Full download test bank at ebookmeta.

com

Reflection in the Waves The Interdividual Observer

in a Quantum Mechanical World 1st Edition Pablo
Bandera
For dowload this book click LINK or Button below

https://ebookmeta.com/product/reflection-in-the-
waves-the-interdividual-observer-in-a-quantum-
mechanical-world-1st-edition-pablo-bandera/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Abundance: On the Experience of Living in a World of

Information Plenty 1st Edition Pablo J. Boczkowski

https://ebookmeta.com/product/abundance-on-the-experience-of-
living-in-a-world-of-information-plenty-1st-edition-pablo-j-
boczkowski/

In the Waves Lennon Stella Maisy Stella

https://ebookmeta.com/product/in-the-waves-lennon-stella-maisy-
stella/

Global Neurosurgery A Reflection from a Life in the

Field Robert J Dempsey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/global-neurosurgery-a-reflection-
from-a-life-in-the-field-robert-j-dempsey-2/

Global Neurosurgery A Reflection from a Life in the

Field Robert J Dempsey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/global-neurosurgery-a-reflection-
from-a-life-in-the-field-robert-j-dempsey/
Royal Observer Corps The Eyes and Ears of the RAF in
WWII 1st Edition Air Ministry Personnel

https://ebookmeta.com/product/royal-observer-corps-the-eyes-and-
ears-of-the-raf-in-wwii-1st-edition-air-ministry-personnel/

The Black Experience in Design Identity Expression

Reflection 1st Edition Anne H. Berry

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-black-experience-in-design-
identity-expression-reflection-1st-edition-anne-h-berry/

The Quantum Nature of Things How Counting Leads to the

Quantum World 1st Edition T R Robinson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-quantum-nature-of-things-how-
counting-leads-to-the-quantum-world-1st-edition-t-r-robinson/

Waves and Rays in Elastic Continua 4th Edition Michael

A. Slawinski

https://ebookmeta.com/product/waves-and-rays-in-elastic-
continua-4th-edition-michael-a-slawinski/

World Voyage Planner Planning a Voyage from Anywhere in

the World to Anywhere in the World 3rd Edition Jimmy
Cornell

https://ebookmeta.com/product/world-voyage-planner-planning-a-
voyage-from-anywhere-in-the-world-to-anywhere-in-the-world-3rd-
edition-jimmy-cornell/
Reflection in the Waves
Breakthroughs in Mimetic Theory
Edited by William A. Johnsen
Reflection
in the Waves
The Interdividual Observer
in a Quantum Mechanical World

Pablo Bandera

Michigan State University Press

East Lansing
 Copyright © 2019 by Pablo Bandera

i The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements

of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper).

p
Michigan State University Press
East Lansing, Michigan 48823-5245

Printed and bound in the United States of America.

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Bandera, Pablo, author.
Title: Reflection in the waves : the interdividual observer in a quantum
mechanical world / Pablo Bandera.
Description: East Lansing : Michigan State University Press, [2019]
| Series: Breakthroughs in mimetic theory | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018020112 | ISBN 9781611862829 (pbk. : alk. paper)
| ISBN 9781609175627 (pdf) | ISBN 9781628953299 (epub) | ISBN 9781628963298 (kindle)
Subjects: LCSH: Quantum theory—Philosophy.
Classification: LCC QC174.12 .B35525 2019 | DDC 530.1201—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018020112

Cover and book design by Erin Kirk New

Composition by Charlie Sharp, Sharp Des!gns, East Lansing, Michigan
Cover art © Ali Mazraie Shadi. All rights reserved.

G
Michigan State University Press is a member of the Green Press Initiative and is
committed to developing and encouraging ecologically responsible publishing
practices. For more information about the Green Press Initiative and the use of
recycled paper in book publishing, please visit www.greenpressinitiative.org.

Visit Michigan State University Press at www.msupress.org

 To my father,
without whom this book
would have been impossible.

