unidentified flying objects (UFO's), and paranormal phenomena such as
psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition all have one thing in common:
both mind and matter-energy are involved.
Hitherto, mainstream science has insisted on a
rather arbitrary separation of mind and matter-energy. However, as we
shall see, this separation is not based on good observation. For
example, everyone exhibits in himself the ability of mind to affect
matter. While theories of computers, control systems, and physics can explain human behavior once the physical system has been given an input
signal, the original signal—intent, or what I call inception—is an
unexplained mystery to ordinary science.
“Psychotronics” (a Czechoslovakian
term) and “psychoenergetics” (a Soviet term) have been
specifically designed to provide a framework for approaching the
problems of mind, matter, and their interaction. If we can understand
psychotronics, we will be able to understand better the interaction of
mind and matter, including all paranormal phenomena, unidentified flying
objects, and Fortean phenomena.
Let us therefore start by defining
psychotronics. The prefix “psycho”
refers to the mind. The suffix “tronics” refers to physics and physical devices.
the concept of psychotronics refers to a union of physics and
metaphysics. Such an audacious concept can offer a solution to almost
every present problem in meta physics, the foundations of logic, the
foundations of physics, and the foundations of mathematics.
To begin with, it seems necessary to form a unified theory of mind,
matter, and their interaction. It also seems necessary to
reinterpret and extend electromagnetic theory. Logic itself must be
advanced, for a part of reality, although “illogical”
according to our present logic, is nonetheless true. In metaphysics we
must solve formidable problems: the ontological problem (nature of
being); the problem of mind, and the interaction of mind and body; the
problem of change; and the problem of nothing.
It has been said that fools rush in where angels
fear to tread. To tackle the problems of psychotronics demands the
audacity to rush in where even fools fear to tread!
At this time, it may be appropriate to
point out that all Western science, mathematics, and logic are founded
upon three simple laws of logic, proposed and formulated by Aristotle.
Since the entire universe cannot be described by these three laws—parts of reality are known to violate one or more of them and hence be
illogical though true—it appears that we must be audacious enough to
tackle and change the three laws of logic, if a new paradigm is to be
constructed to solve all the presently unsolved problems.
SOME UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES OF PHYSICS
First, no one knows what mass really
is; we do not know for sure whether inertial and gravitational mass are
one and the same. General relativity says it is, and we know from
experiments that if any difference exists between inertial mass and
gravitational mass that difference is very small indeed. But we do not
know positively that there is not some small but finite difference.
we have no idea why the mass of a moving object
increases with respect to a static observer. It is simple to calculate
in special relativity how much the mass increases as a function of the
velocity, but no one has the foggiest notion why this happens.
Particularly so since an observer standing on the moving object and
moving along with it sees no increase in its mass at all.
This poses a real paradox; if we try to assign
some absolute notion to the idea of mass, then any object has an
infinite number of masses, all at the same time and all different.
are two ways to determine mass: (1) by its resistance to a disturbing
force, and (2) by its ability to occupy three-dimensional space. The
latter requires that mass be volumetric, i.e., that mass be L3
But look at the weird properties of a photon!
If we measure its resistance to a disturbing force, we find that no
force on earth can accelerate or decelerate the photon. If we measure
the mass of a photon by the first method, it appears to have infinite
mass. Yet if we measure it by the second method, it can have no
mass at all, because a photon is not volumetric; it is two-dimensional.
It therefore has infinite mass and zero mass simultaneously.
Furthermore, we can take the viewpoint that
whatever its mass is, it can only have one. If that is so, then infinite
mass and zero mass must somehow be the same thing! Which
contradicts the three laws of logic. However, this should not
concern us too greatly; many things contradict the laws of logic and are
nonetheless true. So while it is presently "illogical"
for infinite mass and zero mass to be identical, we should hold on to
the idea that this may very well be true.
Additionally, one of the great cornerstone
assumptions in physics is that gravitational field and electric field
are mutually exclusive—i.e., they are totally different things.
