- 1 -
EVIDENCES FOR BIOFIELD
Igor Jerman, Rok Krašovec, Robert T. Leskovar
Stegne 21, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia,
Advances in science are not achieved merely through the accumulation of knowledge
but also through the development of new concepts. In physics, the inclusive concept of the
field was used centuries ago with a great scientific profit, while in life sciences we are still
waiting for a similar universally acceptable term. For the time being, we only use the concept
of the field in its strictly physical meaning, e.g. transmembrane cellular electrical field.
Nevertheless, an increasing number of research groups make surprising discoveries that
require a new conceptual and empirical breakthrough also in the field of life sciences; one of
the promising concepts is the concept of biofield. Here many problems and questions pose
themselves: first, what is the real (physical) basis of the biofield; second, what are the
scientific evidences for such field; third, what is the biological meaning of the biofield and
fourth, what would be the significance of the biofield for consciousness.
Centuries ago physicists noticed that energy is interconnected, structured and ordered
(in other words, integrated) throughout space, and this deep insight they shaped into the field
concept. The treating of the forces of nature in this inclusive fashion meant a great leap
forward in physics. However, in contemporary biology and medicine we have not yet arrived
at that comprehensive and fruitful point, at least as the mainstream science goes. Here,
organisms are regarded in a similar fashion as the physical objects before the introduction of
the field concept – mainly as complex aggregates of parts (mainly molecules), interacting by
short-range contacts. Even the physical fields of these parts are regarded as short-range in
their scope, like the electric fields of molecules and cells, e.g. the transmembrane cellular
electric field. This by itself could do perfectly well, if it reflected the truth, but an increasing
number of research groups throughout the world make surprising discoveries strongly
indicating (if not proving) that in organisms at least some aspects of their total energy are
integrated in a sort of an inclusive, long-range and to a certain degree coherent field, giving
the organism a long range order. An entity that seems promising to account for the many and
heterogeneous biological (and even physical) phenomena, is the concept of the biofield.
This concept may remind us of vitalism – a way of biological thinking according to
which life is led by a principle different from the standard, measurable physical entities.
Classical vitalism, well established in certain circles around the time of Newton, saw the
living principle (or the living force) truly as something apart from nature and its forces. It was
assumed as immeasurable and even undetectable, thus invoking a supernatural principle,
inaccessible to empirical scientific research. If this inability of research and scientific
explanation is the mark of vitalism, then the concept of the biofield is definitely not vitalistic.
According to this line of thinking the biofield should be considered as a normal, measurable
and scientifically explainable natural field. As such it should not be limited only to living
beings, at least in principle; it should rather be a fundamental constituent of nature.
- 2 -
Let us be clear, in physical terms, it is not yet known what exactly the biofield would
correspond to. Therefore if it is a physically real entity, then the first relevant question is what
its constituent particles are and how it is connected to the already known fields. Second, it is
not called the biofield because it would be so unique to organisms, but because it is essential
for the living process – for its long range coordination, regulation etc. Therefore, as we shall
explain in the following, on one hand the biofield should be regarded as an ordinary element
of nature and in this larger connotation it should perhaps be called the subtle field1. On the
other hand however, it does not demonstrate as an ordinary field accessible to the accustomed
physical research – it demands more subtle techniques of research and new explanatory
Various concepts of biofield
Electric and electromagnetic fields
The most widespread notion of the biofield is the one connected with the endogenous
electromagnetic (EM) fields of organisms. The electric and EM fields of organisms are known
and are partially represented in conventional biological science. It is well known that every
living cell has an electric field of a very high intensity (around 107 V/m) though of a rather
low voltage (~ -70 mV) that is the basis for excitability – one of the basic features of life.
According to a very strong theoretical consideration started by the biophysicist Herbert
Fröhlich this resting electric field represents the basis for coherent endogenous EM
oscillations within living systems on a cellular level (Fröhlich, 1975, 1988). This oscillatory
field has not yet been proven experimentally at the level of proposed frequencies (high
microwaves: 1011 – 1012 Hz) and for its coherency. Yet, the Czech group of Prof. Pokorny
succeeded to prove the endogenous field at radiowave frequencies (8–9 MHz) in a direct way
(Pokorny et al, 2001, Pokorny, 2004). There are also indirect evidences for the endogenous
electromagnetic field through the research of rouleaux formation of living erythrocytes
(Rowlands and Sewchand, 1982) and through the dielectrophoretic research (Pollock and
Pohl, 1988). Other indirect evidences are coming through the research of biophotonics,
specifically in its aspect of exploring the (statistically) coherent ultra weak emissions of
photons from living cells (Popp and Nagel, 1988; Popp et al, 1992). Formal theories and
empirical evidence exist, which suggest that biological systems use the long-range
communication with biophotons and optimize it according to the well known relation of
coherent and squeezed light (Popp et al, 2002). The idea that not only coherent states but also
squeezed states may play a role in biological regulation is a consequent and progressive
conclusion since biological optimization may make use of quantum effects just in the ultra
weak range of intensities where squeezed states can exist at all (Bajpai, 1999).