To my wife,
without whom everything else
would be unthinkable.
Contents

Introduction · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ix

chapter 1. The Collapse of the Rational World · · · 1

chapter 2. Modern Observation through Medieval
Eyes· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 35
chapter 3. The Interdividual Observer · · · · · · · 57
chapter 4. People and Things Hiding in Plain
Sight · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 89
chapter 5. The Roots of Reality · · · · · · · · · 119
chapter 6. From Reality to Truth · · · · · · · · 147
chapter 7. The Imitation of Truth · · · · · · · · 177
epilogue. Science and Religion · · · · · · · · · 193

Notes · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 205
Index· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 217
Introduction

The subtitle of this monograph is intended to give two gen-

eral impressions: that it has something to do with modern
physics and something to do with René Girard’s theory of
mimetic desire. That these two subjects have anything to do
with each other is admittedly a strange claim to make, and I
should probably apologize for asking the reader to take his or
her first step in this study over a potential stumbling block.
Then again, readers of modern physics are used to odd con-
trasts and apparent contradictions, and readers of mimetic
theory are used to stumbling blocks. So it is precisely these
readers who should be most open to an underlying synergy
between the two fields of study, and it is this synergy that
I wish to explore.
The greater resistance will come, of course, from the

ix
scientific community, which has acquired a kind of allergy to
philosophical questions. It has acquired this allergy, however,
not from any inherent incompatibility with philosophy, but
as a reaction to the persistent and increasing relevance of
philosophical questions that keep imposing themselves on
scientists. The enormous amount of literature relating science
and philosophy, which has been steadily growing in recent
years, testifies to this basic synergy. And yet the prevailing
attitude of many modern scientists toward philosophy,
and especially toward any reference to the human or to the
divine, is decidedly negative. An allergic reaction becomes
more acute, more violent, as it gets more surrounded by the
allergen. This, I believe, is essentially what we have been
witnessing for the last hundred years or so, with occasional
uncontrollable fits such as Stephen Hawking’s proclamation
that “philosophy is dead.”1
Nonetheless, as science has become more “modern,” the
range and depth of philosophical questions have increased.
For example, as soon as one enters into a discussion of quan-
tum theory and its strange implications, one feels compelled
to answer a fundamentally philosophical question: Are we

x
dealing here with a problem of ontology or a problem of
epistemology? Do the strange implications of quantum
theory say something about the world itself or merely what
we know about the world?
There is a temptation to assume the latter and console
ourselves with the idea that the universe is not really arbitrary
or irrational, only mysterious and elusive. This has in fact
been the explicit position of many physicists, beginning
with Werner Heisenberg. But even if we speak of quantum
theory as describing only what we know about the observed
physical system, this is not intended to mean what we are
capable of knowing today, with our present technology or
with the current limitations of our brains. It is what we can
know in principle—what nature allows us to know, and
therefore what is inherently knowable. The “uncertainty”
quantified by Heisenberg is meant to describe the objective
world, not the subjective observer. This is especially evident
when one considers that Heisenberg’s original term Un-
bestimmtheit does not primarily mean “uncertainty,” which
suggests a limitation or confusion of the mind, but is more
correctly translated as “indeterminacy.” Despite his appeal

xi
to epistemology, Heisenberg understood that, after all, it is
not we who are uncertain but the world.
As tortured and confused as this philosophical question
has been since Descartes, it has been the bane of modern
physics since Schrödinger introduced his infamous cat.2
At the heart of all the strangeness of quantum theory lies a
struggle to understand the connection between the subject
and the object of an observation—between the observer and
the observed. This is, of course, one of those big questions
that have been discussed and debated in philosophical circles
for many years, with implications well beyond the scope
of this short monograph. Nonetheless, in my brief study
I will need to address this and a few other big questions of
science and philosophy, but only just enough to clear the
path forward as we follow the light that quantum theory
and mimetic theory shed on each other.
For example, the tug-of-war between subject and object
has been fueled by another debate that shows no sign of
abating anytime soon. Modern physicists agree on the critical
role of the observer but are starkly divided on the question of
who or what this observer is. The word “observer” naturally

xii
brings to mind the image of a human person, with eyes that
see and ears that hear. But while some have argued for the
necessary humanity, or at least consciousness, of the ob-
server, most modern physicists reject the notion that we
humans are special in any physically significant way. As a
method of enquiry or a path to genuine understanding, this
debate has been woefully disappointing. We have already
seen it run repeatedly to its extremes: on the one hand a
sterile reductionism, on the other a vague monism or poorly
veiled pantheism. The present study will try to take both
physics and the human person more seriously than that.
There is another topic that has played a smaller role in
the philosophy of science but is of central importance for
our purposes here. This is the intriguing similarity between
the probabilistic wave function in quantum theory and the
Aristotelian concept of potentia. These parallels were first
noticed by Werner Heisenberg and have been elaborated in
different ways by a number of other physicists and philoso-
phers. Most approach the subject from the perspective of a
generic observer—that is, without considering any special
qualities of the specifically human observer. But I believe the

