"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Remote viewing of the large-scale world does not change the objects under observation. As well as seeing them paranormally as they exist at the time, the remote viewer may sometimes see them as they were in the past or even as they will be in the future. The object itself remains unaltered by its observation. In the subatomic world, however, the situation is very different because particles obey Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The intervention of the observer in a physics laboratory disturbs what is being measured or detected, and this remains true for a remote viewer who focuses on atoms and subatomic particles. Ignorant of the quantum nature of the subatomic particles that they described with micro-psi (the modern name given by the author to the yogic siddhi called anima), the Theosophists Annie Besant & C.W. Leadbeater made the working assumption that they did not affect what they were examining, so that they believed that they paranormally "saw" atoms in their natural state. So did everyone who later studied their work. As a result, they implicitly based their assessment of the two Theosophists' investigations upon the validity of this belief, which was rarely questioned. This was wrong, and it led to the long-standing impossibility of reconciling their accounts with the discoveries of atomic and nuclear physics. It generated scepticism towards their clairvoyant observations in general, inducing some people to question not only the validity but also even the honesty of other claims Besant & Leadbeater had expressed in their Theosophical writings. Once, however, this assumption is discarded by recognising that even micro-psi is a form of observation that is subject to the laws of the quantum world, the scientific obstacles that for so long faced their book Occult Chemistry no longer exist. One needs to understand that this great, pioneering work is primarily not about chemistry and atoms. This is the basic error of thinking that is still made by those modern critics of the subject who either are unaware of the author's research or ignore it because it demolishes the foundations of their criticisms. Instead, it needs to be recognised that Occult Chemistry is about nuclear and particle physics, nucleons, quarks and subquark states of superstrings — topics which were totally unknown to science during the period 1895-1908 when Besant & Leadbeater carried out the bulk of their investigations. This makes irrelevant all speculations and arguments by these sceptics about what scientific information the two Theosophists could have known and used to fabricate their work. What scant knowledge about atoms was available even to scientists, let alone two lay people, still cannot even begin to account for the massive degree of correlation that the author has established between the encyclopaedic volume of observations published in Occult Chemistry and these modern fields of scientific research (see his four books). What is the point of sceptics making unprovable speculations about what contemporary, scientific knowledge might have been available for Besant & Leadbeater to use to hoax everyone if this can pertain at best to only one per cent of their observations, leaving the other ninety-nine per cent still unexplained?! Cherry-picking of the evidence to suit a pre-determined, negative conclusion, also known as confirmation bias, is a favourite tactic used by debunkers of the paranormal to create the illusion that they have accounted for all aspects of some mystery that challenges science for an explanation, when in reality all they ever manage to do is to account in a conventional way for the one small piece of the puzzle that they bothered to consider or had the expertise to examine. Students of the subject should take heed of this whenever they read sceptical appraisals of Occult Chemistry, especially those which — because they either have not studied the author's systematic analyses or choose to ignore it — make the uncritical (and false) assumption that the micro-psi observations of Besant & Leadbeater refer to atoms, whereas his research proves conclusively that they actually refer to objects formed from pairs of atoms, whose nuclei fused together prior to observation in a way that is somewhat similar (but with important differences) to the collisions of nuclei to form compound nuclei, a reaction that has been well-studied by nuclear physicists in their high-energy physics laboratories.