Therefore we have a strong quasi-static transmembrane electric field (the so-called
resting membrane potential) within the organism and then, a more or less coherent high
frequency EM field formed on its basis. The latter is supposed to organise many processes on
the cellular level. This role is more thoroughly elaborated in the quantum field theoretical
extension of Fröhlich's theory, worked out by the Italian group of quantum field theoretical
physicists (del Giudice et al, 1984, 1985, 1988). It proposes a special, network like,
organisation of the coherent EM field that can organise countless chemical reactions within
cells. It could be at least partially responsible for the organisation and orientation of cellular
microtubular network (Hameroff and Penrose, 1995) – its skeleton that plays very important
1 The term already used by some authors.
- 3 -
role in cell's division and thus in morphogenesis. To this endogenous EM field there should be
added also the before-mentioned photon field of Popp. According to Popp and his followers
the emitted photons are not a by-product of a cellular chemistry, but are a marker of the
photon-field involvement in the cellular physiology (van Wijk and van Wijk, 2004). The
ultraweak photon emission was found to be strongly correlated with the cell’s cycle (Popp et
al, 1992). Experiments involving transparency of tissue to such radiation as well thorough
physical analysis of the emission strongly indicate the coherent state of the photon field inside
organisms and if properly stimulated; the biophotons may even coherently spread into the
environment (Popp et al, 2002).
The related phenomenon, also covered by biophotonics, is called delayed
luminescence, in which after excitation of a living system, in particular in the optical range,
the system emits a stronger photon current than without illumination. Though biophotonics
and delayed luminescence have been researched in different lines, in essence both contain all
the features of the interaction of biological matter with photons. They are different from
common photobiology in so far as they are confined and specialized to the quantum nature of
these physical and biological processes. This confinement allows distinguishing biophotonics
from ordinary photobiology, fluorescence techniques and similar classical, well-known fields
of science and engineering.
The phenomenon of biophoton emission is not confined to the thermal radiation in
the infrared range. At present it is well known that the biophotons are emitted also in the
range from the visible up to the UV range. The intensity of biophotons can be registered from
a few photons per second and square centimetre surface area on up to some hundred photons
(per s cm2) from every living system under investigation. The spectral distribution never
displays small peaks around definite frequencies. Rather, the quite flat distribution within the
range of at least 300 to 800 nm has to be assigned to a thermodynamic system far away from
equilibrium, since the probability of occupying the phase space is on average almost constant
and exceeds the Boltzmann distribution in this spectral range by at least a factor of 1010 (in the
red) up to 1040 (in the UV-range).
After excitation by white or monochromatic light, every biological system increases
the photon emission up to about 5 times higher in orders of magnitude. Then it relaxes in
darkness to its original biophoton emission quite slowly and never as an exponential function,
yet with high accuracy as a 1/t-function, where t is the time after excitation. This phenomenon
of a delayed luminescence is basic for all kinds of exciting the biological matter irrespective
of whether one takes ordinary lamps, LEDs, laser or even other forms of excitation like
ultrasound. The spectral distribution of DL corresponds to that of BP (Chang et al, 1998).
The indication of a biophoton field importance can be seen in the cell division
process. A surprising fact is that almost never an error occurs in the distribution of the
molecules, which are exactly partitioned into two equal fractions by the daughter cells.
According to the "random walk" theory we should expect about 105 out of 1010 molecules to
be located at incorrect positions. Most likely explanation is the presence of a force which
repels molecules that are in erroneous positions back to their correct place. The possible
solution of describing such force has been made by calculating the cavity resonator waves of a
single cell (Popp et al, 1979.).
The question that still remains unanswered is where the biophotons come from and
how are they sustained. In order to find the answer, it has been shown (Popp et al, 1981) that
biophoton emission can be traced back to DNA as the most likely candidate for working as
the (main) source, and that delayed luminescence corresponds to excited states of the
- 4 -
In addition, all the correlations between biophoton phenomena and biological
functions such as cell growth, cell differentiation, biological rhythms, and cancer
development, turned out to be consistent with the coherence hypothesis but could be only very
poorly explained in terms of radical reactions (Popp, 1999).
To summarise, physically regarded, we have two fields: one (electric) that is long
known and researched perhaps to its outmost mystery, and a more or less coherent EM field.
The latter, at least as the physical research goes2, has two components: a) one in the
microwave and lower frequency range (Fröhlich's field) and another (b) in the visible
(including near IR and near UV) light range (Popp's photon-field. The Fröhlich's field is
partially confirmed and partially still only theoretically postulated, yet extended not only to
the macroscopic, but also to the quantum level as well. The other, Popp's component is
theoretically well researched, is mainly connected to DNA electronic oscillations3 and has
only the problem that up to very recently the majority of scientists saw it only as an
epiphenomenon of chemical reactions (chemiluminescence). If we agree with Popp's claims
(and the recent finding proving the existence of the coherence in the photosynthetic system
gives them a fresh huge weight, see Engel et al, 2007) than, as far as the electric and
electromagnetic fields are concerned, the biofield may be considered to have three
components: the electric field, the Fröhlich's regime and the photon field. They all should
have their energetic role (mainly the electric field) and the information one (mainly EM
fields) as well. A high information role is based on the ability of the EM field to resonate with
the EM frequencies of biological molecular interactions on one hand and to cover larger areas
through coherency and quantum mechanical entanglement on the other (Ho, 1993). A recent
finding suggests that the Fröhlich's field and the Popp’s one are mutually connected because
of rather strong mode couplings in living systems (Popp et al, 2006).
All these three fields are more or less well established scientifically, at least in
theory, and therefore, for certain scientists they represent the complex electromagnetic
biofield with nothing to be left or basically unknown; see for instance Rubik (2002). But there
are many diverse phenomena that it would be very difficult if not impossible to cover only
with the EM fields, however coherently or bizarrely they could behave.