Yet a physicist named Santilli has proved that this is not so, and that
they are either partially the same thing or totally the same thing.
And there the matter stands, so we do not fully understand what electric
field and gravitational field are, or how to go about turning one into
the other, although Santilli's work seems to imply that this is at least
theoretically possible. We must therefore invoke a new concept of
has demonstrated numerous capabilities: he has affected a magnometer
inside a Faraday shield; bent and broken metal objects; caused a fresh
flower to wither and dry in seconds; permanently changed the crystal
structure of nitinol; altered magnetic programs on computer cards;
influenced a Geiger counter; de materialized matter; and demonstrated
the inceptive Cyborg effect, thought-photography, telepathy, and the
Geller effect (the sympathetic stimulation of a psi-positive).
It is useless to attempt to explain the feats
performed by Uri Geller in terms of the ordinary fields and effects of
known physics. Nothing short of a new physics paradigm will suffice.
This new paradigm must encompass both mind and physics within the same
theoretical framework, if it is to succeed in explaining how mind
In terms of present physics and logic, the mind is
regarded as totally separate from matter. For mind and matter to
interact, some aspect of mind must be the same as some aspect of matter,
i.e., to move matter, a force is required. Force is the time rate of
change of momentum. To generate a force capable of moving matter, mind
must be able to change momentum. But since momentum can only be obtained
from something which possesses momentum to give up, then the mind must
somehow possess momentum.
If this is so, then the momentum must ordinarily
exist in a separate three-dimensional space, since it apparently does
not ordinarily exist in laboratory three-dimensional space. Such a
situation requires at least six spatial dimensions and one common time
dimension, such that the mind (mental phenomena) is a set of objective
physical phenomena existing in an ordinary objective three-dimensional
space, but one which is three orthogonalities away, spatially, from the
laboratory three-dimensional space.
Mental changes upon physical objects would thus
imply orthogonal rotation of mental objects from the mental
three-dimensional space into or closer to the laboratory
three-dimensional space. Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of
quantum mechanics contains a structure where such representation is
possible, and the MWI is consistent with the entire experimental basis
of modern physics. Thus from the MWI it is possible to objectively model
the mind and matter, and from that, psychotronics as well.
MY APPROACH TO PSYCHOTRONICS
In twelve years of
intensive work on this question, I have evolved a conceptual approach,
which is consistent with present physics but extends it. A new concept of
reality is involved, however, and severe demands are made on the
individual to stretch his framework of comprehension. The
concept is an abstraction that allows the modeling of perception itself—either mental perception or physical detection. The fourth law of logic
(to be explained shortly) involves the age-old identity of opposites whose
apparent necessity has baffled logicians, philosophers, and scientists for
centuries. With the perceptron concept, we can at last comprehend how the
identity of opposites is accomplished, and when it is accomplished.
This immediately solves the age-old philosophical
problem of change. The fourth law also closes logic into a complete,
closed metalogic, encompassing both physics and metaphysics.
Let us use as a definition of reality: reality
is that which can be conceptually and mathematically modeled and fitted to
the phenomena existing in one or more minds. Physical reality is
that which can be modeled and fitted to the phenomena existing in all
minds. Mental reality can be modeled and fitted to the phenomena in
one mind. Mental and physical realities comprise
reality. Complex or “paranormal” reality is that which can be
conceptually and mathematically modeled and fitted to phenomena which
exist in more than one mind, but not in all minds.
From perception theory I have succeeded in
deriving a great deal of the present basis of physics, including
Einstein's two postulates, Newton's laws, the law of gravitation, and the
solution to the ontological problem. (Unknown to me at the time, Ives had
already done so for Newton's laws, the law of gravitation, and Einstein's
postulates. His work has unfortunately been ignored.) In addition, the
photon can be seen to be an ordinary three-dimensional particle existing
in a three-dimensional space that is orthogonal to the laboratory
three-dimensional space frame. A stationary particle in the laboratory
frame appears as a photon to the orthogonal spatial frame.
