecules. As a particle’s speed

and energy change, its extension into the fifth dimension changes as described by the special theory

of relativity. As a particle increases speed (energy) or decreases speed (less energy), its five-

dimensional aspect changes accordingly and that change is communicated throughout the single

field outside of the four-dimensional ‘sheet.’ In the very special chemical interaction that we call

living organisms, the normally chaotic energy changes of individual reacting atoms and molecules

couple together or entangle via this five-dimensional extension, in a very special manner, exhibiting

the properties of, and otherwise defining, life. In other words, the chaotic energy changes on the

level of individual interacting atoms in the special chemical interaction called life are manifested as a

pattern of density variations in the five-dimensional single field that can be described as a

mathematical complexity. Many scientists equate life with a special biofield. This five-dimensional

complexity is the biofield that evolves out of the single field, just as the gravitational, electric and

magnetic fields evolve out of the single field under the proper physical conditions.

A simple living organism evolves, becomes more complicated in its internal mechanical and

chemical structure in four-dimensional space-time, due to the organisms interactions within its four-

dimensional environment. In enough time, the internal structure of the four-dimensional organism

becomes so complicated that a special organ evolves to regulate and order the internal functions of

the organism: This is the brain. But the evolution of brain corresponds to the formation of a

secondary complexity in the five-dimensional extension of the body. This secondary complexity is

called mind. Mind is a finer complexity, or five-dimensional density variation pattern in the single

field, within the life complexity.

After the evolution of mind (in the five-dimensional extension of the material body) and brain

(in four-dimensional space-time), the organism continues to interact with its four-dimensional

environment. It evolves further by adding new memories in the brain/mind, as electromagnetic

patterns. The organism eventually reaches a point where it becomes aware of the non-local objects

in its environment that constitute a much larger world than can be sensed in the immediate vicinity

of the organism. The mind develops a special awareness of spatial extension and its own position

and orientation within the four-dimensional ‘sheet.’ After that milestone has been breached, the

mind develops an awareness of the organism’s extension in time, or rather the flow of time. The

mind’s awareness of past, present and future corresponds to the development of a tertiary

complexity in the five-dimensional single field, which is commonly known as consciousness, since

an awareness of time can only evolve as perception from a superior position outside of time or

‘above’ the four-dimensional space-time ‘sheet’ in the fifth dimension.

While the growing collection of memories that evolved into consciousness came to the mind

via the five normal senses reacting to the four-dimensional environment of the organism,

consciousness, as an extremely subtle density variation pattern in the five-dimensional single field,

interacts directly (without the intervention of the normal four-dimensional senses) with other

changes in the five-dimensional single field. The awareness of such external five-dimensional

influences by the mind/brain is called psi. So this model explains all psi phenomena. A more highly

evolved consciousness gains the ability to interact and act directly upon the five-dimensional field

and can thus directly influence other material and living bodies in the four-dimensional ‘sheet’ via its

five-dimensional connection. In this manner, the consciousness of one being can affect other living

beings in a manner that we sometimes call ‘psychic’ or ‘alternative healing.’

From the theoretical perspective, the SOFT model corresponds quite readily to Bohm’s

holographic universe. In essence, the fifth direction of space-time is Bohm’s ‘hidden variable’ and

the five-dimensional single field is the physical manifestation of the hologram. The four-dimensional

‘sheet’ corresponds to Bohm’s ‘quantum potential field.’ The future and past portions of the single

field are the implicate order, while the constantly changing present portion of the single field

represents the holomovement or the explicate order in Bohm’s model. So, the SOFT and Bohm’s

model offer ways to theoretically enhance and correct each other. It is expected that the Bohm and

Beichler models will eventually prove to be mathematically and physically equivalent, not only to

correspond to one another. The single field model also incorporates all of the present quantum

theory, offering a theoretical method for reinterpreting the quantum theory and correcting past

problems within the various theories and models that constitute modern quantum theory.