Beyond the EM field
There are countless researches that prove there is more to the biofield than just
classical and coherent fields known to physics (Rein, 2004). Many of these researches try to
involve consciousness and its possible influencing the physical phenomena. One of the most
elaborated and prominent effort in this direction is Tiller's empirical research as well as his
theoretical model. In contrast to some researchers that are trying to prove the beyond-physical
levels of existence and are in strong opposition to contemporary physics – Einstein's relativity
theory and quantum mechanics (Correa and Correa, 2002, Correa, 2001; Aspden, 1969) –
Tiller's new theoretical models are firmly rooted in the established physics, yet at the same
time showing how to go beyond. In his theory Tiller proposes that the so called physical
vacuum is no absolute empty space at all (this is concordant also with quantum mechanics and
vacuum fields fluctuations). Namely, according to Tiller the physical reality should consist of
two unique levels with a variable degree of coupling between them: (1) our ordinary electric,
2 In reality of living beings there could be only one very extended EM field. But causally viewed,
we should treat it as if of two components, since the Fröhlich's field stems form the
transmembrane electric field and vibrations of long macromolecules, while the photon-field
should stem from DNA photon-electron dynamics.
3 For more detail (since it is about exciplexes) see Popp 1984a, b.
- 5 -
atom/molecule level functioning in the conventional spacetime, and (2) a coarse physical
vacuum that represents the magnetic information wave level functioning in a reciprocal
spacetime (Tiller et al, 2005). The basic particle of this second level of existence would be the
magnetic monopole and it would function in a different symmetry space (the so-called SU2
symmetry), in the so-called R (wave) space. Because of this it would not be easily detectable,
but would still interfere with the ordinary physical reality (functioning in the U1 symmetry)
under certain conditions, among them the ones that would implement the human conscious
intention. This intention would energetically work on a still higher level of reality. Tiller's
countless experiments proved that even a special device (called IIED) that was influenced by
a directed human intention can have empirically well demonstrated effects, for instance in a
lowering or raising of the acidity (pH) of a solution (Tiller et al, 2001). The prerequisite for
experiments with the IIED is an adequate "conditioning" of the lab, where the experiments are
performed. "Conditioning" means an adequate preparation of subtle field conditions by means
of cultivating mental-psychical quietening and clearness for a few days in that lab. One of
very important findings of Tiller's experiments is that the processes in the R space are
interconnected (entangled) in a similar manner though differently from the processes in the
realm of quantum mechanics. Therefore even two events far apart in space may be tightly
interconnected, interdependent; there is no separation in space as we are accustomed to in our
ordinary physical reality.
If we connect Tiller's ideas to our main theme of the biofield we may extend its
purely electromagnetic nature to Tiller's R space or to something similar that transcends our
known and scientifically well described physical reality and demonstrates characteristics of
waves and long-range interconnectedness, holism. Whatever it is (magnetic monopoles,
ambipolar massfree electricity (Correa, 2001), unknown dark matter particles like postulated
massive WIMPs or light axions, zero field energy etc.) it should have a deep relation to the
ordinary matter-energy, while at the same time its influences are not easily perceivable. Since
the electric and electromagnetic (EM) fields of organisms are covered by contemporary
physics and can be detected (even if painstakingly in certain cases), we may reserve the term
biofield only for the R level or something akin to it, something that surpasses the presently
established physical knowledge. The biofield could then correspond to various traditional
layman terms as Chinese Qi, Hindu prana, Reich's orgone, Reichenbach's Odic force, health
practitioner's bioenergy or etheric double (energy) or subtle field or information field etc. The
electric and EM fields of organisms may be regarded just as the mediating fields between the
biofield and the material structures of life.
The dual nature of biofield
Proceeding from various research and theories as well as from our own experiences
we assume that the biofield would manifest itself a) under strong electric fields, for instance
such as demonstrated across the membrane of living cells, b) under the weak partially
coherent EM field as demonstrated within living cells, c) under conditions involving
conscious intention and d) under other special conditions, involving strong magnetic fields,
plasma state of matter etc. As already said, we may assume that in organisms the biofield
comes into relationship with organic matter through the strong transmembrane electric field.
If the latter is destroyed the coupling with the holistic and wave like biofield vanishes: life
comes to its end. When the electric field is normal the coupling between the latter and the
biofield results in the resonance between the intricate processes within the R level of the
biofield and the Fröhlich-Giudice-Popp endogenous EM field that directly organises countless
molecular processes within the cell.
- 6 -
We assume that the more the EM field is coherent, the more it is tightly connected
(or better say coupled) to the biofield. The biofield can therefore be tightly coupled or almost
decoupled to the material level of the organism. In the first instance we would have a healthy,
biochemically and physiologically well coordinated organism (be it a bacterium or a whale)
while in the second we would have illness or sleep or coma etc. In this light we may
understand that what most traditional medicine (healing touch, homeopathy, acupuncture)
tries to do is to bring the two misaligned levels – EM and the biofield's – into as perfect
alignment as possible; health is then the natural result of this process.
In the energetic aspect of life, the EM field directly wrestles with the molecular
processes thus assuring the indispensable long range order on the cellular level (Popp et al,
2006), while the biofield brings even more extended long range order, perhaps spanning over
the whole multicellular organism and beyond. Namely, long range connection was
indisputably demonstrated between humans (Wackermann et al, 2003, Standish et al, 2004,
Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al, 1994) and even isolated neurons (Pizzi et al, 2004). The
experimental system that includes humans is a simple one; two subjects in two separate
Faraday cages with a few meters between them. When subject one is exposed to light, the
brain of the subject two is instantly experiencing brain waves that correlates with the applied
photo stimulus. The interaction between two human subjects is obviously not limited by the
distance and as it seems the information is travelling faster than the speed of light.)
