by Robert Lanza
Okay, this is bizarre. Yet these results happen every time, with-
out fail. They’re telling us that an observer determines physical
behavior of “external” objects.
Could it get any weirder? Hold on: now we’ll try something even
more radical—an experiment first performed only in 2002. Thus
far, the experiment involved erasing the which-way information by
meddling with the path of p and then measuring its twin s. Perhaps some sort of communication takes place between photon p and s,
letting s know what we will learn, and therefore giving it the green light to be a particle or a wave and either create or not create an
interference pattern. Maybe when photon p meets the polarizer it
sends s an IM (instant message) at infinite speed, so that photon s knows it must materialize into a real entity instantly, which has to
be a particle because only particles can go through one slit or the
other and not both. Result: no interference pattern.
To check out whether this is so, we’ll do one more thing. First,
we’ll stretch out the distance p photons have to take until they reach their detector, so it’ll take them more time to get there. This way,
T H e m o s T a m a z i N g e x p e r i m e N T
7 9
photons taking the S route will strike their own detectors first. But oddly enough, the results do not change! When we insert the QWPs
to path S the fringes are gone, and when we insert the polarizing
scrambler to path P and lose the coincidence-measuring ability that
lets us determine which-way information for the S photons, the
fringes return as before. But how can this be? Photons taking the S
path already finished their journeys. They either went through one
or the other slit or both. They either collapsed their “wave-function”
and became a particle or they didn’t. The game’s over, the action’s fin-
ished. They’ve each already hit the final barrier and were detected—
before twin p encountered the polarizing scrambling device that would rob us of which-way information.
The photons somehow know whether or not we will gain the
which-way information in the future. They decide not to collapse into particles before their distant twins even encounter our scrambler. (If
we take away the P scrambler, the S photons suddenly revert to being particles, again before P’s photons reach their detector and activate the coincidence counter.) Somehow, photon s knows whether the
which-way marker will be erased even though neither it, nor its
twin, have yet encountered an erasing mechanism. It knows when
its interference behavior can be present, when it can safely remain in
its fuzzy both-slits ghost reality, because it apparently knows photon
p—far off in the distance—is going to hit the scrambler eventually, and that this will ultimately prevent us from learning which way p
went.
It doesn’t matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and
its knowledge or lack of it is the only thing that determines how these bits of light or matter behave.
It forces us, too, to wonder about space and time. Can either be
real if the twins act on information before it happens, and across
distances instantaneously as if there is no separation between them?
Again and again, observations have consistently confirmed the
observer-dependent effects of quantum theory. In the past decade,
physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have
carried out an experiment that, in the quantum world, is equivalent
8 0
b i o C e N T r i s m
to demonstrating that a watched pot doesn’t boil. “It seems,” said
Peter Coveney, a researcher there, “that the act of looking at an atom
prevents it from changing.” (Theoretically, if a nuclear bomb were
watched intently enough, it would not explode, that is, if you could
keep checking its atoms every million trillionth of a second. This is
yet another experiment that supports the theory that the structure
of the physical world, and of small units of matter and energy in
particular, are influenced by human observation.)
In the last couple of decades, quantum theorists have shown,
in principle, that an atom cannot change its energy state as long as
it is being continuously observed. So, now, to test this concept, the
group of laser experimentalists at NIST held a cluster of positively
charged beryllium ions, the water so to speak, in a fixed position
using a magnetic field, the kettle. They applied heat to the kettle in the form of a radio-frequency field that would boost the atoms from
a lower to a higher energy state. This transition generally takes about
a quarter of a second. However, when the researchers kept checking
the atoms every four milliseconds with a brief pulse of light from a
laser, the atoms never made it to the higher energy state, despite the
force driving them toward it. It would seem that the process of mea-
surement gives the atoms “a little nudge,” forcing them back down
to the lower energy state—in effect, resetting the system to zero.
This behavior has no analog in the classical world of everyday sense
awareness and is apparently a function of observation.
Arcane? Bizarre? It’s hard to believe such effects are real. It’s a
fantastic result. When quantum physics was in its early days of dis-
covery at the beginning of the last century, even some physicists
dismissed the experimental findings as impossible or improbable. It
is curious to recall Albert Einstein’s reaction to the experiments: “I
know this business is free of contradictions, yet in my view it con-
tains a certain unreasonableness.”