SOFT is falsifiable and offers a rich research program, both within pure physics and biology. If

a simple living organism can be completely mapped according to its chemical and thus energy

interactions, it is possible to determine the mathematical attractor that corresponds to the ‘life’

complexity, or biofield, of the organism. Given that attractor, experiments could be designed and

conducted to determine how non-local five-dimensional changes affect that organism. The attractor

would thus serve as a scientific model for valid forms of psychic and alternative healing. Simple

alternative healing methods could be described, tested and verified using this model, thus

determining which alternative healing methods are valid and which are bogus. This model would

further detail the possibility of a direct health link between an individual’s own consciousness, mind

and body, as well as provide a model that would be useful in the field of mental health.

In the meantime, Tiller’s model shares some characteristics with both of these alternative

theories. Tiller’s model is based upon an eight-dimensional framework for space-time. Our normal

four-dimensional space-time is ‘electric monopole constituted,’ or rather coarse matter is based on

electrical forces. The notion that common matter is based upon electrical forces is not new in

Tiller’s theory, but predates both the quantum and relativity theories. But Tiller also postulates a

finer level of reality that is constituted by four added dimensions that Tiller calls a second ‘reciprocal

subspace.’ Any real physical measurement contains elements from both subspaces. This reciprocal

subspace is ‘magnetic-monopole written.’ In this other realm, normal physical laws such as the speed

limit of light do not apply, so information transfer can occur at much higher speeds than matter can

travel in normal space-time. This realm corresponds to Louis DeBroglie’s pilot wave envelope.

All physical measurements (and interactions) partake of both of these subspaces and so

construct our normal physical reality, but physical measurements that constitute our normal physical

reality are characterized by an extremely small coupling coefficient between the two reciprocal

subspaces. In other words, normal electromagnetic theory can be used to model our normal four-

dimensional space-time. However, under special physical conditions where the coupling coefficient

between the two subspaces is sufficiently large, the contribution of the reciprocal subspace becomes

dominant in the measurement and various subtle energies, such as those involved in psi phenomena,

surface in our physical reality. The coupling coefficient that cements the two subspaces together is a

substance constructed of ‘deltron’ particles from a still higher ninth dimension. The ninth dimension

is a domain of emotion. It is embedded in a tenth dimension of mind, and that in an eleventh

dimension which is the domain of spirit. This general model gives science the opportunity to expand

the quantum paradigm to include human consciousness and intention as quantities rather than

qualities. Yet it is still a purely physical model.

From this physical model, Tiller has derived a special mathematical transform that is universally

applicable and could account for the vast and various types of subtle energy interactions associated

with life and psi. The transform is also more immediately applicable to everyday phenomena, which

renders Tiller’s model falsifiable. Via this transform, the qualities of substances in one subspace are

related to complementary qualities of substance in the reciprocal subspace, providing a ‘true

quantitative linkage’ between the two subspaces and the physical events that characterize our reality.

In the laboratory, Tiller and his colleagues have found that human intention can be imbedded into

simple electronic devices via a specialized technique. These electronic devices can then be used to

test specific subtle physical and chemical changes in water. These subtle changes occur in a

‘conditioned space’ that conforms to Tiller’s model of a sufficiently large coupling coefficient

between the two reciprocal subspaces and allows the application of his mathematical transform to

explain the phenomena. In other words, Tiller has found a way to condition space in such a manner

that the subtle energies associated with information transfer within his ‘magnetic monopole-written’

subspace can be detected. If experimentally verified, Tiller’s electronic devices and methods should

provide a means of testing, confirming and measuring other subtle energy effects such as psi

phenomena and alternative healing practices.

Tiller’s use of an eight-dimensional model of physical space is not unique in the historical

development of science, although his methods and conclusions are unique. By modifying Kaluza’s

five-dimensional theory, J. Podolanski developed the concept of a six-dimensional continuum.

(Podolanski, 1949) His six dimensions constituted a real physical space, rather than a purely

mathematical model, with a special laminated or sheet structure that could be compared to Tiller’s

reciprocal subspaces. On the other hand, D. Meksyn extended the space-time continuum even

further than Kaluza, Einstein or Podolanski to include eight dimensions whose metric satisfied

Einstein's law of gravitation. (Meksyn, 1934) These earlier models were based upon Einstein’s

attempts to develop a five-dimensional unified field theory. More recently, Harold Puthoff, Russell

Targ and Edwin May (Targ, Puthoff and May, 1979) as well as Elizabeth Rauscher (Rauscher, 1977)

have suggested eight-dimensional models for the sole purpose of explaining some of the more

troublesome features of psi phenomena.