And what is also very important (also for a deeper understanding of illness) is a
direct connection with consciousness of an organism (not necessarily of a human being).
Namely, consciousness is much too synthetic, holistic to be directly expressible through
countless fragmented biochemical reactions or even individual electric fields of the brain
cells. On the other hand the biofield is deeply integrative and can be responsive to conscious
intention as proved by Tiller's and of course many other experiments (Wackermann et al,
2003). In this light we can understand the strong influence of our psyche on our health on one
hand and many so called parapsychological phenomena on the other. Telepathy could be
explained as a long range coupling between two biofields, which is piercing enough to trickle
through the EM fields of the brains of the persons involved. On the other hand the so called
psycho kinesis can be explained as a special biofield squeezing so that it can interfere with the
EM components of objects in a physically measurable manner.
Measurements of biofield
If the biofield is a real entity then it should be fully accessible to scientific research.
The organismic EM level is measurable, as we have already seen. Even the endogenous EM
field was successfully measured in a direct or indirect way. The photon field can be readily
detected. Even here, as we have seen, there are still arguments pro and contra. But when we
come to the biofield's R level, many researchers still think it should be immeasurable.
Our experiences prove that the biofield is accessible to various indirect
measurements. One – more crude – method is computer controlled electrophotography. In one
of its applications it was perfected by Dr. Korotkov, who invented the so-called GDV camera.
Here, through well controlled electrophotography of human fingers and their computer
analysis, one is able to get a diagnostic overview of a man. Another and a very similar
technique is used on the Institute Bion (Škarja et al, 1998), namely the electrophotography of
water drops, previously exposed to various fields or radiations. It is also subject to severe
computer analysis. According to our general model of the biofield during electrophotography
there comes to a subtle interference between the R level of either water drops or fingers and
the applied strong electric field. The form of the discharge corona that brings the information
- 7 -
about the quality and intensity of the biofield concerned is fashioned according to this
Analyzing the conductivity distribution functions of the skin is also a possible
technique for an indirect biofield measurement. Recent observations showed that biophoton
emission of the human body does not only correlate with biological rhythms but they both
correlate also to the electrical parameters of the body's skin (Popp et al, 2006).
More exact measurements can be produced by the measurements of the absorption,
transmission and emission of the near electric field of the human being, larger space, plant
etc. (Škarja, 2007). Here it comes to interference between the near electric field and the
biofield. According to our experiments, more tightly connected or denser biofield means also
a higher absorption of the applied near electric field. These measurements can be expressed in
We may assume that the so-called bioresonance diagnostics and therapy practice also detects
the biofield of the examined person, even if the theory of the bioresonance speaks only about
ordinary EM fields (but is consequently inconsistent with the physical theory).
Biological aspects of biofield
The mainstream contemporary biology is based on molecules and their interaction, more
specifically, on the famous DNA molecule. The latter should have the information about
everything that concerns its organism – its vehicle for expression, as seen by Dawkins for
instance (Dawkins, 1976). One of the so called organicist stream in biology on the other hand
stresses the importance of the whole living state and proposes the morphogenetic field to
implement the ontogenetic (embryogenetic) plan of the organism (Goodwin, 1985). While not
denying the importance of genes, this biological line of thought suggests that they can only
determine the boundary conditions for the actualisation of the organism's form, while they
cannot actually build it. This means that an organism is not built on a basis of some fixed
information and a computer like program, but on the basis of a law governed field.
What is the relation between the morphogenetic field of organicists and the biofield? First, the
two fields, at least as suggested, are not equal. In its most elementary meaning the
morphogenetic field can be identified with the adhesive intercellular force field with its
tensions and pressures. These forces come to fore in formative embryogenetic processes. Here
it works according to the known laws of physics and chemistry. But the morphogenetic field
can work also on a deeper level – on the level of cell's division, therefore on the subcellular
level. Namely, the morphogenesis is not only a matter of intercellular mechanical forces but
also a matter of the orientation of the cellular division plane (orientation of the mitotic
spindle). And here the morphogenetic field comes together with the coherent cellular EM
field and the biofield. According to Popp the whole cell division situation corresponds to a
cavity resonator in the visible range of the electromagnetic field and is therefore tightly
connected to Popp's biophotonic field (Popp et al, 2006). The morphogenetic field can thus be
largely equated with the endogenous EM field and also with the biofield. If the EM field level
organises countless energetic and transformation molecular reactions, mainly on the
(sub)cellular level, than the biofield with its larger area of interconnectedness would be
responsible for morphogenesis, not in the sense of the mechanical force (where the already
mentioned connotation would apply), but in the sense of a formal (Aristotelian) cause, not
actually shaping the form of the organism but yielding information about it. However, it
would have also other, for instance integrative, roles, and therefore could not be completely
identified with the morphogenetic field. We can conclude that the morphogenetic field is
triple in its nature: on the most elementary level it involves mechanical forces needed to
- 8 -
actually shape the developing organism. On another, EM level, it mainly works in orientation
of cellular division and on the R level (biofield) it works as the macroscopic morphogenetic
field, pervading the whole organism.
Embryogenesis represents actually a very dynamic and mutual interaction between the
biofield in its morphogenetic aspect on one hand and the DNA of the organism on the other.