xiii
parallels between probability and potentia are much more
profound and revealing when the latter is understood, not
merely in Aristotelian terms, but in the fuller sense devel-
oped by Thomas Aquinas. To do this, we must indeed take
into account certain unique qualities of the human observer.
All of these big questions can be tied together in a coher-
ent and powerful way when one considers an insight that is
in fact not discussed or debated in any scientific literature
at all. I am speaking of the common assumption, taken for
granted by both classical and modern science, that the act
of observation is characterized by a direct independent rela-
tionship between the observer and the object of observation.
That is, despite the complexities developed over the last
century around the nature of observation and the “measure-
ment problem,” we still ultimately rely on the rather intuitive
notion that “my observation” is indeed “mine,” independent
of anyone else’s, and relates me directly to the thing I’m ob-
serving. All models of observation assume this fundamental
connection between me and my object and then describe
how other objects and observers are or aren’t related to it.
As we will see, it is precisely this simplistic assumption that

xiv
quantum theory calls into question, and this will force us to
reevaluate what it means to be an observer and what it means
to be observed. But the point is not that quantum theory is
wrong, much less that quantum mechanics is somehow not
real, or not really “quantum mechanical.” The point is that
quantum mechanics is trying to tell us something, and our
rather limited understanding of the nature of observation
has prevented us from seeing what that something is.
The philosophical problems of quantum theory are
considered problems of the modern world and a product
of the twentieth century. But their roots stretch back much
further, at least to the thirteenth century, and really all the
way back to the first century ad. But we should take things
one step at a time and start from the beginning, which in this
case is toward the end, when the line between classical and
modern physics was being drawn in bold strokes. It was at
this recent point in history when we first noticed the beacon
being signaled from the unreachable depths of nature—a
beacon of warning, but also ultimately of hope.

xv
1
The Collapse of the Rational World

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the scientific com-

munity was at a loss to explain the results of an experiment
that, by all accounts, should have been fairly straightforward.
The experiment involved the measurement of thermal energy
emitted from a purely radiative source—what is known as
“blackbody radiation”—and plotting the intensity of this
energy versus its wavelength. The expected results were
easily calculated using well-established equations of elec-
tromagnetics and thermodynamics. According to these
fundamental laws, the measured radiant intensity should
have increased monotonically with decreasing wavelength,
generating a curve that swept consistently upward toward
the top of the graph. But when the experiment was actually
conducted and the results plotted, a very different and

1
disturbing picture was formed. The curve started out well
enough, climbing faithfully according to expectations. But
then, as it entered the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet
light, the curve, in utter rebellion against the established
laws of physics, turned downward and decreased swiftly to
zero. There was no explanation for it. It was impossible. And
yet the results were stubbornly repeatable, and the truth of it
(whatever that truth was) was unavoidable. This seemingly
simple blackbody was telling us something—something like,
“Welcome to the twentieth century; things are going to be
different around here.”
It came to be known as the “ultraviolet catastrophe”
because it was in this region of the blackbody radiation
plot that our understanding of the world proved to be
fundamentally wrong. There was nothing to be done about
the experimental results themselves. So instead, the German
physicist Max Planck reformulated the old equations around
a crucial and original hypothesis: perhaps the atoms of a
blackbody do not absorb or emit energy continuously, as we
thought, but do so only in discrete amounts, which Planck
called “quanta.” It was a guess, with no scientific precedent,

2
but it made the mathematics match experimental results
perfectly.
When Planck presented his results to the scientific com-
munity in 1900, it was not obvious to anyone (including
Planck) that this was anything other than an ad hoc solution
to a particular mathematical problem. But a few years later,
in the context of yet another experiment that showed a
similar disregard for the laws of physics, Albert Einstein
applied Planck’s hypothesis to light itself (as opposed to the
atoms of a blackbody), postulating the existence of quanta
of light which he called “photons.”1 Suddenly, this notion
of “quantization” became, not just an isolated peculiarity of
blackbodies, but a property of one of the fundamental build-
ing blocks of nature. This powerful new idea attracted and
inspired the best scientific minds of the time, so that by the
third decade of the new century the distinction was already
made between “classical physics” and “modern physics.”
Just as classical physics has its fundamental equations
(Newton’s laws of motion, Maxwell’s equations of electro-
magnetism, etc.), the new physics has its equation as well.
This is Schrödinger’s equation, and it is, oddly enough, a