Rauscher argued that our four-dimensional space-time is only a portion of a larger eight-

dimensional space-time. Each of the four dimensions in normal space-time can be represented by a

complex number having a real and an imaginary part. Therefore, an ‘imaginary’ (but equally real)

four-dimensional space-time exists alongside our normal four-dimensional space-time. The

‘imaginary’ space-time acts as a realm for transfers of signals during psi processes, so an individual's

consciousness "is free to access information in the entire complex space." (Rauscher, 69) The short

theory offered by Puthoff, Targ and May also utilized an eight-dimensional manifold and is quite

similar to Rauscher's theory. Their theory incorporates an eight-dimensional geometry that can be

used to explain remote viewing. It is not a complete theory of psi phenomena, but it does have the

potential to account for other phenomena. They have made the same assumption as Rauscher

regarding the possibility of modeling an eight-dimensional space-time using complex numbers to

represent our normal four-dimensional space-time, thereby generating an eight-dimensional space-

time of limited application. In either case, these theories have helped to set the stage for Tiller’s

theory.

While Tiller’s theory may not be directly related to these earlier theories, his work is directly

related to Louis DeBroglie’s ‘theory of the double solution.’ In 1926, DeBroglie hypothesized that

every continuous solution R in wave mechanics has a “twin solution carrying a generally mobile

singularity (the particle!) having the same phase as the R solution.” (DeBroglie, 1962, 92) Even

though the singularity has the same phase as the normal R solution in quantum mechanics, it also

has an amplitude representing a mobile singular region. The amplitude of the singularity is exactly

the same as the one for R except within a spherical singular region of space-time. In the theory of

the double solution for a single particle, the quantum object consists of a physical wave in real space.

The presence of the singularity gives rise to the particle-like behavior of waves. According to

DeBroglie, the R wave function of quantum mechanics is considered to be only of statistical

significance and not real since, in the many particle case, the R wave function necessarily exists in

configuration space. He considered the u-waves, in real space, to represent reality and his aim (which

he never achieved) was to reproduce many-particle quantum mechanics using these u-waves.

DeBroglie’s theory is the basis of Tiller’s theory and the solutions in the dual phase spaces

postulated by DeBroglie correspond to Tiller’s reciprocal subspaces.

Coincidentally, DeBroglie’s theory also marked the beginning of Bohm’s research toward the

holographic universe and it also influenced Beichler’s research into Einstein’s five-dimensional

theory. But also, coincidentally, other scientists have hypothesized similar dual solutions to the wave

function to explain psi phenomena. Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne have developed a similar

quantum mechanical explanation for their experimental results for micro-psychokinesis. Psi is

explained by assuming that consciousness, like matter, exhibits a wave-particle duality. Since the

quantum theoreticians, or rather the "Copenhagenists," make use of a "probability-of-observation"

wave, Jahn and Dunne have postulated a similar "probability-of-experience" wave to be associated

with consciousness. (Jahn and Dunne, 219) Consciousness could then be represented quantitatively

by "generalized consciousness coordinates" just as normal physical quantities are represented in

various coordinate systems. "Consciousness waves" would not be restricted to act within the

confines or physical limits of the human brain alone and human consciousness could interact with

matter as well as other "consciousness waves" beyond the normal physical limits of the human body

and its five senses, in other words extrasensorally.

W. Von Lucadou and K. Kornwachs have also suggested a quantum model, although their

model has not yet been finalized. They have taken the normal function of quantum mechanics that

"describes the condition and the development of a quantum mechanical process" (Lucadou and

Kornwachs, 187) and added a new probabilistic function N, which describes complex quantum

systems. The quantity |N|2

represents the probability of the appearance or transfer of information

during a physical event. N itself would represent a complex material system such as the human brain

and its value would depend upon the complexity of the system it represents. Any physical event

described by quantum mechanics would therefore need to take into account both and could thus be

represented mathematically as Q = R + N. Q is the state vector while R and N are constants. R and