According to Popp DNA is not only a carrier of genetic information but also an important
carrier of biophotons. In this regard the DNA molecule can function also as one of the
connecting factors between the molecular plane of the organism and its (supramolecular)
integrative field. In any case the signals from the DNA modify the morphogenetic aspect of
the biofield so that it begins a series of symmetry breaking. A gradual shaping of the
organisms follows from the initial – more or less spherical (totally symmetric) – form to its
adult form. During this process three elements are dynamically interconnected: DNA with the
myriad of its genes, the morphogenetic field on all its three levels and the actual achieved
form of the developing embryo.
As already said, the biofield should have also an important integrative function, providing the
wholeness of the organism. It is expressed as the well known network of acupuncture
meridians and points and as other subtle interconnections within the organism (reflexive
points); electroacupuncture practice (for instance Voll’s diagnostic and healing) strongly
supports the connection between the electrical field and holistic network throughout the
organism. In an extension of this integrative function the biofield is also responsible for the
connection between the organism's psyche, consciousness, intelligence on one side and the
operative physical body on the other. From this complex integrative role a completely new –
at least as far as the official medical knowledge goes – outlook on illness becomes possible.
For instance various psychological stresses disturb the biofield so that it cannot integrate the
physiological processes in a satisfactory measure. The field disturbances are pronounced on
special points that reflect a particular psychic state – as a result an illness in the specific area
ensues. Through the knowledge of the biofield, its integrative connections and psychological
troubles of a man (or an animal) one could in principle infer the area and the nature of illness.
A part of this knowledge is expressed in homeopathy, acupuncture, reflexology and various
psychosomatic treatments, though without true scientific background. We may expect still
more knowledge and more effective healing practices when the biofield will be more known
and thoroughly researched.
Intelligence, consciousness and biofield
One of pronounced marks of living beings is not only the high organisation of energy and
matter, but also their flexibility. This means that organisms are sensing external signals and
before the actual response is taking place ‘messages’ from the environment are compared with
the organism’s inner state defined by the overall status at that moment (organism’s
physiology, genetics, energy or social status, etc.) and by previous experiences. Then a
decision is made and as a rule, organisms seem to execute the most economical response.
Such flexibility is a process seen by us and others (Trewavas, 2005) as a biological
intelligence and it is regarded as something opposed to automatism where there is no true
choice. Biological intelligence requires at least some freedom of choice, in other words,
organisms must have ways to at least partially manipulate and control their own information
As far as the molecular level goes some very elementary intelligence can be found
on the quantum level of activity and is expressed in the sensitivity to the adjacent possible
(Kauffman, 2000), before the collapse of the wave function (decoherence). The ‘adjacent
possible’ means the set of possible events, implicit in the wave function of the system under
- 9 -
consideration, whose probability is unconditional, i.e. the events are possible directly, without
any intervening events. Self-organized systems are supposed to travel towards this unknown
territory with a maximal speed that still permits them to preserve evolutionary gained
organisation. Through this elementary form of intelligence the enzymes may found their
functioning conformation at the level of many superposed possibilities in the wave function
(Hameroff, 1987). Engel and co-workers (2007) in their famous paper describe for the first
time the preservation of coherence in biological systems. The research object was a
photosynthetic complex, whose function is to capture solar light efficiently, and then transmit
the excitation energy to reaction centres. The energy transfer mechanism includes proteins
that may promote coherence transfer which means that proteins might be capable to sense
many states simultaneously and ‘always’ select the correct answer; in isolated photosynthetic
complex the correct answer is the lowest energy state. What is also very intriguing is that
selection appears to be reversible and there is no obvious penalty (such as lowered efficiency)
if the protein’s answer is wrong.
An extension of this elementary molecular form may be found on the cellular level,
where countless molecular interactions must be integrated, coordinated and adapted to the
need of a larger whole, be it an organ or an organism. For example, a DNA helix does do not
possess any special chemical robustness, therefore every living cell must constantly pay
attention that DNA is replicated as accurately as possible and that nucleotide sequence is
adequately repaired when spontaneous or induced mutations occur (Friedberg et al, 1995).
Only one base substitution within millions of DNA pairs is enough for the induction of the
DNA repair mechanism. How an individual cell places all this million base pairs under such a
strict and constant surveillance? Similar dilemma is in protein/DNA interactions. Namely,
structural and thermodynamical studies are showing that it is very unlikely that proteins
known to specifically bind particular DNA sequences will have enough time to test (by using
its reading heads) every single base pair if the sequence is indeed a proper one (Bruinsma,
2002). Also, plants are continuingly aware of where roots, shoots or leaves are (Trewavas,
2005). By being aware of the roots distribution they sense the volume of the soil which in turn
affects the level of plant growth. In biological sciences there are many phenomena
demonstrating an extraordinary and highly dynamic order that is much more organised than it
would be expected if only Brownian motion would be in force (Vitiello, 1992). Here we find
Popp’s and Fröhlich’s electromagnetic coherent regime as an important if not indispensable
pillar of this order. And again, every cell, be it prokaryotic or eukaryotic, has to take decisions
as to its moment to moment functioning, to adaptations to countless external signals, and
above all to take a decision about its eventual division. Actually, the intelligence of a cell
should be on a much higher level than the intelligence of a molecule. It comprises the
ordinary quantum level of all its molecules and also the quantum level of its coherent multi-
frequency EM field.
