The Field Read Online Free PDF Page B

physicists had discovered a strange property in the subatomic world called ‘nonlocality’. This refers to the ability of a quantum entity such as an individual electron to influence another quantum particle instantaneously over any distance despite there being no exchange of force or energy. It suggested that quantum particles once in contact retain a connection even when separated, so that the actions of one will always influence the other, no matter how far they get separated. Albert Einstein disparaged this ‘spooky action at a distance’, and it was one of the major reasons he so distrusted quantum mechanics, but it has been decisively verified by a number of physicists since 1982. 4
    Nonlocality shattered the very foundations of physics. Matter could no longer be considered separate. Actions did not have to have an observable cause over an observable space. Einstein’s most fundamental axiom wasn’t correct: at a certain level of matter, things could travel faster than the speed of light. Subatomic particles had no meaning in isolation but could only be understood in their relationships. The world, at its most basic, existed as a complex web of interdependent relationships, forever indivisible.
    Perhaps the most essential ingredient of this interconnected universe was the living consciousness that observed it. In classical physics, the experimenter was considered a separate entity, a silent observer behind glass, attempting to understand a universe that carried on, whether he or she was observing it or not. In quantum physics, however, it was discovered, the state of all possibilities of any quantum particle collapsed into a set entity as soon as it was observed or a measurement taken. To explain these strange events, quantum physicists had postulated that a participatory relationship existed between observer and observed – these particles could only be considered as ‘probably’ existing in space and time until they were ‘perturbed’, and the act of observing and measuring them forced them into a set state – an act akin to solidifying Jell-O. This astounding observation also had shattering implications about the nature of reality. It suggested that the consciousness of the observer brought the observed object into being. Nothing in the universe existed as an actual ‘thing’ independently of our perception of it. Every minute of every day we were creating our world.
    It seemed a central paradox to Ed that physicists would have you believe that sticks and stones have a different set of physical rules from the atomic particles within them, that there should be one rule for the tiny and one for the large, one rule for the living, another for the inert. Classical laws were undoubtedly useful for fundamental properties of motion, in describing how skeletons hold us up or how our lungs breathe, our hearts pump, our muscles carry heavy weights. And many of the body’s basic processes – eating, digestion, sleeping, sexual function – are indeed governed by physical laws.
    But classical physics or biology could not account for such fundamental issues as how we can think in the first place; why cells organize as they do; how many molecular processes proceed virtually instantaneously; why arms develop as arms and legs as legs, even though they have the same genes and proteins; why we get cancer; how this machine of ours can miraculously heal itself; and even what knowing is – how it is that we know what we know. Scientists might understand in minute detail the screws, bolts, joints and various wheels, but nothing about the force that powers the engine. They might treat the smallest mechanics of the body but still they appeared ignorant of the most fundamental mysteries of life.
    If it were true that the laws of quantum mechanics also apply to the world at large, and not just the subatomic world, and to biology and not just the world of matter, then the entire paradigm for biological science was flawed or