N actually account for the wave packet and the conscious act of collapsing the wave packet,

respectively. They are mutually dependent, making them difficult to specify. This representation of

dual components to the state vector in quantum mechanics looks something like DeBroglie’s theory

of the double solution as well as Tiller’s model, even though the additional component is used in

Lucadou and Kornwachs model for a different purpose. In effect, by adding an extra quantum

mechanical term to the wave function, even if it is only to account for consciousness, these scientists

are tacitly admitting that quantum theory, as it is presently understood, is incapable of dealing with

the concept of consciousness. On the other hand, why add a special term for just consciousness

alone. The same term could account for life or any other ‘quality’ which quantum mechanics is too

incomplete to account for at present.

So, while Tiller’s theory is a true alternative to other theories that fall closer to the mainstream

of scientific and physical research, his theory is not without valid and credible historical precedents.

In fact, all of these alternative physical theories share one important quality: They incorporate a

specific duality that seems to be an inherent characteristic of physical reality. It seems that a

quantitative understanding of this duality is necessary to overcome the differences between relativity

and the quantum (the continuous and discrete aspects of nature) as well as develop a physical theory

that can explain life, consciousness and the other ‘qualities’ associated with them. However, this

inherent duality is not shared by another popular group of theories, the torsional theories.

Torsion itself is an old concept within physics. Torsion is a standard feature of rotational

dynamics in Newtonian physics. Concepts of torsion have also been developed within relativity

physics, but the notion of a ‘torsional field’ that can act as a fifth natural force is more recent. A

half-century after Isaac Newton published his laws of motion, Leonhard Euler generalized the

second law of motion to include rotational motions. Einstein developed special relativity in 1906 and

general relativity in 1916, yet some scientists now claim that no similar generalizations were made for

the special cases of rotational motions until 1986 when M. Carmeli tried to develop a rotational

addendum to special relativity. Carmeli’s initial efforts were not concluded until G.I. Shipov

developed a rotational (torsional) relativity in a physical model that he called the theory of the

physical vacuum. (Shipov, 1993) “Since a torsion field is identical to the transverse spin polarization

of the physical vacuum, and a gravitational field is identical to the longitudinal spin polarization of

the physical vacuum, then some properties of torsion fields are identical to the properties of

gravitational fields.” (Nachalov and Parkhomov, 1) Shipov’s model should provide a mechanics of a

material point with spin as a generalization of Einstein’s theory of relativity, even though Shipov’s

model uses a geometry of absolute parallelism instead of a strict Riemannian geometry, as is used in

general relativity.

Shipov has shown that torsion fields that define the density of matter as well as the existence of

inertial forces are a direct result of his theoretical model. (Shipov, 1977 and 1979) A. Akimov, who

works with Shipov, claims that torsion fields come in three varieties; E-fields, S-fields and G-fields,

standing for Electric, Spin and Gravity, and these fields can account for subtle energies in nature.

These torsion fields are controllable, in that they can be generated and detected and appear as a

distinct type of energy that has no analog in either classical or modern physics. Akimov also claims

that the torsion fields can be coupled with standard electricity, magnetic and gravity fields, which

should provide a means of forming a unified field theory. Indeed, it is claimed that torsion fields can

interact with light, affect biological processes, can be generated by changes of state by some

substances, can affect electronic components and can affect gravitational attraction. The unified field

theory that has been proposed by Akimov and Shipov could eventually include the effects of

consciousness and thus be capable of explaining various aspects of psi as well as other aspects of

health and mind/body interaction.

However, there has been a scientific backlash against the torsional field theory and its validity

remains questionable. (Rubakov 2000; Konkretny, 2001) As stated above, torsion is a feature of all

mechanical systems in physics, both classical and modern. That fact is not in question. The debate is

whether a separate torsional field, which manifests in nature as an as yet undiscovered fifth natural

force, exists independent of the normal natural fields (forces or interactions) of gravity,

electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces. Even if the skeptics of torsional theory prove

correct in their criticisms of Shipov and Akimov’s theoretical model of a torsional field, and torsion

does not represent an independent physical field, there would still be merit to the torsional model as

an expression of torsion and spin within the normally accepted model or relativistic space-time. In

the meantime, the torsional theory is falsifiable and is being tested. The torsional field (or force) that

they propose has clear and observable affects on material objects that can be easily measured.