It was only with the advent of quantum physics and the fall of
objectivity that scientists began to consider again the old question of
the possibility of comprehending the world as a form of mind. Ein-
stein, on a walk from The Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton
T H e m o s T a m a z i N g e x p e r i m e N T
8 1
to his home on Mercer Street, illustrated his continued fascination
and skepticism about an objective external reality, when he asked
Abraham Pais if he really believed that the moon existed only if he
looked at it. Since that time, physicists have analyzed and revised
their equations in a vain attempt to arrive at a statement of natural
laws that in no way depends on the circumstances of the observer.
Indeed, Eugene Wigner, one of the twentieth century’s greatest phys-
icists, stated that it is “not possible to formulate the laws of [physics]
in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness [of
the observer].” So when quantum theory implies that consciousness
must exist, it tacitly shows that the content of the mind is the ulti-
mate reality, and that only an act of observation can confer shape
and form to reality—from a dandelion in a meadow to sun, wind,
and rain.
And so, a fourth principle of Biocentrism:
First Principle of Biocentrism: What we perceive as reality is a
process that involves our consciousness.
Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal per-
ceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the
s
ame coin and cannot be separated.
Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic par-
ticles—indeed all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to
the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious
observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability
waves.
Fourth Principle of Biocentrism: Without consciousness,
“matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any
universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in
a probability state.
9
goldIlocks’s unIverse
Wherever the life is, [the world] bursts
into appearance around it.
—Ralph Waldo Emerson
The world appears to be designed for life, not just at the micro-
scopic scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself.
Scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of
traits that make it appear as if everything it contains—from atoms
to stars—was tailor-made just for us. Many are calling this revela-
tion the “Goldilocks Principle,” because the cosmos is not “too this”
or “too that,” but rather “just right” for life. Others are invoking the
principle of “Intelligent Design,” because they believe it’s no accident
the cosmos is so ideally suited for us, although the latter label is a
Pandora’s box that opens up all manner of arguments for the Bible,
8 3
8 4
b i o C e N T r i s m
and other topics that are irrelevant here, or worse. By any name,
the discovery is causing a huge commotion within the astrophysics
community and beyond.
In fact, we are currently in the midst of a great debate in the
United States about some of these observations. Most of us proba-
bly followed the recent trials over whether intelligent design can be
taught as an alternative to evolution in public school biology classes.
Proponents claim Darwin’s theory of evolution is exactly that—a the-
ory—and cannot fully explain the origin of all life, which naturally
it never claims to do. Indeed, they believe the universe itself is the
product of an intelligent force, which most people would simply call
God. On the other side are the vast majority of scientists, who believe
that natural selection may have a few gaps, but for all intents and pur-
poses is a scientific fact. They and other critics charge that intelligent
design is a transparent repackaging of the biblical view of creation
and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
It would be nice if the debate changed from the contentious one
about exchanging evolution for religion, and switched to the more
productive tack of asking whether science can explain why the uni-
verse appears to be built for life. Of course, the fact that the cosmos
seems exactly balanced and designed for life is just an inescapable
scientific observation—not an explanation for why.
At the moment, there are only three explanations for this mys-
tery. One is to say, “God did that,” which explains nothing even if
it is true. The second is to invoke the Anthropic Principle’s reason-
ing, several versions of which strongly support biocentrism, which
we shall now examine. The third option is biocentrism pure and
simple, nothing else needed.
No matter which logic one adopts, one has to come to terms
with the fact that we are living in a very peculiar cosmos.
By the late sixties, it had become clear that if the Big Bang had
been just one part in a million more powerful, the cosmos would
have blown outward too fast to allow stars and worlds to form.
Result: no us. Even more coincidentally, the universe’s four forces
and all of its constants are just perfectly set up for atomic interactions,
g o L d i L o C K s ’ s U N i v e r s e
8 5
the existence of atoms and elements, planets, liquid water, and life.
Tweak any of them and you never existed.
The constants (and their modern values) include:
Values given below are from the CODATA 1998 recommended by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology of the United States (NIST).
Values contain the (uncertainty) in the last two decimal places given in
brackets. Values that do not have this uncertainty listed are exact.
