of the next century, as did cellular pathology and biochemistry in the medicine of the 20th century.
We live in a “time of change” (Capra 1983). The process of replacing materialistic paradigms with new, more flexible thought modalities requires of everyone a certain rethinking, or at least a willingness to understand. This is, of course, more difficult for people who are strongly attached to the old paradigm. A scientist who has become an expert in a particular field knows his subject matter inside and out like few others (that is why he holds the professorship). However, he is usually the one least willing to consider, let alone accept, completely different approaches.
We could say that experts are the most effective impediment to progress, or as the famous Max Planck said:
”Newly discovered scientific knowledge does not gain acceptance by convincing its opponents. Rather they slowly fade away.”
What is expected of a “new medicine” that is to shape the 21st century? It is to dismantle well-worn prejudices and create the openness required to embrace new approaches to thinking: networked thinking rather than solely linear thinking, including functional and cybernetic models in the conceptualization of how living systems work. Also, it is to finally bring about, after half a century, the acceptance of the quantum revolution in physics and its most important consequence: the dualism of matter. Up to now, medicine based on natural sciences functioned under the premise of physical matter that we can count, weigh, and measure. This idea was easy to understand and has not been proven wrong per se, but is only a partial aspect of our existence. The other aspect, not easily acceptable for a lay physicist, is the nature of frequency oscillations and their inherent possibilities of interference and resonance.
Admittedly, the idea that everything we are dealing with, including the human body, is supposed to comprise tangible matter and intangible radiation is somewhat difficult to accept. Complete comprehension is not expected of a lay physicist. Specifically, however, physicians should not ignore this fact. Very few people who use their television know exactly how it operates. What they do know is that pictures and sound can be transmitted over long distances, however this may work. They accept this fact and make use of it. Medicine ought to do the same: accept the principle and use it. As we will see later, simple thought modalities will assist our understanding.
Life is only possible under three conditions:
1. Matter
2. Energy
3. Information
This is the key to understanding the phenomenon of life. It seems self-evident but is slow to enter people's awareness. Scholars of natural sciences seem to have a particularly difficult time accepting this reasoning. Ever since Isaac Newton expounded that matter is the origin of all existence at the end of the 17th century, materialistic thinking was the basis for all natural sciences. The scientific materialistic aspect is also emphasized in medicine even though the subjects of its treatments and research are exclusively living beings. Scientists and physicians have studied the body, tissue, and cells in submicroscopic detail. We know of innumerable biochemical reactions that continuously take place in the body. Altogether we know a lot about the material side! Despite a cornucopia of detailed knowledge, the phenomenon of life is still incomprehensible. This way of thinking did not change much, even after the quantum revolution in the first half of the last century discovered that:
The real origin of all life is energy. Matter is just a particularly dense form of energy.
In order to truly understand life, another factor needs to be considered. Something intangible that enables the system to function. Something that is responsible for initiating, maintaining, and controlling the innumerable processes taking place on the material level. In her book, which is worth reading and taking to heart, Jutta Rost writes about the subject of life (Rost 1990): “How can we best define ‘life'? How can we describe it? There is nothing to see, nothing to measure, nothing to weigh, and even x-ray does not show anything. This ‘life per se' escapes all of our modern diagnostic and scientific methods.
We can experience it, however: Looking at effects or non-effects, we recognize its presence or absence. A living organism has motion, functions. Animate objects react to stimulation. Inanimate objects do not react.
In those terms life is not a condition but a function. This function would be impossible, even unthinkable, without integrative regulations. We know today that several million biochemical reactions per second are taking place in a regulated order in each living cell. Physicist F. A. Popp unequivocally states: “The fact that life does not end up in a chaotic mix of chemical reactions can only be explained by the existence of control functions based upon the principles of physics.”
Any attempts to hypothesize based on biochemical principles have proven untenable to date. In any event, the slow rate of chemical reactions would not support such gigantic numbers. Moreover, any biochemical explanation would not answer the central question about a superior coordination of biological functions.
Popp compares biological functions with the performance of an orchestra: “When playing at a concert, each musician is expected to play his instrument expertly. That is not the only important criterion. The quality of the artists' performance is determined by the coordination among each instrumentalist when each note is being played, in what manner, their harmonies, and on which instrument.”
It took a surprisingly long time before scientists asked a question as obvious as the one about superior control of living processes. Scientists in the former Soviet Union were the first ones to conduct research on this subject matter. In fact, the Russian biophysicist A. G. Gurwitsch discovered mitogenetic radiation back in 1922. He observed that the root of an onion, which is in the process of growing, can increase the rate of cell division of another root significantly, even if the two onions are separated by glass (Gurwitsch 1932). This opened the door to the amazing field of bio-information. Based on his findings, Gurwitsch postulated the existence of a regulating biofield. His idea, however, was largely ignored at the time. His compatriot G. La khovsky, who introduced the concept of electromagnetic resonance in the transference of biological information and considered life “to generate from and be maintained by radiation,” remained an outsider to the scientific community. At that time, people were not yet ready for the thoughts proposed by Gurwitsch and Lakhovsky. The scientific materialistic paradigm was still too omnipotent.
More than 30 years passed before physicists of the western hemisphere started to consider biophysical influences on living