3
wave equation. That is, the solution to Schrodinger’s equa-
tion, called the “wave function” or “state function,” is not
a single number such as 10 meters of length or 25 degrees
centigrade. It is a wave-shaped distribution over a range
of numbers, as shown in figure 1. The equation works very
well and can be used to predict a wide variety of physical
phenomena with uncanny accuracy. So it seems we have
the right equation. The question is, what does this equation
mean? If we use Schrödinger’s equation to calculate, say, the
position of a particle within a certain volume of space, what
does it mean to say that the particle’s position is distributed
over this volume? Intuitively we would like to point to the
particle and say, “It is there.” The new physics seems to be
telling us we can’t point anymore, we can only wave our
hands. In fact, in quantum theory we do not generally speak
of the position of a particle. Instead we say that the particle
is in “superposition,” referring to this range of physical states
contained within the wave function that together make up
the overall state of the particle.
In 1928 Max Born came up with an explanation that
ultimately formed the foundation of our new understanding

4
Figure 1. A Simple Example of the Quantum Wave Function

of the world. He suggested that the solution to Schrödinger’s

equation is actually a probability distribution. It represents
the probability that an object or system is in a particular state
at a given time. In the case of our particle, when we calculate
its position, the wave function doesn’t tell us, “It is there,”
but rather, “It is probably there.”
This was a neat and well-defined answer to the question
at hand, but one with profound and disturbing implica-
tions, especially when one considers the scientific notion of
completeness. In general, the laws of physics are intended
to provide a “complete” description of a certain object or
system. For example, if we use Newton’s laws of motion to
calculate the vertical position of an object in the air, we will

5
get an answer like “5,000 feet above the ground.” This is a
complete description of the vertical position (or altitude) of
that object. It is not 4,000 feet above the ground, or 6,000
feet, but 5,000 feet. There is no more to say about the altitude
of this object. Similarly, Schrödinger’s equation is intended
to be a complete description of the state of a system. It is
not that the particle is really here, even though the wave
function says it might also be over there. The wave function
is not wrong or superfluous. In other words, we do not use
Schrödinger’s equation (or Newton’s) to tell us where the
particle isn’t, we use it to tell us where the particle is. But if the
wave function is a probability distribution, then where the
particle is is where it might be. These two concepts—where
something is and where it might be—are strangely confused
together. There seems to be a fundamental ambiguity inher-
ent in the very state of the particle, and in the state of any
physical system.
This ambiguity was quantified by Werner Heisenberg in
his famous uncertainty principle. By combining some of the
new ideas developed by people like Einstein and Louis de
Broglie, Heisenberg derived a set of mathematical relations

6
that effectively imposed a hard physical limit on what was
fundamentally knowable in nature. These relations have a
simple form, for example:

Δx ∙Δp ≥ ħ/2.

The symbol Δx is the uncertainty (or, as Bohr called it, the

“latitude”) in an object’s position, and Δp is the uncertainty
in that object’s momentum (a similar relation involves energy
and time). Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that
the more an observer knows about an object’s position, the
less he or she knows about its momentum, and vice versa.
Moreover, this knowledge can never be absolute—the un-
certainty in either one must be at least ħ/2, which equals
5∙10–35 J∙s. In other words, there is in the very heart of nature
a minimum amount of uncertainty. We are not referring
to the limitations of our measurement technology, but to
what is measurable in principle. The universe is inherently
indeterminate.
Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr were the primary
champions of this new understanding of the universe. Their