By means of detailed, self-consistent analysis of the "micro-psi atoms," or MPAs, of 48 elements, the author established beyond all reasonable doubt that up (u) and down (d) quarks are not fundamental particles, as currently assumed by most physicists who support the Standard Model of particle physics. He showed that they are, instead, bound states of three subquark states of the E8×E8 heterotic superstring with the following compositions:
u = X-X-Y, d = X-Y-Y,
where X is a subquark with an electric charge of +5/9 and Y is a subquark with an electric charge of -4/9. It needs to be emphasized that this is not merely some ad hoc model of particle physics that has been used to interpret thousands of details about the constituents of MPAs; it is in fact not even a hypothesis. Rather, these compositions are a logical deduction that is free of any assumptions. The criterion of self-consistency is so powerful that it enables these subquark compositions of up and down quarks to be inferred from the micro-psi observations of Besant & Leadbeater! As pointed out in the section Occult Chemistry, the "atom" of an element as described with micro-psi is not that familiar to chemists and physicists but an object akin to what nuclear physicists call a "compound nucleus" that was formed from two atomic nuclei of an element prior to the appearance of imagery in the altered state of consciousness of the person using this yogic siddhi. (We say only "akin" because — unlike a compound nucleus — the MPA is stable, at least whilst under micro-psi observation). This interpretation of MPAs invalidates all past criticisms and debunkings of the work of Besant & Leadbeater that implicitly assumed that they had described atoms, with the implication that their claim had to be wrong because their descriptions contradict well-established, scientific knowledge about atoms and atomic nuclei. The process of transformation of pairs of nuclei into MPAs went on "behind the scenes," so to speak, so that Besant & Leadbeater were oblivious of the radical, psychokinetic effect their consciousness (or, rather, their trained, mental will) had on the individual
|Annie Besant (1847-1933) & Charles W. Leadbeater (1854-1934).|
atoms that came under their scrutiny. This section will provide examples of some of the simplest MPAs and how well their compositions can be understood in terms of a single hypothesis, namely, that MPAs contain all the quarks that originated in two (usually) similar nuclei of the element in question. Such is the level of correlation that emerges from this analysis of the first 20 elements in the chemical periodic table (the author's book ESP of Quarks and Superstrings contains analysis of 48 elements) that it is completely implausible to dismiss it as all due to coincidence. Such an scenario requires accepting the miraculous possibility of a series of agreements between observation and theoretical prediction that are so numerous that the probability of their occurrence by chance would be infinitesimally small. It does not require the formal application of a statistical test in order to detect this qualitative consistency, although such tests of the level of quantitative agreement do yield highly significant results. All one needs is common sense in assessing what could and what could not be the result of chance. Unfortunately, in their desperation to debunk Occult Chemistry because it discredits the philosophical presuppositions of what materialistic science deems possible (something which they feel obliged to defend at any cost), some sceptics have displayed a singular lack of common sense. Moreover, unable to explain why Besant & Leadbeater should have bothered to go to enormous lengths of complexity to describe atoms in a way that they knew seriously contradicted some basic notions of atomic theory (hardly the action of fraudsters!), these desperate critics resort to the tired tactic of making ad hominem attacks, exaggerating the seriousness of some defect of character that they imagine they see in either or both Theosophists in order to induce doubt about the validity of their work. For example, what they want you to believe is that their uncovering some hitherto unknown fact about Leadbeater, such as that he fibbed about his date of birth for some reason, is sufficient to discredit everything he claimed about his clairvoyant abilities, including his paranormal observation of atoms, because it demonstrates that he could lie about some things! Of course, it does not do this at all, just as the fact that millions of people lie on their curriculum vitae to their prospective employers about their past achievements does not necessarily invalidate the worth of their subsequent work. Each of Leadbeater's clairvoyant claims has to be assessed objectively and scientifically on its own merits, not merely upon a highly subjective assessment of his character or imagined faults. Sceptics are fond of quoting American astronomer Carl Sagan's declaration that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well, in the case of Occult Chemistry we have such evidence when this body of work is properly understood. In fact, we have volumes of it. Humans have a tendency to avoid making the effort to evaluate the truth of complex issues by relying on their instant impressions of them. Debunkers like to exploit this laziness by presenting people with a simplistic, irrelevant or illegitimate reason to doubt some paranormal claim. It is as though they expect you to dismiss as fraudulent and worthless the pioneering work of some Nobel Prize winner in physics or medicine merely because they discovered that the distinguished researcher had been fined once by a law court for parking his car in the wrong place! Such is the level of desperate, ludicrous argument so often resorted to by debunkers in their smear tactics against people who claimed to possess paranormal abilities that these sceptics cannot expose as false. Never let it be forgotten that ad hominem or mud-flinging arguments are always the last resort of someone who realises that he has lost the debate .....
The account of every element recorded in Occult Chemistry includes diagrams that depict the break-up of the constituents of its MPA. According to the two Theosophists' assistant, C. Jinarajadasa (see here), this task of disintegrating groups of UPAs and studying the various configurations of the lines of force binding them together was Besant's main contribution, whereas Leadbeater concentrated upon examining how particles were arranged inside MPAs and determining their global configurations, numbers and how many UPAs they comprised. These "disintegration diagrams" turn out to provide crucial information for testing the author's theory that the subquarks released from two atomic nuclei regrouped themselves into an MPA prior to its micro-psi observation. In fact, Besant's work proved far more valuable in this task than Leadbeater's because the huge volume of details that she, alone, contributed enables far more testable correlations to be made between the micro-psi observations and the author's theoretical interpretation of MPAs. It was Leadbeater's accurate counting of UPA populations in MPAs that provides the essential clue that two atomic nuclei form the latter (with its inference that UPAs are subquarks). But it is Besant's observations of the string configurations binding UPAs together and the "positivity" or "negativity" that she ascribed to their bound states that enable the vital correlation to be made between these states and the up and down quark compositions of the nucleons present in the two parent nuclei. It is all these details, overwhelmingly consistent with theoretical prediction, that provide convincing evidence that Besant & Leadbeater remote-viewed quarks and subquarks that are both bound by strings or colour/magnetic flux tubes in accordance with the string model version of quantum chromodynamics.
