PREFACE
By profession, I am a physical chemist. I spent most of my career in leading big research teams in universities studying electrical phenomena at interfaces and the effects of pollution on the future of societies.
Late in my career I came across some extraordinary reactions at interfaces which defied the explanatory power of the scientific theories which were current at the time (and still are). I pursued the astonishing new lines of reactions, - aided by a number of post doctoral fellows and graduate students.
They verified the existence of the strange reactions which had first shown up in 1989. The publics idea of scientists would lead to the expectation that what we had done would be praised by our peers, but most of them reviled our results (for they were impossible in the light of the reigning theory). It took fifteen years and some 3000 confirmatory papers (from most of the technologically advanced countries in the world) for the U.S. Government to institute an investigation of these strange things (for, if developed, some of them would lead to cheap and safe nuclear energy.)
When I retired in 1997, I was not granted an Emeritus status by my University. Many of my colleagues there (unaware of the development of confirmatory results of the same type as those which I had investigated from 1989) thought that I was caught up in some errors of measurements. Some even thought that I was purposely committing a fraud. One must retire to something and I looked for something to work upon.
The phenomenon of telepathy, far-viewing, and precognition came to my attention. I started study them. That was eight years ago. I had already published books on electrical and environmental phenomena. I applied this experience in book writing to write what I found in this new field. But the more I read, and discussed widely with colleagues, - the more I saw a deepening discrepancy between the standard model of physics, and the studies which were being published, mostly under a rigor of scientific conditions which exceeded those in research in most areas of physics.
I began to see, - it took some years, - that I could not fit the facts which I was reading into the present physics. Much of the new material shared a characteristic with the novel experiments of my last five years at the university: It was impossible. But it happened. Of course, such a situation makes for something to give. The facts? But what about the 3000 confirmatory papers?
This got me to think a good deal myself and to discuss with leaders in the field of new thought (more often in medicine and biology than in physics). I discussed with many. Among them was Larry Dossey, a doctor who specialized in alternative medicines; Rustum Roy, a metallurgist with ideas about new thinking; Peter Sturrock, an astro physicist who was the one who created the Society for Scientific Exploration; and Savely Savva, a pioneer in medical approaches outside those supported by the FDA. The chapters describing novel work have all been subjected to comment by specialists in the various fields. So, I wrote this book. It discusses mostly the work of others. If I have put anything into it of my own self, it is more in my ability (as a physical chemist) to jump out of thestraight jacket of my peers and prefer to come out with what seems to be true, - even if it means howls of protest from those left in the older thinking.
Some things described in the book will strain readers acceptance. I ask only for an open mind. The truth about the present science is that it is simply inconsistent with many undisputed facts. So, what if some disputed facts are true, too? Should we not give them a hearing, unbound by what we were taught at the university?
For many of the "impossible" things seem to be turning out (experimentally) to be possible. The thing we need is a New Paradigm to make the new results acceptable.
John O'M. Bockris
College Station, Texas, 2004 |