(Nachalov and Parkhomov, n.d.)

These theories do not exhaust all of the possible alternative theories that have been developed

by scientists. However, these theories and physical models seem to be the most popular and

noteworthy from among the overall field of alternatives. More importantly, these particular models

seem the most capable of explaining life and the dynamic relationship between physical organisms,

consciousness and the inanimate material environment in which we live. Should none of these

particular theories prove the ultimate theory of physical reality, there are enough similarities between

these theories, that the elements, techniques and mathematical methods used in one theory could be

adapted to the others. It is essential that all of these alternatives be explored conscientiously in the

hope of advancing science and better understanding of our world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akimov, A.E. and G.I. Shipov. “Torsion Fields and Their Experimental Manifestations.”

Proceedings of International Conference: New Ideas in Natural Science. First page and

bibliography reprinted: WWW. Online. Accessed 29 August 2002. At

<http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/freenrg/tors/torsd.html>; also available as Preprint No 4a.

Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, International Institute for Theoretical and Applied

Physics, Moscow, 1995. WWW. Online. Accessed 29 August 2002. At

<http://www.binet.lv/firms/project/english/torsion.htm>

Applequist, Thomas, Alan Chodos and Peter G.O. Freund. Eds. Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories.

Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, 1986.

Barrow, John D. Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation. New York: Fawcett

Columbine, 1988.

Beichler, James E. A Five-Dimensional Continuum Approach to a Unified Field Theory. Master's

Thesis. San Francisco State University, 1980; Edited and published in Yggdrasil: The Journal of

Paraphysics, II, 2 (Winter Solstice 1999(a)): 101-203. Online. WWW. At

<http://members.aol.com/Mysphyt1/yggdrasil-2/kal1x.htm>

Beichler, James E. “Up, Up and Away! The fifth dimension in physics.” Yggdrasil: The Journal of

Paraphysics, I, 2 (Summer 1997): 128-157. Online. WWW. Available at

<http://members.aol.com/Mysphyt1/yggdrasil-2/kal1x.htm>

Beichler, James E. The Paraphysical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Doctoral Dissertation, The

Union Institute, 1999(b). Portions published as “TOEs, fingers and the nose on your face.”

Yggdrasil: The Journal of Paraphysics I, 4 (Winter solstice 1999(c)): 417-566. Online. WWW. At

<http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/toe1.htm>; and “Strange facts find a theory:

A new dimension for psi.” Yggdrasil: The Journal of Paraphysics I, 4 (Winter Solstice 1999(d)):

567-596. Online. WWW. At <http://members.aol.com/yggdras/paraphysics/newdim.htm>

Beichler, James E. “Single Field Unification and Consciousness.” Frontier Perspectives. 8, 2

(1999(e)).

Beichler, James E. “Cross Purposes or Crossed Paths: Science, Psi and Religion.” 2000 Ashby

Award paper for the ARPR. Journal of the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research. Spring

2000.

Beichler, James E. “To Be or Not to Be! A 'Paraphysics' for the New Millennium.” Journal of

Scientific Exploration, 15 (1) 2001. Presentation for the 19th

Annual Society of Scientific

Exploration Meeting, June 2000, Kings College, London, Ontario, Canada.

Beichler, James E. “From Paraphysics to Cosmic Consciousness: The Endgame.” The Academy of

Religion and Psychical Research, 2001 Annual Conference Proceedings: 70-82; Presentation for

the ARPR 26th

Annual Conference, “Cosmic Consciousness, Near-Death Experiences and the

Afterlife,” Friday, June 8, 2001 to Sunday, June 10, 2001, Hastings Hotel and Conference

Center, Hartford, Connecticut.

Beichler, James E. “The SOFT Nucleus.” Yggdrasil: The Journal of Paraphysics III, 1 (Winter

Solstice 2001): 49-56. Online. WWW. At <http://members.aol.com/Mysphyt1/yggdrasil-

9/SOFT.htm>

Beichler, James E. “The relationship between Physics, Death and Communication.” The Academy

of Religion and Psychical Research, 2002 Annual Conference Proceedings: 40-52 Presented at

the 27th

Annual Conference of the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research, “Mediumship:

A Gateway to other Dimensions of Existence,” 23 to 26 June 2002, Rosemont College,

Rosemont, Pennsylvania. 19

Bohm, David. Quantum Theory. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951.