The following labelling is employed here for interpreting what was described in Occult Chemistry:
= X subquark
= Y subquark
= X or Y subquark. This also depicts either: 1. several free UPAs released from different particles and which include both X and Y subquarks, 2. UPAs that should not have been observed, according to the author's theory of MPAs, or 3. UPAs that belong to particles which are predicted to have been misobserved, e.g., a group of UPAs described as being "negative" instead of "positive," as predicted by the analysis of the MPA containing them.
Below is displayed the key interpretations of the two types of hydrogen triplets and the three types of duads of UPAs recorded in the disintegration diagrams of Occult Chemistry. The reader is recommended to memorize them, as the analyses presented later refer to them frequently.
These interpretations impose severe restraints on the quark compositions of the atomic nuclei that formed MPAs, as determined by their constituent protons and neutrons. What is so remarkable is that — despite the restraints — these basic identifications are always consistent with facts about nuclei and quarks that were established only many decades after Besant & Leadbeater published their micro-psi observations! This has no rational explanation other than that their remote-viewing ability was genuine.
According to the recent results of a research group led by Cornell physics professor G. Peter Lepage (Physical Review Letters (Vol. 104:13), the mass of the up quark has been calculated with an uncertainty of a few percent to be about 2 MeV (about four times the mass of an electron), whilst the mass of the down quark is about 4.8 MeV. For more details, see PhysOrg.com.
Reference will be made to so-called "mirror states." This is the subquark version of a well-known concept in nuclear physics, namely, that two atomic nuclei are said to be mirror nuclei when the number of protons in one nucleus is equal to the number of neutrons in the other nucleus. Two bound states A & B of (m+n) subquarks are mirror states if
A = mX-nY,
B = nX-mY.
More generally, an aggregate of m X subquarks and n Y subquarks is the mirror state of an aggregate of n X subquarks and m Y subquarks. They differ merely in the replacement of X subquarks by Y subquarks and vice versa. A mirror state of a particle P is written in the text as P′. For example, the mirror state of the B5 group found in the boron MPA is B5′. In diagrams, it is written with a tilde above the letter(s) representing the particle (this is, usually, the chemical symbol of the element in whose MPA the particle was first noticed). It should be noted that no assumption is made about the differences between X and Y subquarks. In particular, although protons and neutrons are the two isospin states of the nucleon with third component of isospin I3 = ±½, the application of the concept of mirror states to bound states of subquarks does not necessarily imply that X and Y subquarks constitute another isospin doublet, although the author suspects that they do, given the deduction about the X and Y composition of up and down quarks that was stated above, plus the fact that they would then satisfy the generalised Gell-Mann-Nishijima formula:
Q = I3 + (B + S + C + B' + T),
where Q = +5/9 or −4/9, I3 = +½ or −½, S = C = B' = T = 0 and B = 1/9.
However, the analysis of MPAs does not need to assume this about these two types of subquarks present in up and down quarks, and it will not do so. In fact, the explanation of MPAs presented here needs to assume nothing other than the basic hypothesis that they are formed from two atomic nuclei of an element prior to their becoming visible to micro-psi vision. With a few exceptions, such as nitrogen, the two nuclei actually selected by Besant & Leadbeater were of the same isotope. However, it should be kept in mind that their descriptions have a compounded character, being built up not from just one object observed on one occasion but from what they thought were similar objects analysed during several investigative sessions. Some MPAs were too complex to be analysed completely in just a single session. It means that we have to allow for the possibility that the details concerning a few of the MPAs do not refer to two nuclides with the same mass number. Instead, they include details that can be linked back to their formation from atomic nuclei of different isotopes of the same element. Nitrogen was such a case. Instead of having 252 UPAs, as would be expected if it been formed from two N-14 nuclei, its MPA has 261 UPAs — exactly what it would have if it had been formed from an N-14 and an N-15 nucleus. Their relative abundance in nature is, respectively, 99.6% and 0.4%, which means that the chance of the heavier nucleus being selected and entering into the formation of the MPA is relatively small, but not so small as to be highly unlikely. As already stated, the micro-psi faculty of Besant & Leadbeater did not examine only one sample, nor were all the observations performed in just one session. Given their repeated sampling of what they thought were similar atoms or molecules of an element, it ought not to be surprising that the UPA populations of a few MPAs differ by nine UPAs (the number of subquarks in a neutron) from what would be predicted if they had always selected the same isotope; this repetition made their occasional selection of a different nuclide of the element more likely than it would have been had their observations been confined to a single sample. In view of this, it is not a sound argument to dismiss the possibility of two different nuclides forming an MPA just on the grounds that one isotope is terrestrially less abundant than the other. Repeated sampling makes the occasional encountering of less abundant isotopes more plausible, statistically speaking, that what it would have been had Besant & Leadbeater relied solely on a single sample provided by their micro-psi faculty. Table 4.1 of the author's first book "Extra-sensory Perception of Quarks" contains examples of this mixing in the same MPA of two different nuclides of an element.