For example:
m
= 1.66053873(13) x 10-27 kg
u
m
= 1.66053873 x 10-27 kg
u
Uncertainty in m
= 0.00000013 x 10-27 kg
u
name
symbol
value
Atomic Mass Unit
m
1.66053873(13) x 10-27 kg
u
Avogadro’s Number
N
6.02214199(47) x 1023 mol-1
A
Bohr Magneton
m
9.27400899(37) x 10-24 J T-1
B
Bohr Radius
a
0.5291772083(19) x 10-10 m
o
Boltzmann’s Constant
k
1.3806503(24) x 10-23 J K-1
Compton Wavelength
l
2.426310215(18) x 10-12 m
c
Deuteron Mass
m
3.34358309(26) x 10-27 kg
d
Electric Constant
e
8.854187817 x 10-12 F m-1
o
Electron Mass
m
9.10938188(72) x 10-31 kg
e
Electron-Volt
eV
1.602176462(63) x 10-19 J
Elementary Charge
e
1.602176462(63) x 10-19 C
Faraday Constant
F
9.64853415(39) x 104 C mol-1
8 6
b i o C e N T r i s m
name
symbol
value
Fine Structure Constant
a
7.297352533(27) x 10-3
Hartree Energy
E
4.35974381(34) x 10-18 J
h
Hydrogen Ground State
3a
13.6057 eV
(r) = 0
2
Josephson Constant
K
4.83597898(19) x 1014 Hz V-1
j
Magnetic Constant
m
4p x 10-7
o
Molar Gas Constant
R
8.314472(15) J K-1 mol-1
Natural Unit of Action
1.054571596(82) x 10-34 J s
Newtonian Constant of
6.673(10) x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
G
Gravitation
Neutron Mass
m
1.67492716(13) x 10-27 kg
n
Nuclear Magneton
m
5.05078317(20) x 10-27 J T-1
n
Planck Constant
6.62606876(52) x 10-34 J s
h
h = 2p
Planck Length
l
1.6160(12) x 10-35 m
p
Planck Mass
m
2.1767(16) x 10-8 kg
p
Planck T
ime
t
5.3906(40) x 10-44 s
p
Proton Mass
m
1.67262158(13) x 10-27 kg
P
Rydberg Constant
R
10 9.73731568549(83) x 105 m-1
H
Stefan Boltzmann Constant
s
5.670400(40) x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
Speed of Light in Vacuum
c
2.99792458 x 108 m s-1
Thompson Cross Section
s
0.665245854(15) x 10-28 m2
e
Wien Displacement Law
2.8977686(51) x 10-3 m K
b
Constant
g o L d i L o C K s ’ s U N i v e r s e
8 7
Such life-friendly values of physics are built into the universe
like the cotton and linen fibers woven into our currency. The gravi-
tational constant is perhaps the most famous, but the fine structure
constant is just as critical for life. Called alpha, if it were just 1.1x
or more of its present value, fusion would no longer occur in stars.
The fine-structure constant gets so much scrutiny because the Big
Bang created almost pure hydrogen and helium and almost nothing
else. Life needs oxygen and carbon (water alone requires oxygen) but
this by itself is not so great a problem because oxygen is created in
the cores of stars as an eventual product in nuclear fusion. Carbon
is another story. So where did the carbon in our bodies come from?
The answer was found a half-century ago, and, of course, involves
those factories where all elements heavier than hydrogen and helium
are manufactured—in the centers of suns. When heavier stars later
explode into supernovae, this material is released into their envi-
ronments, where they are taken up, along with nebulous clouds of
interstellar hydrogen, into the stuff that composes the next gener-
ation of stars and planets. When this happens in a newly formed
generation of stars, these further enrich themselves with an even
higher percentage of heavier elements, or metals, and the more mas-
sive of these eventually explode. The process repeats. In our own
neck of the cosmic woods, our sun is a third-generation star, and its
surrounding planets, including all materials comprising the living
organisms on Earth, are composed of this nicely enriched, third-
generation, complex-material inventory.
For carbon in particular, the key to its existence lies in an odd
quirk within the nuclear fusion process itself, the reactions that make
the Sun and stars shine. Now, the most common nuclear reaction