7
collaborative work in Copenhagen in the late 1920s became
the philosophical foundation of quantum theory. The basic
ideas have been developed and molded into several varia-
tions, but because of their origins they are rather broadly
referred to as the Copenhagen school of thought. Despite
its scandalous implications, it remains to this day the most
widely accepted interpretation of quantum theory.
Many of the great pioneers of the new physics, including
Schrödinger, Einstein, and de Broglie, rebelled strongly
against this interpretation. Einstein’s succinct response to
the suggestion that the universe is indeterminate was “God
does not play dice” (to which Bohr replied that Einstein
should stop telling God what to do). There has been no
shortage of memorable arguments and anecdotes over the
last hundred years as physicists and philosophers have tried
to make sense of the new science. But it was Schrödinger
who produced the most enduring and well-known image
of quantum theory—the image of a helpless cat in a box.
In 1935 he proposed a thought experiment to show how
this new understanding of atomic physics can lead to “quite
ridiculous cases”2 when applied to everyday macroscopic

8
systems. This now-famous experiment goes as follows: There
is a box, with no windows of any kind so that no one outside
the box can see its contents once it is closed. Inside there is
a small amount of radioactive material with a half-life of
one hour. This means that after one hour there will be a
50 percent chance that the material will have decayed and
emitted an atomic particle, which would then be detected
by a nearby Geiger counter. The Geiger counter in turn is
connected to a small hammer in such a way that, if a radio-
active decay is detected, the hammer will come down onto a
vial of cyanide, smashing it and releasing the deadly poison
into the air. Finally, lying next to this contraption inside
the box, blissfully ignorant of its impending doom, is an
innocent cat. Let us now close the box and wait for precisely
one hour. At that time, what can we say about the “state” of
the cat? Is it alive or dead?
Most reasonable people would answer quite simply that
there is a fifty-fifty chance that the cat is dead, since there is
a fifty-fifty chance that a radioactive particle was emitted.
Therefore, the cat is either alive or dead. A quantum physi-
cist, however, would disagree. He would point out that the

9
wave function describing the state of the cat is comprised
of both possibilities (or probabilities) of live cat and dead
cat, and this is a complete description of the cat’s state at that
moment in time. The cat, then, is not either alive or dead, it
is somehow alive and dead simultaneously. It is this “blurred
model”3 of nature that Schrödinger did not trust.
But even our quantum physicist would have to agree that,
when the box is opened and we look inside, we can only see
either a dead cat or a live cat. Abstract speculations of some
sort of hypostatic union within the mysterious confines of
a system we cannot see may be acceptable in theory, but
ultimately our own eyes cannot deceive us. Once the box
is opened, the wave function of the cat can no longer be
a combination of possibilities but must suddenly become
either one thing or the other. This in quantum mechanics is
called the “collapse” of the wave function, and it is perhaps
the most scandalous element of quantum theory.
In classical physics, when two observers perform identical
experiments under identical conditions, the results of both
experiments are expected to be the same. The physical world
does whatever it does according to the preset laws of nature,

10
regardless of any observer that may or may not be watching,
and this leads to predictable, or at least repeatable, results.
If the two results are not the same, then at least one of them
is simply wrong.
The disturbing suggestion of quantum theory is that,
if two identical experiments yield different results, they
may both in fact be correct. The wave function of a system
reflects a combination of possible measurement results, and
it collapses to only one of those possibilities the moment it
is observed or measured. But the state to which the system
collapses is not determined by any causal natural laws. It is
a completely arbitrary outcome of the fact that someone
just looked at it. It doesn’t really happen for a reason, it just
happens. Consequently, even though both systems and
both experiments are identical, their wave functions may
collapse to two different values once they are observed by
their respective observers.
It started out as a sort of half-joke of Schrödinger’s, a
mocking finger pointing out something “ridiculous,” but
the scientific world was compelled to take it seriously. It has
become a central feature of quantum mechanics, its character

11
fading from ridiculous to intriguing, and is discussed today
with that intellectual coolness reserved for notions that are
fairly obvious. It is perhaps the reflection of a vague resent-
ment that we have given the whole issue the rather prosaic
title of “the measurement problem.”
This “problem” is scandalous for two reasons. Firstly, it
makes quantum theory seem not only strange but suspicious.
It says that the world really is probabilistic and uncertain and
indeterminate, but only when no one is looking. Moreover,
because this collapse of the wave function manifests itself
as something completely arbitrary, it is essentially unex-
plainable. Again: it doesn’t really happen for a reason, it
just happens. If we can characterize the observer, and we
can characterize the physical system, it seems that we should
be able to characterize the relationship between the two.
And yet a clear understanding of this relationship, and any
explanation of why there should be this collapse in the first
place, is conspicuously missing from quantum theory.
True, quantum theory “explains” the result of a particular
experiment in terms of the probability of its occurrence,
as calculated using Schrödinger’s equation. But relying on