Throughout their descriptions of bound states of UPAs, Besant & Leadbeater referred to the "positivity" and "negativity" of particles and depicted the difference schematically by drawing diagrams of these states with their UPAs pointing, respectively, either outwards from the centre of the group or inwards towards it. As they distinguished between positive hydrogen triplets, which analysis deduces are positively charged up quarks, and negative hydrogen triplets, which are inferred to be negatively charged down quarks, it is plausible to believe that their micro-psi faculty enabled them in some way that they never discussed to detect the electrical polarity of subatomic particles. The hydrogen MPA depicts one of the two positive hydrogen triplets in the lower hydrogen triangle as composed of two (+) UPAs and one (−) UPA and the other one as comprising one (+) UPA and two (−) UPAs. They are both up quarks with I3 = +½. This means that the (+) and (−) UPAs cannot be members of an isospin doublet, because ½ = ½ + ½ − ½. There is no evidence that Besant & Leadbeater determined the net positivity of a group of UPAs by subtracting the number of its negative UPAs from its number of positive UPAs and seeing whether the result was a positive or a negative number. Clearly, this could not have been the case for the hydrogen triplets in the hydrogen MPA, and so it is reasonable to assume that it was also not true for the more complex bound states of quarks and subquarks, particularly so given the tedious task of identifying which of the UPAs were positive in type and which were negative. The electric charge Q carried by a bound state A is Q = (5m−4n)/9; for its mirror state B, it is Q′ = (5n−4m)/9. Hence, Q>0 if 5m>4n and Q′<0 if 5n<4m. A and B will have opposite polarity if m>1.25n. This is true for up and down quarks, for which m = 2 and n = 1. Analyses of many groups of UPAs displayed in disintegration diagrams demonstrate that their negative versions do, indeed, have predicted electric polarities that are of opposite sign to the polarities of their positive versions. Moreover, the predicted polarities of what were called "positive groups" are, indeed, positive. This is truly remarkable, for it indicates that the remote-viewing faculty of Besant & Leadbeater was sensitive to the electric polarities of the subatomic particles that came under their micro-psi observation. There is no alternative explanation for the chance-defying degree of correlation revealed by dozens of MPAs between the predicted electric polarities of hundreds of groups of UPAs and the positivity and negativity assigned to them by the two Theosophists. Nor is there any conventional explanation for the consistency between the predicted compositions of the same group in various elements in terms of X and Y subquarks. The explanation of this, too, being due to chance — the last refuge of the sceptic and the intellectually lazy — is absurdly improbable, given the huge set of data assembled in their book Occult Chemistry and demonstrated both here and in the author's books to show this amazing consistency. Why should it be more "rational" to believe in unbelievable miracles of chance than in hard-to-believe powers of the mind like micro-psi?!