Bohm, David. “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables.”

Physical Review. 85 (1952): 166-179.

Bohm, David. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1957.

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.

Bohm, David and B.J. Hiley. The Undivided Universe. London: Routledge, 1993.

Bohr, Niels. Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley, 1958: Chapters 2 and 3.

DeBroglie, Louis. L. ComptesRendus, 183, 447 (1926).

DeBroglie, Louis. ComptesRendus, 185, 580 (1927).

DeBroglie, Louis. New Perspectives in Physics. Trans. A. J. Pomerans. New York: Basic Books,

1962.

Clifford, William Kingdon. "On the Space-Theory of Matter." Read 21 February 1870. Transactions

of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 2 (1866/1876): 157-158; Reprinted in Mathematical

Papers: 21-22.

Clifford, William Kingdon. Mathematical Papers. Ed. Robert Tucker. Pref. H.J. Stephen Smith. New

York: Chelsea Publishing, 1968; Reproduction of 1882 original.

Davies, Paul C.W. and Julian Brown. Eds. Superstrings, A Theory of Everything. Cambridge: CUP,

1988.

Einstein, Albert, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. "Can quantum mechanical description of

physical reality be considered complete?" Physical Review 41 (15 May 1935).

Einstein, Albert and Peter G. Bergmann. "On a Generalization of Kaluza's Theory of Electricity."

Annals of Mathematics 39 (July 1938): 683-701.

Einstein, Albert, Peter G. Bergmann and Valentine Bargmann. "On the Five-Dimensional

Representation of Gravitation and Electricity." Theodor von Karman Anniversary Volume.

Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, 1941: 212-225.

Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity. 6th

edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956.

Ellis, John. “Interview.” Davies and Brown. Superstrings: 151-169.

Graves, John Cowperthwaite. The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Relativity Theory.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1971.

Green, Michael. “Interview.” Davies and Brown. Superstrings: 107-139.

Jahn, Robert D. and Brenda J. Dunne. Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the

Physical World. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987.

Josephson, Brian D. “Limits to the Universality of Quantum Mechanics.” Foundation of Physics. 18

(1988): 195-204; also WWW. Online. At

<http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/QMlimits.html> 20

Josephson, Brian D. and Fotini Pallikari-Viras. “Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality.”

Foundation of Physics. 18 (1988): 195-204; also WWW. Online. At

<http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html>

Kaku, Michio. Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the

10th Dimension. New York: Anchor Doubleday, 1994.

Kaluza, Theodor. "Zur Unitätsproblem der Physik." Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie

der Wissenschaften 54 (1921): 966-972: Reprinted in Applequist, et.al. Eds. Modern Kaluza-

Klein Theories: 69-75.

Klein, Oskar. "Quantentheorie und fünfdimensionale Relativitätstheorie." Zeitschrift fur Physik 37

(1926): 895-906

Klein, Oskar. "The Atomicity of Electricity as a Quantum Theory Law." Nature 118 (9 October

1926): 516.

Klein, Oskar. "Zur fünfdimensionale Darstellung der Relativitätstheories." Zeitschrift fur Physik 46

(1927): 188-208.

Klein, Oskar. "On the Theory of Charged Fields." New Theories in Physics. Paris: International

Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, 1939: 77-93.

Konkrety, Alexander. The Torsion Field Fraud. WWW. Online. 12 January 2001. Accessed 3

September 2002. At <http://www.skeptik.net/professor/tffraud.htm>

Lawrie, Ian D. A Unified Grand Tour of Theoretical Physics. New York: Adam Hilger, 1990.

Lucadou, W. von and K. Kornwachs. "Can Quantum Theory Explain Paranormal Phenomena?"

Research 1976. Morris, Roll and Morris: 187-191.

Mehra, Jagdish. Einstein, Hilbert and the Theory of Gravitation. Boston: D. Reidel, 1974.