12
this sort of explanation has strange consequences, even for
the concept of probability itself. From the classical point of
view, probability is a way of handling complex processes on a
macroscopic scale. It uses statistical relations to calculate the
expected outcomes of a number of sample measurements,
and a minimum number of samples is required for a calcu-
lation to be considered “statistically valid.” For example, I
can say that when I flip a coin it has a 50 percent probability
of being heads (or, more correctly, a probability of 0.5). By
this I mean that, if I flip the coin many times, it will turn
up heads about half of the time. Or similarly, if I flip many
coins at once, about half of them will turn up heads. What
actually causes each coin to turn up either heads or tails is
a combination of various factors—the initial force on the
coin, its angle relative to the person’s hand, air resistance,
and so on. In principle, with enough computing power one
could bypass probability theory altogether and determine
which coins will turn up heads by directly calculating these
factors on each coin.
This is not the case for a “quantum mechanical” system
such as, for example, an electron orbiting the nucleus of

13
an atom. It turns out that an electron only exists in certain
discrete orbits, or energy states, within an atom. Quantum
mechanics can be used to calculate the probability of the
electron being in one of these states. But remember that the
wave function is a “complete” description of the state of a
system. Unlike classical probability, we are not referring to
a statistical sample of many electrons but to the energy state
of that one electron only. The particular orbit of the electron
is not determined by external forces or factors, but by its
inherent probabilistic nature. Classical physics would like to
think of the electron orbiting the nucleus as it does a satellite
orbiting the earth. The orbit of a satellite is a function of its
angular momentum; a faster velocity will result in a wider
orbit. By contrast, there is no external force that would allow
the electron to be in some intermediate energy state. It only
exists in certain states, and these can only be calculated as
probabilities. When we are asked what actually causes the
electron to be in a particular state, we are at a loss. Because of
this Bohr insisted, much to Einstein’s dismay, that quantum
theory forces us to question even the fundamental concept
of causality.

14
 There is therefore a paradoxical relation in quantum the-
ory between the complexity of a system and its probabilistic
nature. As one moves away from a macroscopic system of
complex components toward a quantum mechanical system
of elementary particles, the system strangely becomes more
probabilistic. It is as if probability were attempting to acquire
an independent existence by denying its own meaning.
The second reason that the measurement problem is so
scandalous arises from the natural tendency to equate the
notion of an observer with that of a human being. After all,
an observer is the subject of an observation (as opposed to
the object of observation), and a subject is subjective, which
implies a human person. But the implication that the state
of a physical system should be so intimately dependent on
the person observing it, should in fact collapse as if under
the weight of a glance, offends our scientific sensibilities,
which have always imagined that the world is majestically
indifferent to our humanity. We have grudgingly accepted
the idea that the physical world depends on an observer,
but the notion that it depends on a human being is going
too far.

15
 Nonetheless, the fact is that it was the introduction of an
inherently nonprobabilistic conscious mind into a probabi-
listic physical system that created a measurement problem in
the first place. It was not the Geiger counter in Schrödinger’s
experiment but the person looking at the Geiger counter
(or at the cat) that made the difference. The central role of
human consciousness has been emphasized by a number
of physicists over the years, including John von Neumann,
Eugene Wigner, John Wheeler, and others. Wigner created
one of the more provocative images by introducing a subtle
variation to Schrödinger’s thought experiment, in which the
cat is replaced by a human being. These arguments generally
take the implications of this experiment to the extreme, sug-
gesting that the physical world itself is not really real, but is in
a sort of undefined state of superposition unless and until a
human person observes it and brings it into concrete reality.
Of course, this has opened the door to a wide range of
metaphysical arguments, some of which admittedly push
the limits of credulity. The implications of “quantum con-
sciousness” seem to suggest that subjective human beings
somehow create reality itself, and in fact Wheeler has coined

16
the term “participatory anthropic principle” to express this
basic idea. In other words, not only does the tree make no
sound when it falls in the forest, it does not even exist unless
someone is there to observe it. The majority of the scientific
community is generally put off by such dubious metaphys-
ical implications. But this does not make the measurement
problem any less of a problem.
The term “consciousness” is in fact misleading. It seems
to me that the key characteristic of the observer in the
measurement problem is that he or she is self-conscious or
self-aware, as suggested, for example, by the physicist Henry
Stapp.4 Only a self-aware observer is capable of observing
himself as well as the physical system.5 A person is therefore
essentially in a perpetually collapsed state, so to speak, which
is ultimately a nonprobabilistic state.6 His ability to observe
himself and the physical system, and himself within the phys-
ical system, means that the system must be related to him
in some nonprobabilistic way. For quantum mechanics this
means that the system suddenly stops being probabilistic—it
collapses to a single well-defined state—as soon as the person
observes it.