Einstein's second postulate is usually stated as
“the speed of light is the same for every observer.” Restated,
this becomes “every photon in an inertial frame is moving at the
speed of light, c, with respect to every particle in that inertial
frame.” The corollary then follows immediately: every particle in
that inertial frame is also moving at the speed of light, c, with respect
to every photon in that inertial frame.
In a single three-dimensional space, this is incomprehensible. Taking two
orthogonal three-dimensional spaces, with the photons in one frame and the
electrons in the other, it is perfectly comprehensible.
From pure nothing—empty vacuum, absence of thing—one can generate everything, the presence of thing. Here is direct proof
that ultimately opposites are identical. But to a mind rigidly programmed
in three-law logic, such a truth is abhorrent. Physicists consequently
have done nothing with the idea that all our physical laws—or at least
most of the great ones—can be straightforwardly derived from a special
kind of a “piece of nothing” which I call a quiton.
they have not seen that this constitutes a statement of a fourth law of
logic—the identity of opposites on their common boundary.
It is interesting to note that the paper which was
handed to an American reporter, Robert Toth, by a Soviet scientist, and
which caused the KGB to seize Toth and charge him with receiving Soviet
state secrets, contained just such a theory as the basis of a unifying
theory of psychotronics. Yet none of our intelligence analysts seems to
have picked up the overwhelming importance of what was in the paper, and
Toth himself appears to believe that his KGB arrest was simply harassment.
In fact the paper did contain material on the basic Soviet approach to
psychotronics—and thus to psychotronic weapons—and it was indeed state
secrets that had been given to Toth.
Everett's many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics, with which very few physicists are familiar, provides a
needed correction to the conventional monocular interpretation of
relativity, and it allows a theoretically sound basis to be constructed
The conventional interpretation of
relativity considers only a single observer at a time. But if you can
accept so simple a concept as that both you and I exist simultaneously,
regardless of how we move with respect to each other, then I assure you
that physics is startlingly different from what you may have studied in
the ordinary university physics text book.
Everett, originally a student of the
world-renowned physicist Dr. John Wheeler at Princeton, for his Ph.D.
thesis considered the problem of multiple simultaneous observers and
worked out what this did to physics. His highly innovative thesis provided
a totally new interpretation of quantum physics and defined a startling
new kind of reality in which all possibilities are physically real and
exist. This new physics is indeed very strange, but it is totally
consistent with the entire experimental basis of physics today.
I discovered that all my perception theory could
be fitted precisely onto Everett's many-worlds interpretation.1
On that basis, a theory or schema of biofields was derived that provides
an approach to a unified field theory. In fact, it predicts that any kind
of field can be turned into any other kind of field, merely by correct and
precise time synchronization. It also offers a physical and exact model of
mind and mental phenomena and a mental and exact model of physical
On this basis, a framework can be
provided for psychotronics which is consistent with what we know of
ordinary physics but which does not contain many of the limitations of
ordinary physics. In a strange sense Everett wrote the physics for the
all-mind or the Supreme Creator's mind because an unlimited mind, so to
speak, must already have thought of everything possible, and for an
all-creative mind to “think” a possibility is for that
possibility to be real.
3. Reality: a paranormal bridge with two ends
Reality as a Paranormal Bridge with Two Ends
Figure 3, I show the nature of the problem of paranormal phenomena.
To understand it, we must first define more precisely some of
the present concepts. First, what do we really mean when we talk of
“physical phenomena”? To go into this, we must first
destroy the notion that there exists some sort of separate, concrete
reality totally apart from mind, for that notion is simply the old
Cartesian assumption. It has long been refuted as far as having any
absolute validity, and this is well-known to philosophers and to
foundations physicists. According to Lindsay and Margenau in their Foundations
of Physics. “physics has nothing
to say about a possible real world lying behind experience.