Meksyn, D., "Unified Field Theory, Part I: Electromagnetic Field," Philosophical Magazine 17

(1934): 99-112

Meksyn, D., "A Unified Field Theory. Part II: Gravitation," Philosophical Magazine 17 (February

1934): 476-482.

Morris, J.D., W.G. Roll and R.L. Morris. Eds. Research in Parapsychology, 1976. London:

Scarecrow Press, 1977.

Nachalov, Yu.V. “The Basics of Torsion Mechanics.” WWW. Online. Accessed 3 September 2003.

At <http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/tors24.html>

Nachalov, Yu.V. and E.A. Parkhomov. “Experimental detection of the torsion field.” WWW.

Online. Accessed 29 September 2003. At <http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/doc15.html>

Podolanski, J., "Unified Field Theory in Six Dimensions," Proceedings of the Royal Society 201 (22

March 1950): 234-260.

Pribram, Karl. Languages of the Brain. Gordon Globus, et.al. Eds. New York: Plenum, 1971.

Pribram, Karl. Consciousness and the Brain. New York: Plenum, 1976.

Puharich, Andrija. Ed. The Iceland Papers: Select Papers on Experimental and Theoretical Research

on the Physics of Consciousness. Amherst, Wisconsin: Essentia Research Associates, 1979.

Rauscher, Elizabeth A. "Some Physical Models Potentially Applicable to Remote Perception." The

Iceland Papers. Puharich: 49-94.

Rubakov, V.A. Review of The Theory of the Physical Vacuum. Theory, Experiments, and

Technologies by G I Shipov. Uspekhi Fizicheskeshikh Nauk, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Trans. Yu.V. Morozov. Uspekhi Fizicheskeshikh Nauk. 170, 3 (2000): 351-352.

Shipov, G.I. Teoriya fizicheskogo vakuuma, (Theory of the Physical Vacuum). Moscow, NT-Center,

1993: 362.

Sachs, Mendel. Einstein versus Bohr: The Continuing Controversies in Physics. La Salle, Illinois:

Open Court, 1988.

Sachs, Mendel. Dialogues on Modern Physics. River Edge, New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing,

1998.

Schwarz, John. “Interview.” Davies and Brown. Superstrings: 70-89.

Schwarz, John H. “The Second Superstring Revolution.” Online. WWW. 22 May 1997. At

<theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/index.htm>

Shipov, G.I. “Obscherelrelyativistskiye nelineinyye spinornyye uravneniya.” Izvestiya VUZ, seriya

Fizika, 3 (1977).

Shipov, G.I. “Problemy teorii elementarnykh vzaimodeistvii.” Moscow, Moscow State University,

1979.

Talbot, Michael. The Holographic Universe. New York: Harper Perennial, 1991.

Targ, Russell, Harold E. Puthoff and Edwin C. May. " Direct Perception of Remote Geographical

Locations." Mind at Large. Tart, Puthoff and Targ: 77-106.

Targ, Russell and Harold E. Puthoff. Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Ability. Delacorte

Press, 1977.

Tart, Charles T., Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ. Eds. Mind at Large: Institute of Electrical and

Electronic Engineers Symposia on the Nature of Extrasensory Perception. New York: Praeger,

1979.

Tiller, William A. Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality and

Consciousness. Walnut Creek, California: Pavior Publishing, 1997.

Tiller, William A., W.E. Dibble Jr. and M.J. Kohane. Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of

a New Physics. Walnut Creek, California: Pavior Publishing, 2001.

Tonnelat, Marie Antoinette. The Principles of Electrodynamic Theory and of Relativity. Trans. A.J.

Knodel. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel, 1966(a).

Tonnelat, Marie Antoinette. Einstein's Unified Field Theory. Trans. Richard Akerib. New York:

Gordon and Breach, 1966(b).

Vergano, Dan. “A tiny particle could smash a big hole in physics theories.” USA Today (31 July

2002): 9D.

Weber, Renée. “The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe: A Conversation with David Bohm.” Wilber.

The Holographic Paradigm: 44-104.

Wilber, Ken. Ed. The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge of

Science. Boston: Shambhala, 1982.

Witten, Edward. “Interview.” Davies and Brown. Superstrings: 90-106.