17
 The general trend in physics, however, is to avoid the
subjectivity of the subject, and this has degraded over the
years into a purely materialistic understanding of the ob-
server. Most quantum theorists deny any technical difference
between a human observer and any inanimate measurement
device such as a clock or a ruler. It seems to me that this at-
tempts to deal with the measurement problem by avoiding it
altogether. The measurement problem, after all, is ultimately
a reflection of the old problem of relating epistemology to
ontology—the knowledge of the observer to the state of the
object. It is no coincidence that most of the greatest figures
in quantum theory have felt compelled to write books and
papers on the philosophical implications of their work. But,
of course, one does not speak of the subjective knowledge of
a clock or the epistemology of a ruler, which gives the im-
pression that we can simply talk about clocks and rulers and
ignore everything else. Even if things like subjectivity and
knowledge are dismissed as philosophical or unscientific,
they nonetheless pertain to the specifically human observer.
In this case, at least, these concepts may be extremely relevant
to understanding the measurement problem.

18
 The decision to either accept or reject the uniqueness
of the human observer is mostly a matter of opinion. There
is no solid mathematical or “scientific” proof in quantum
theory for either position. Most physicists that reject the
observer’s humanity admit quite freely that they do so basi-
cally from a personal bias, or because they don’t see a reason
to complicate things with all this business of minds and
consciousness.7 It is interesting that the scientific community
feels comfortable with such blatantly subjective arguments
but insists on more objectivity from anyone defending the
opposite opinion. It seems intuitively obvious to most people
that there is something unique about the human person that
categorically separates him from inanimate objects, and this
is evidenced by the fact that scientists keep arguing about it.
If anything, one would think the onus is on the materialist
to prove otherwise.
As we’ve said, there is no conclusive argument one way or
the other. But if we insist on reducing the human observer
to a purely “objective” measurement device, we run into
an insurmountable obstacle. After drawing every physical
and mathematical parallel between human and inanimate

19
observers, there is in the end one difference that remains:
the human observer can be wrong. This dubious distinction
is absolutely unique to the subjective human being and is
usually the reason given for ignoring him in an experiment.
Subjectivity is a source of error, but precisely because of this
it is also the source of the human observer’s uniqueness.
This ability to be wrong is not true of any nonconscious
measurement device. We are used to speaking about a certain
meter or gauge being wrong, but by this we mean that the
device did not operate according to a (human) person’s
expectations or intended design. Perhaps it was installed
incorrectly in the system or was calibrated for a different
experiment. Either way the error is not in the device itself;
it is in the experimenter’s knowledge of the device. In fact,
we know we have found the source of the “error” when we
discover a situation for which the device’s measurement is
correct: if the calibration is off, then a correct measurement
by the device would produce the “wrong” result for this
experiment. A device only measures what it is built and
set up to measure, say, the number of photons striking a
screen or the presence of a magnetic field. But it does not

20
know anything about the object producing these effects, and
consequently can say nothing right or wrong about it. As the
philosopher Martin Heidegger puts it, a purely objective or
“mathematical” observation attempts to establish the being
of a thing by “skipping over” the thing itself and recording
only the facts of the thing.8
For example, a Geiger counter measures the energy
generated by a nuclear particle striking a detector, and this
is used by nuclear engineers to determine the presence of
radioactive material such as uranium-235. But if we could ask
a Geiger counter, “Is there a piece of uranium-235 in front
of you?” it would have no idea what we were talking about.
It would never ask, “Is there really an object in front of me,
and if so, what is it?” This is the nature of any purely objective
measurement device. It cannot give a wrong answer because
it never asks any questions, it only makes statements. Only
a human being asks questions.
One may object that we are merely referring to the fact
that human beings interpret their observations and may
make mistakes when doing so. As strictly objective observers,
however, they are no different from any other measurement

