Do people have an energy field

Human energy fields do not exist

Background of the questioner: Ruth suffered from asthma for ten years. “Then”, she writes, “I experienced a healing from asthma due to a harmonization of energy fields (Innerwise). The underlying theory assumes that energetic fields are the basis of our being and matter a specific expression that follows the fields. In this sense, Einstein and Heisenberg are quoted. How do physicists and biologists see it? The healing principle worked absolutely for me. "

Jakob Herpich studied physics at the University of Heidelberg and completed his master's degree there in 2013. He has been doing his doctorate in astrophysics at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy for almost four years. He researches the dynamics of stars in spiral galaxies. The title of his work is: "On the Physical Origin of Radial Surface Density Profiles in Disk Galaxies", in German: "On the physical causes of radial surface density profiles of stellar disks in spiral galaxies." In it, the physicist shows that the dynamics are the spatial distribution of Can affect stars in galaxies, at least in theory. During his studies he also took a seminar on the philosophy of science, which was about the logic of research.

The short answer is: There is no logically comprehensible connection between recognized physical theories and the so-called human energy fields. Scientifically speaking, they don't exist. How I come to this clear result and what it is all about physical fields and their use for medical therapies, you will find out in this article.

If you as a scientist study the website that describes the Innerwise method, you will quickly notice that the alleged facts presented there are not based on scientific results. It is a curious hodgepodge of terms from the entire spectrum of esotericism, arbitrarily mixed with medical and physical terms. An attempt is made to establish plausible connections, which, however, on closer inspection show no logical connection. At least none that is based on scientifically proven knowledge. The descriptions draw on spiritual concepts and present the applicability of these concepts as facts.

Those who want to understand the principle can attend expensive courses

After an intensive search I found an apparent scientific reference on the website: “The field and dimension theories of Burkhard Heim.” This is the only concrete (and supposedly scientific source) that I could find there. A short research shows that Burkhard Heim graduated in physics in 1954 and then carried out his own research far away from the scientific community. In order to get to know the principle of his method better, it seems to be necessary to attend the courses offered or to buy the numerous books. A so-called basic course near where I live (40 kilometers away in a densely populated area) costs 350 euros. The books seem to be cheaper, but due to their large number they also add up to a proud sum. Online courses start at just under 100 euros. The suspicion arises here that it is about making money. This suspicion is confirmed when you look around the online shop. However, that is not the subject of this text.

As a physicist, I concentrate on Burkhard Heim's so-called field and dimension theories. It is quite difficult to find reputable sources on this. There are simply none. Mr Heim has apparently tried more often to publish his results in respected physical journals. However, his work was always rejected, presumably because it did not meet scientific standards.

I find what I am looking for in forums and on portals that deal with so-called frontier or pseudosciences. These are alternative insights that are not recognized by the academic world. I looked at a small sample of his work that is available on the internet. The reason why they are not recognized is clear: Heim's work is incomplete and was not traceably derived. The bills are confused.

Beware of the universal formula for the four basic forces in physics

Allegedly, Heim's work is a theory of everything - often called a world formula. Such a theory should describe the four known basic forces of physics in a unified theory. These basic forces are gravitation, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear force. I do not want to go into the details of the individual forces here.

I just want to note that generations of scientists (including Albert Einstein) have been grappling with this question for over a century. You have also achieved partial success. Probably the simplest example: James Maxwell was able to combine the theories of electrostatics and magnetostatics to form the theory of electromagnetism as early as the 19th century. More such associations followed in the 20th century. But no physicist has yet been able to integrate all four forces in one theory.

What is also astonishing: Nowhere do the relevant websites describe exactly how Heim's so-called theory is actually supposed to be related to so-called human energy fields. None of the accessible information pages deals with the physical nature of these alleged fields. The only claim here is that they exist and that they would cause certain reactions. But how? It is not explained. The problem is: the style of these presentations is similar to that of legitimate popular science contributions. This gives the reader the impression that there is a scientifically consistent theory behind it. Only, in contrast to legitimate popular scientific representations, he does not find any scientific literature on these alleged human energy fields.

Fields are just mathematical tools

Now to the real question. What are fields in the physical sense? Fields are basically only mathematical tools to describe states or the movement of certain bodies. Generally speaking, a field assigns a value to each point in space, for example a temperature.

In the case of temperature, it would be a so-called scalar field, since each point in space is only assigned a number in a certain unit (in mathematics, this is called a scalar). There are also vector fields, for example when forces are assigned to space. Forces always have an absolute value and a direction. In such a case, each point in space is assigned both. Mathematicians call the combination of the absolute value and the direction vectors.

This can be better understood if you look at an application, such as the electric field. Electric fields indicate how strongly and in which direction charged particles, for example ions, are accelerated. Ions ensure that conventional water is electrically conductive. If you apply an electrical voltage to water, an electrical field is created there and the ions in the water are accelerated. An electric current flows. We can measure this current. And that is exactly the crux of the matter. One can measure the consequences of this electric field, the current. This means that you can check whether this field really exists. This property is essential for science. Because our theories are worthless if we cannot check whether nature actually behaves as predicted by the theory.