The following pages of this section will analyze the recorded MPAs of all the elements in the Periodic Table up to calcium. The gold MPA is added at the end because its consistency with theory, facts of nuclear physics and the quark model of the nucleon is particularly clear and remarkable. The hydrogen MPA is not discussed here because it is analyzed in the section Occult Chemistry. However, the MPA of deuterium — the heavy, stable isotope of hydrogen — will be analyzed in detail. The author's book ESP of Quarks and Superstrings analyzes the MPAs of 48 elements, showing similar levels of consistency even for MPAs that contain thousands of UPAs. It hardly needs to be pointed out (except, perhaps, to diehard debunkers of the paranormal) that it is not remotely plausible that such detailed agreement could ever be due to chance. One does not need disputable, statistical analysis to conclude what is obvious; one requires only plain common sense and a mind that is not prejudiced towards the paranormal for merely philosophical reasons. Rather, his book constitutes the most amazing evidence ever assembled confirming the existence of a form of extra-sensory perception known to yogis for thousands of years — one which Besant & Leadbeater used to describe the subatomic world in a way that matches what high-energy physicists would discover with their particle accelerators many decades later. It is this circumstance that makes this body of evidence irrefutable and unique in the annals of parapsychology. No conventional account can be presented that plausibly explains the very high degree of correlation between the huge volume of paranormally obtained details and well-established facts of nuclear and particle physics. This is not a dogmatic claim made by the author. However uncomfortable these words may leave those sceptics of the paranormal who are ever accustomed to being able to dream up conventional explanations of alleged instances of ESP, etc, it is just a simple statement of fact that four books and several research articles in peer-reviewed journals have established. To put it plainly: the author's analysis of Occult Chemistry gives a sceptic towards this topic no loophole or room to help him save face. He cannot complain about experimental protocols followed by Besant & Leadbeater being weak compared with procedures in modern parapsychology laboratories that would have prevented the possibility of cheating. This criticism about rigour is made irrelevant by the fact that no scientific information about atomic nuclei and their constituents was available to the two investigators that could have made their observations so highly evidential now. It means that cheating was impossible a priori, so that this possibility cannot be proposed in order to explain the high degree of correlation between details of paranormal observations and facts of modern nuclear and particle physics. The diehard sceptic is therefore forced to choose between just two options that are equally unattractive to him. Either:
1. the miracle of what is highly improbable, statistically speaking, namely, that
all consistencies between alleged, paranormal observations and scientific facts established decades
later are due to chance, or
2. what his mindset regards as a scientific impossibility, namely, micro-psi, is actually a genuine faculty.
His dilemma in being unable to avoid having what to him is an untenable position is caused by his uncritical adherence to scientific materialism. As Shakespeare reminded us: "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Defending this ideology is more important to him than being sensible as to what is the more plausible reason for these consistencies. Nevertheless, uneasiness about the weakness of his desperate appeal to chance may induce a sceptic as a last resort to criticise the character of Besant and her colleague, as though it should, by implication, invalidate all their work — paranormal or otherwise. Of course, it does nothing of the sort! Such criticisms amount to ad hominem arguments that exaggerate any errors of judgement they made about issues that are irrelevant to the scientific question at hand so as to provide bogus justification for rejecting extraordinary claims that the sceptic cannot refute in a legitimate way. Whilst he hopes that his unworthy tactic will mislead people into making snap judgements about Besant's & Leadbeater's clairvoyant studies based solely upon what he sees as their quirks and foibles, it hardly amounts to an objective, scientific argument that needs serious attention! That does not matter to the debunker, who is more concerned with defending at all costs his own closed world-view than he is in ascertaining the truth of paranormal claims by following consistently the rules of scientific evidence that he pretends to defend.
The sections Superstrings as sacred geometry, Wonders of superstrings and 4-d sacred geometries provide further evidence for the validity of the micro-psi observations of Besant & Leadbeater by showing how sacred geometries embody in a chance-defying manner quantitative details that they provided about the structure of the UPA, which turns out to be the subquark state of the E8×E8 heterotic superstring. Whether or not they are sceptical towards the paranormal, visitors to this website are advised that such amazing matchings cannot be attributed to coincidence unless they are willing to believe that — by reproducing the numbers both explicit and implicit in the two Theosophists' observations — all these examples amount to nothing more than a very long sequence of highly improbable, mathematical miracles. If, like the diehard sceptic or rationalist, they judge that being able psychically to magnify microscopic objects is impossible to believe, they should then ask themselves why their explanation of coincidence for all these demonstrated correlations between paranormal observations and sacred geometries should be any more believable, for it is far more improbable on purely non-ideological grounds — yet they prefer it! Is it not simply because these sceptics do not want to admit that the human mind can learn more things than what their own narrow world-view or materialistic philosophy can permit the brain to know? Is it not merely the case that ideological prejudice — and only this — makes them prefer to believe in the possibility of a long string of statistically unlikely coincidences (no less miraculous than ESP) as an explanation of the accuracy (demonstrated in the following pages) of the paranormal ability called "micro-psi"? How, then, is belief in miracles of chance supposed to be a point of view that is more rational and credible? It clearly is not. And that is why the topic of Occult Chemistry is unique in the diverse field of parapsychology: it leaves the sceptic with no conventional alternative — no "wiggle room" for entertaining doubt. Perhaps that is why even many parapsychologists today still ignore it. They prefer the safer option of disapproval (or even the pretence of being unaware of the investigations) to public endorsement because it makes them look less dogmatic or radical, so that they are more acceptable to mainstream scientists, whose disapproval they so desperately seek to avoid.