When we come to a whole multicellular organism we should take into account not only the
molecular intelligence and the cellular one, but also the possible intelligence based on the
biofield that permeates the whole living being. Through its integrative power the biofield
assures the wholeness of information that is needed for various intelligent decisions in the
concrete living challenges and situations. Of course, this bodily intelligence mainly works
through the brain – through its biofield where its essential information state stands as an
undivided whole, while on the ordinary matter level the information state of the bran is
actually fragmented into countless excitations of its individual cells (neurons). Through its
integrative power the biofield is not only the basis for the bodily intelligence but also the basis
of organism’s consciousness in which the occurrences in the brain are experienced in a totally
- 10 -
And what beyond the R level? According to Tiller there are other, still more subtle levels of
reality beyond the biofield (Tiller et al, 2005). They should be connected with emotions and
thinking, with their intelligence and consciousness. Of course, this is only a hypothesis, even
if it is partially supported experimentally through well performed scientific experiments. But
on the other hand it is a testable hypothesis that offers a new and fresh scientific endeavour
that can lead us into new realms of understanding consciousness and intelligence, perhaps far
from the contemporary one.
Biofield and nature
The biofield is not limited only to organisms as already said; it is also a part of the so called
inanimate nature. And as every physical field it should also have its basic particles, its
material carriers. Maybe these particles represent (at least partially) the so called dark matter
that interpenetrates the visible one and is very unwilling to interact with the latter, at least in
the ways that involve friction, collision or direct magnetic or electric effects, as implied in our
standard measurement techniques. Even in Tiller’s interpretation, the R level of reality has
some special quanta called magnetic monopoles that work in SU2 symmetry, as already
discussed. In another suggestion, partially experimentally confirmed, the particles may be
electric dipoles. To some measure the biofield carriers may be identified with Reich’s orgone;
the difference is only that he treated orgone as a massless substance, while we think that the R
particles should have some mass – even if small – and are consequently in accordance with
the Einstein’s famous finding, expressed in the formula E = mc2.
Why the biofield with its implicit wholeness is apparently unexpressed in the inanimate
nature? First, we may assume that it is not totally unexpressed. With an appropriate
measurement system we can, for instance, detect the sunset and the difference between a clear
and a cloudy weather, as we did at the Institute Bion (Škarja, 2007). Reich’s work is full of
evidences that the biofield interpenetrates the so-called inanimate nature as well and can be
demonstrated via certain devices and via organisms.
A very important area of biofield’s function in the inanimate nature is the so called memory
of water as for instance demonstrated in homeopathy. Orthodox physics says that the memory
of water is impossible, is just a wishful thinking. And as far as the ordinary U1 symmetry
energy matter goes, the physicists are right. Water molecules really forget their previous
imprints (their formations) in terms of picoseconds, while homeopaths claim the memory
should last at least for few days. There is a quantum field theoretical consideration that speaks
in favour of water memory as exemplified in homeopathy (del Giudice and Preparata, 1998).
The field that could bring the memory of past molecules – especially in cases where the
homeopathic dilution has not even one molecule of the mother solution left – is similar to
Fröhlich’s coherent field in organisms. This field in water is again coherent and very stable
since it is on the energetically lowest level; from this stability the long lasting memory ensues.
Therefore we have an analogous situation as in organisms: the coherent EM modes and with
them connected biofield component. While the memory itself may be covered by the EM
level alone, some methods of informing water where no molecular contact is involved
demand the biofield. At our Institute we practise two such ways: one involving the high
voltage electric field (see Jerman et al, 2005) and another where no field is used at all, only
the stirring of water in an appropriate location. In the latter case some characteristics of the
location are imprinted into water. Therefore not only the recollections of molecules, but also
the memory of various fields in specific areas or even the memory of human biofield
(unpublished data) can be stored in water through the medium of its biofield. Later this
recollection can be expressed, either instrumentally or via reactions of organisms exposed to
such water and thereby to its “memories”.
- 11 -
Biofield and quantum world
Many modern thinkers and healing practitioners that by experience or intuitively propose
some deeper level of reality, through which we are innerly connected and through which we
can manifest our thoughts and intentions, speak about the quantum world (Stenger, 1999).
The interconnectedness that quantum mechanics has uncovered is undoubtedly valid for small
quanta that have been in relation before the collapse of their joint wave function, but
according to quantum mechanics, every collapse brings total oblivion of all past connections.
And since the manifested, experienced, sensed world means constant flux of collapses
through countless quantum interactions, its quantum wholeness is constantly interrupted; it
has no continuity. The quantum reality – be it particles or fields – as known by contemporary
physics cannot represent the deeper level of reality that joins this (physical) world with
thoughts, intentions, emotions and consciousness on one hand and assures wholeness of
everything on the other. The biofield with its R level is a much better candidate for this dual
role. But what is the relation between the biofield and the quantum level of reality? First, the
biofield should obviously work also at the quantum level since it has its own quanta (e.g.
magnetic monopoles or axions or whatever still to be discovered). Second, if we take the
Tiller’s model, its quantum level is different from the ordinary one for the simple reason that
it works in a higher symmetry level of reality. And third, even “classically” treated (i.e. not on
its quantum level) the biofield should exemplify wholeness as well as the connectivity with
thoughts and other mental phenomena, as proved by numerous experiments throughout the
world. Therefore, in conclusion, we may assume that the R level of biofield functions in a
similar way as quantum processes, however on the ordinary macrocosmic scale. It has the
needed continuity of long-range correlations that our quantum world is lacking.