Some would argue at this point that the existence of human energy fields is not refuted by the inability to measure them. That could also be a question of a lack of technical possibilities - after all, today you can probably measure things that were previously not measurable. Is there a counter-argument to this? This question is not easy to answer. Strictly speaking, one must of course also differentiate here whether a prediction cannot be measured in principle, or whether there are practical hurdles, such as measuring devices that are too inaccurate. Since there are no scientific results whatsoever with these so-called human energy fields, at least none that are freely accessible, I cannot understand how a measurable prediction is made there at all. I have to answer here philosophically. The charge that we cannot refute this theory is of course true. At the same time, he exposes the theory as unscientific. That seems unintuitive at first. But it's not that complicated to understand. When we say that a theory has to be testable, we mean that it has to make predictions that can be measured or counted or checked. Karl Popper gives a very clear example in his work “The Logic of Research” (which, however, greatly simplifies the situation): A theory predicts that there are black swans. In principle, this cannot be definitively verified, as there is always the possibility that no one has ever seen these black swans or will never see them. So it makes a prediction that cannot be definitively refuted and is therefore unscientific. In summary, I want to state that a theory must make objectively refutable predictions in order to meet scientific requirements. But it is precisely these objectively refutable predictions that I miss here.

The concept of fields plays a very central role in physics. We have numerous field theories that describe very different phenomena. What they all have in common, however, is that they make measurable predictions. Some can even be made visible, for example metal chips in a magnetic field always align themselves in the direction in which the field is pointing (video).

Human energy fields have nothing to do with scientific knowledge

The problem with the so-called human energy fields mentioned is that no physically measurable predictions can be derived from them. Nowhere can it be understood what these fields are supposed to be and how they physically work. These “models” or “theories” are dubious. They are not based on scientific knowledge. Perhaps the authors just made up these theories. They may actually believe in it. What I can say for sure, however, is that they did not proceed scientifically in developing their ideas.

Unfortunately, such apparent scientific findings are not isolated cases. Especially in the field of medicine, especially in the field of so-called holistic medicine, one often encounters esoteric ideas that do not meet scientific requirements and cannot be checked. Sometimes they are even represented or developed by people who have received a scientific education.

Some of these ideas are easier to find out why they are wrong than in the specific case of this question. As an example, I can cite what is known as quantum therapy. A few years ago a friend gave me a book about this alleged method as a joke. Here, at least in part, it can be seen how the therapies described are supposed to emerge from the laws of physics, and the authors are at least honest enough to admit that they are based on results that “yet” have not been scientifically proven. Nevertheless, this is apparently a very clumsy deception. The authors give the impression that they worked scientifically and that esoteric and spiritual methods are quite common in science. Of course, it's nothing like it. And in this case, too, it is not to be expected that the so-called foundations of the method will be scientifically proven at some point. Because they are based on hair-raising misinterpretations of quantum physics and on demonstrably false medical facts.

Two physicists, misinterpreted, and matter no longer exists

Now to the two physicists Heisenberg and Einstein, who are quoted. To do this, I have to dig deeper into the theory. Esotericists like to refer to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in connection with quantum physics. This means that you cannot measure the location and the speed (physically more correct would be the momentum) of a particle at the same time with unlimited accuracy. The accuracy that can be achieved in principle, however, is extremely high.

Esotericists misinterpret the uncertainty relation as well as another phenomenon that physicists call the wave-particle dualism. This states that matter has properties of both normal particles and waves. Matter here includes both particles such as electrons and forms of energy such as light. In the case of the self-proclaimed quantum therapy, the authors conclude from the uncertainty relation and the wave-particle dualism that matter basically does not exist at all. This conclusion is physically wrong and not logically comprehensible. However, it shows that the authors either simply do not understand quantum physics, although they claim so, or deliberately misinterpret it in order to derive their supposed theories.

Medical professionals are more than just symptom suppressors

Both alleged therapy methods are based on a holistic approach. This approach shows symptoms of illness as a sign of a kind of internal imbalance in a higher authority. The instance is often understood as a kind of spiritual equivalent of the person concerned. The holistic approach is usually accompanied by the assumption that what they call conventional medicine is only concerned with suppressing symptoms and does not really want to cure the patient. I am consciously speaking of an assumption here, because medicine does in fact try to heal patients sustainably. Unfortunately, in practically all cases, this is not very easy and often requires decades of research.

As long as one does not yet understand the causes of a disease, such as cancer, or can effectively eliminate it, medicine must also take care of combating symptoms. In the case of cancer, this means chemotherapy or surgery on a tumor. It should also be mentioned at this point that many people were healed sustainably with these methods.

Healing is great, but there can be several reasons for it

It is of course very gratifying that the questioner was able to cure her asthma. I also cannot rule out that the therapy mentioned played a role in this. But I am very sure that it was not because of a “harmonization of energy fields”. I cannot say here what ultimately led to the healing. I can only make guesses. For example, such therapy might help you adopt a healthier lifestyle or be better able to cope with stress. The placebo effect would also be an obvious cause. These assumptions would have to be scientifically verified. In practice, however, this is very difficult and time-consuming, and it is quite possible that such an examination will not come to a conclusive result. The human organism is an extremely complex structure. Accordingly, its research turns out to be very laborious and lengthy. Unfortunately, the world is not as simple as the esotericists make it. Overall, I can't shake the impression that this alleged therapy is a morally reprehensible business model.

Editing: Susan Mücke, Theresa Bäuerlein, Production: Vera Fröhlich.