Matter used to be what you could kick. But at the quantum level, what we call particles of matter are actually knots of excitation in the surrounding energy fields. Matter is now understood as a state of energy. The nuts-and-bolts, billiard-ball physics of Newton is no longer sufficient. The deeper reality is the ubiquitous energy field of space-time, which generates, shapes and sustains all particles. This field theory is needed to describe matter at this level.
On a related note, a reductionist conceptual error dominates the science of biology. Species and organisms are no longer considered the ones that mutate and evolve; instead only the genes do. The neo-Darwinists have explained all of evolution and biology through recourse to the gene and its enshrined constituent molecule, DNA. Sloppy organisms have disappeared from the neo-Darwinists' viewscreen in favor of a cleaner nuts-and-bolts molecular chemistry.
Like the physics of Newton, this mechanistic approach is not sufficient. One often overlooked reason for this is that, in general, molecular composition does not determine form. Consequently, the biological puzzles of morphology, embryology and regeneration cannot be explained purely through the action of genes.
To understand these puzzles it is helpful to begin with blastema cells. A blastema is a mass of undifferentiated cells produced at an injury site in a regenerating animal such as the salamander. The blastema eventually specializes into nerve and muscle and whatever else the organism needs. Let's say a salamander has lost one of its legs. Blastema cells—primitive cells uncommitted as yet to specific functions—form on the wound. To grow into the appropriate leg cells, all genes for all other cell types must be repressed. How do the blastema cells know which genes to repress? Looked at through the reductive lens of molecular chemistry, atom “A” in molecule “B” somehow knows that it must help form a leg instead of a tail. Not only that, but it must know where to form into bone, or flesh or nerve. The situation is the same in embryology: What tells the DNA how to express itself?
What's missing here in this mechanistic model of molecular building blocks is any notion of a principle of spatial organization. There must ultimately be a feedback loop to a higher organizing force acting within the context of the whole organism.
As demanded by quantum physics, we must dispense with the mechanistic fallacy. We must admit, as Brian Goodwin says, that organisms are dynamic fields of particular kinds. Neo-Darwinism ignores the spatial patterns and dimensions of an organism—you need a field theory for these things.
Welcome to the Morphogenetic Fields (M-Fields)—vibratory fields which organize the dynamic interplay and relational order of the molecular components of life.
What characteristics are M-Fields supposed to have? Can they be quantified?
Two-time Nobel laureate Robert Becker M.D. maintains that M-Fields correspond to the bio-electric field. Becker's ideas are substantially testable and grounded in hard science and he has had some astounding medical successes in their application. He proved that at least some of the acupuncture points fall precisely upon nodes of electromagnetic potential on the skin (which belies the comment in the Skeptical Inquirer a couple of years ago that “no reputable scientist believes in acupuncture”). Becker is also the guy who produced partial regeneration in rats by electrically stimulating a blastema to form at an amputation site. Regeneration in mammals is totally unheard of, but thanks to Becker, someday in the not-so-distant future we might be able to grow our lost limbs right back.
Biologist Rupert Sheldrake conceives of M-Fields primarily as structures of probability. In Sheldrake's view, every system or process has a Morphogenetic Field. One major quality that can be tested for is the M-Fields' memory. As resonant organizing structures, the M-Fields which integrate processes (and therefore structures) must have a built-in memory. One conclusion that Sheldrake comes to is that the “laws of Nature” are more like “habits.” He cites evidence that the speed of light may actually be in flux; and of course it seems like every time they measure the gravitational constant it comes up different. This is an incredible threat to the status quo—witness the book reviewer in Nature magazine who suggested Sheldrake's books be burned. Read them while you still can.
Recommended Reading: Anything by Brian Goodwin, from whom we borrowed heavily for this piece, and anything by Rupert Sheldrake; The Body Electric by Robert O. Becker M.D. and Gary Selden.
(A version of this piece appears in our book Gonzo Science: Anomalies, Heresies, and Conspiracies , and on the Gonzo Science CD where it is titled, “Welcome to the M-Field.”)