Since Aristotle our civilisation has been enriched with some light as to causation. Aristotle
found 4 basic types of causes: material (conditional), efficient (mechanical), formal and final
(teleological). Of these four natural sciences admit only the first two, while the last (for
Aristotle the most important) is absolutely forbidden. They exclude also the formal cause that
can be interpreted as the formative or informational and reduce it to the efficient one. This
conveys much about the poverty of contemporary science, still fixed into the Newtonian
world of short range forces. It is true that the quantum mechanics opened some new outlooks
and especially the Bohm’s interpretation explicitly and emphatically included the formative
causation into the scene through the so called quantum potential (Bohm, 1982); yet his
illuminative interpretation is regarded as superfluous if not heretic to the mainstream
Copenhagen one. Maybe this is the reason why quantum mechanics and Bohm are so
cherished among the so called new age thinkers that are dissatisfied with the constricted
scientific world of only material and efficient causes. As already said the biofield should
primarily work in a subtle informational way. It traces the paths for more concrete forces to
express themselves. This can be very appropriately seen in electrophotography where the
electric streamers (driven by strong electrical forces) are directed and shaped according to the
stored information in a water drop or a finger. In this way the biofield (on its R level) works
similarly to the magnetic vector potential as envisaged in Bohm-Aharonov effect and also
empirically demonstrated. Here the potential (it has no force!) only changes the phase of the
wave function of some elementary particle in the vicinity, which, of course, may result in a
vastly changed behaviour of a collection of such particles. In other words, though originally
weak, subtle, the formative cause can have profound influences on events in the ordinary
- 12 -
Biofield and life
What the concept of biofield teaches us about life can only be touched very briefly, since first,
life is a very abstruse and complex problem, normally viewed only in terms of molecules and
their physicochemical interactions and second, we still know very little about the biofield,
especially on its R level. From the standpoint of our main theme life can be regarded as a
process with many levels. On the most superficial we see organisms with their life cycles full
of various activities that can be described in terms of physiology, ontogenetics and/or
ethology. On a deeper level that fascinates most biologists since 1953 we found DNA and the
related biochemistry – Watson and Crick were for instance convinced that by DNA they
discovered the outmost secret of life (Shapiro, 2007). On a still deeper and largely neglected
level we see life as an electromagnetic phenomenon in line with Fröhlich’s and Popp’s
theories. It is a much deeper level from the preceding one, but it is by no means the last (if
there is anything like this at all!). A deeper level is the R level of the biofield. We are able to
describe life on the first two levels to a considerable manner; on the third one we are
beginning to grasp some of its fascinating secrets (see for instance Popp et al, 2006). On the R
level a vast void is open; we are still groping in the dark, not even knowing the exact nature of
the field and its particles. But we can expect that this new horizon will unravel fresh and deep
secrets of life, perhaps unveiling the mystery of the beginning of life – that still upsets
scientists (Shapiro, 2007) – and some further mysteries of its evolution. It can also disclose
the role and nature of intelligence in living world and many other things that we are perhaps
still unaware of. As a result of all this we may expect a new and well grounded theoretical
biology with some clear and generally accepted definition of life that we lack today, and a
completely new and much broader outlook on life. Maybe we shall see that on the level of the
biofield everything is alive and imbued with some basic intelligence that cannot be reduced to
any Turing machine-based algorithm however complex it is; and that on the ordinary level of
our perception only those entities that are capable of representing the intricacies of the
biofield are perceived as being alive.
Aspden, H. (1969). Physics without Einstein, Southampton, Sabberton Publications.
Bajpai, R.P. (1999). Coherent nature of the radiation emitted in delayed luminescence of
leaves. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 19, 287-299.
Bohm, D. (1982). Wholeness and the implicate order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,
Bruinsma, R.F. (2002). Physics of protein-DNA interaction. Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and its Applications, 313, 211-237.
Chang, J.J., Fisch, J., Popp, F.A. (Ed.), (1998), Biophotons. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Correa, P.N., Correa, A.N. (2002). Fundamental measurement of biological energies I,
Akronos Publishing @ Aetherometry.com, Canada.
Correa, P.N. (2001). Electroscopic demonstration of reverse potentials of energy flow able
to draw kinetic and electric energies. Biophysical research Series S2-04, Publ. by Correa and
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Del Giudice, E., Doglia, A., Milani, M. (1984). Order and structures in living systems, in:
Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems, Plenum Publ. Corp., 477-487.
- 13 -
Del Giudice, E., Doglia, A., Milani, M., Vitiello, G. (1985). A quantum field theoretical
approach to the collective behaviour of biological systems. Nuclear Physics B251(FS13), 375-
Del Giudice, E., Doglia, A., Milani, M., Vitiello, G. (1988). Coherence of electromagnetic
radiation in biological systems, Cell Biophysics, 13, 221-224.
Del Giudice, E., Preparata, P. (1998). Coherent electrodynamics in water. In Schulte, J.,
Endler, P.C. (Ed.) Fundamental Research in Ultra High Dilution and Homoeopathy,
Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 89-103.
Engel, G.S., Calhoun, T.R., Read E.L. et al. (2007). Evidence for wavelike energy transfer
through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Nature, 446, 782-786.
Friedberg, E.C., Walker, G.C., Siede, W. (1995). DNA repair and mutagenesis.
Washington, D.C., ASM Press.
Fröhlich, H. (1975). The extraordinary dielectric properties of biological materials and the
action of enzymes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 72, 4211-4215.
Fröhlich, H. (1988). Theoretical physics and biology, in: Biological Coherence and
Response to External Stimuli, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1-24.
Goodwin, B.C. (1985). The causes of morphogenesis. Bioessays, 3, 32-36.
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, G., Delaflor, M., Attie, L., Goswami, A. (1994). The Einstein–
Podolsky–Rosen paradox in the brain: the transferred potential. Physical Essays, 7, 422-428
Hameroff, S., Penrose, R. (1995). Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain
microtubules. In: Proceedings of the international neural Network Society, Washington DC.
Hameroff, S.R. (1987). Ultimate computing: biomolecular consciousness and
nanotechnology. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Ho, M-W. (1993). The Rainbow and the Worm. World Scientific, Singapore.
Jerman, I., Ružič, R., Krašovec, R., Škarja M., Mogilnicki, L. (2005). Electrical transfer of
molecule information into water, its storage and bioeffects on plants and bacteria.
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 24, 341-353.
Kauffman, S.A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford Univ. Press.
Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rossetti, D., Vescovi, A. (2004). Non-local correlations
between separated neural networks. In: Donkor, E., Pirick, A.R., Brandt, H.E. (Ed.), Quantum
Information and Computation II. Proceedings of SPIE 5436, 107-117.
Pokorny, J. (2004). Excitations of vibrations in microtubules in living cells.
Bioelectrochemistry, 63, 321-326.
Pokorny, J., Hašek, J., Jelinek, F., Šaroch, J., Balaban, B. (2001). Electromagnetic activity
of yeast in the M phase. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 20, 371-396.
Pollock, K.J., Pohl, D.G. (1988). Emission of radiation by active cells, In: Fröhlich H.
(Ed.), Biological Coherence and Response to External Stimuli, Springer Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, 141-147.
Popp, F.A. (1999). About the Coherence of Biophotons. In: Sassaroli, E., Srivastava, Y.,
Swain, J. Widom, A. (Ed.), Macroscopic Quantum Coherence, World Scientific, Singapore-
New Jersey-London-Hong Kong, 130-150.
Popp, F.A. (1979). Coherent Photon Storage of Biological Systems. In: Popp, F.A.,
Becker, G., Konig, H.L., Peschka, W., (Ed.), Electromagnetic Bio-Information. Urban &
Schwarzenberg, Munich, Vienna, Baltimore.
Popp, F.A., Chang, J.J., Herzog, A., Yan, Z., Yan, Y. (2002). Evidence of squeezed light
in biological systems. Physical Letters A, 293, 98-102.
- 14 -
Popp, F.A., Ruth, B., Bahr, W., Böhm, J., Grass, P., Grolig, G., Rattemeyer, M., Schmidt,
H.G., Wulle, P. (1981). Emssion of visible and ultraviolet radiation by active biological
systems. Collective Phenomena 3, 187-214.
Popp, F.A., Nagl, W., Li, K.H., Scholz, W., Weingärtner, O., Wolf, R. (1984). Biophoton
Emission: New Evidence for Coherence and DNA as a Source, Cell Biophysics, 6, 33-52.
Popp, F.A. (1984). Biologie des Lichts, Paul Parey Verlag, Berlin.
Popp, F.A., Beloussov, L., Klimek, W., Swain, J. (2006). Coupling of Fröhlich-Modes as
a Basis of Biological Regulation. In: Hyland, G.J. and Rowlands, P. (Ed.), Herbert Fröhlich
FRS: A physicist ahead of his time. The University of Liverpool Press, Liverpool, 139-175.
Popp, F.A., Li, K.H., Gu, Q. (1992). Recent Advances in Biophoton Research, World
Popp, F.A. and Nagl, W. (1988). Concerning the question of coherence in biological
systems. Cell Biophysics, 13, 218-20.
Rein, G. (2004). Bioinformation Within the Biofield: Beyond Bioelectromagnetics.
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10, 59-68.
Rowlands, S. and Sewchand, L.S. (1982). Quantum Mechanical Interaction of Human
Erythrocytes. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 60, 52-59.
Rubik, B. (2002). The Biofield Hypothesis: Its Biophysical Basis and Role in Medicine.
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8, 703-718.
Shapiro, R. (2007). A simpler origin for life. Scientific American, 296, 25-31.
Škarja, M. (2007). Near field measurements of biofield of organisms and in nature. in:
Kononenko, Igor. (Ed.). Proceedings of measuring energy fields: International scientific
conference, Kamnik, Tunjice, 13-14.
Škarja, M., Berden, M., Jerman, I. (1998). The influence of ionic composition of water on
the corona discharge around water drops. Journal of Applied Physics, 84, 2436-2442.
Standish, L.J., Kozak, L., Johnson, L.C., Richards, T. (2004). Electroencephalographic
evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory
isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10, 307-314.
Stenger, V.J. (1999). Bioenergetic fields. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 3,
Tiller, W.A., Dibble, W.E., Fandel, J.G. (2005). Some science adventures with real magic,
Tiller, W.A., Dibble, W.E., Kohane, M.J. (2001). Conscious acts of creation: the
emergence of a new physics. Pavior Publishing, Walnut Creek, California.
Trewavas, A. (2005). Green plants as intelligent organisms. Trends in Plant Science, 10,
Van Wijk, R., Van Wijk, E.P.A. (2004). Human biophoton emission. Recent Research
Developments in Photochemistry & Photobiology, 7, 139-173.
Vitiello, G. (1992). Coherence and electromagnetic fields in living matter. Nanobiology, 1,
Wackermann, J., Seiter, C., Keibel, H., Walach, H. (2003). Correlations between brain
electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects, Neuroscience Letters, 336, 60-