21
device. The implication is that one can separate a person’s
subjectivity from the act of that person’s observation. But
this is a bit like saying that elephants are no different from
mice, once you remove the fact that elephants are larger, have
trunks, and don’t have whiskers. If we remove subjectivity
from the human observer, we, of course, have no problem at
all. We also no longer have a human observer.
The measurement problem demonstrated by Schröding-
er’s thought experiment is not the result of the person’s in-
terpretation after having looked inside the box. The problem
arises because the human observer, unlike the Geiger counter
in the box, observes his own observing, and therefore knows
what he is looking at. This “knowing” is a judgment on the
truth of the observation, a ruling on the question of whether
the cat is truly alive or truly dead. It is not a separate operation
that is done after the fact, but a fundamental characteristic
of human observation itself.
I will speak more about knowledge and truth later on.
For now I simply want to preserve a certain clarity of intu-
ition—that intuition that allows us to see, even in the face of
very clever arguments, that a cat is still a cat. Discussions and

22
mathematical representations of the measurement problem
have gotten more and more complex over the years in efforts
to understand it. But in general we are not bothered so much
by the complexities of quantum mechanics, and in fact take
some comfort in them, in the consoling notion that complex
problems should indeed be difficult to understand. No,
what is especially striking about the measurement problem
is not its complexity but its stark simplicity, and this is what
really bothers us—that something as straightforward and
innocuous as looking at an object should be the cause of such
strange effects. It’s a bit silly and unbelievable, like a cheap
magic trick. It’s true that a certain natural phenomenon
may seem like magic, an object of fear and wonder, if the
underlying complexities of the physical laws are not known.
A magnet appears to cause a piece of metal to move “for no
reason.” The collapse of the wave function has a similarly
simplistic and magical quality, with electrons occupying one
state or another “for no reason.” If we think of the act of
observation or measurement as tying a rope to the object
and holding fast to the other end, the mechanism of col-
lapse shows that it is a magician’s trick rope that somehow

23
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Mustard, so commonly used with cold ham or other meat and in
salad dressing, is sometimes of benefit in stimulating the appetite,
but when used in large quantities, or continuously, it may irritate the
stomach. This irritant quality may be used to advantage, when it is
deemed necessary, as a counter-irritant on the skin, as in the well-
known mustard plaster. A teaspoonful of mustard to a pint of
lukewarm water is an effectual emetic in cases in which it is
necessary or advisable to empty the stomach.
Capers, the flower buds of a bush grown in the East, are put up in
vinegar and used in sauces for mutton.
Cinnamon, nutmeg, and cloves are useful in flavoring foods; they
take the flat taste from hot water and impart a pleasant spiciness.
Many can take milk when flavored, and the slight amount necessary
is in no way injurious.
Preserved ginger is of value for flavoring cereal foods and gruels
for invalids.
Vinegar, used in excess, reduces the alkalinity of the blood and
aids in the destruction of red blood corpuscles. It may thus produce
anemia when used in excess.
The acetic acid contained in cider vinegar aids the softening of the
muscle fiber of meat and thus facilitates its digestion. Because of its
preservative qualities it is used in pickling vegetables and various
kinds of fish.
Vinegars made from grapes or other fruits are wholesome.
Flavored vinegars, as tarragon, from the herb of the same name, are
useful as appetizers.
Vinegars artificially made from commercial acids are sometimes
injurious.
Tomato Catsup, Worcestershire, and Tabasco sauces are not
harmful if used moderately and with due regard to enhancing not
destroying the flavor of the food with which they are used.

PRESERVATION OF FOODS
 This subject is of ever-growing importance. The study of the
preservation of foods has added much to the store of human
knowledge. By this means it is possible for those living in districts
remote from the supply, those who cannot afford to buy them fresh,
and those who have no cellars in which to store them, to have
vegetables and fruits at all seasons of the year.
Nutritious foods can be prepared in such small bulk and of such
excellent keeping quality that explorers, whether to the arctics or the
tropics, can be kept in first-class physical condition, enabled to
withstand fatigue, and be removed to long distances from the base
of supplies without great hardship.
The decomposition of food is occasioned by bacterial action. Air is
necessary to the growth of bacteria. If the air is excluded the
ordinary bacteria are prevented from exerting their deleterious
action.
Heat, as in canning, prevents the formation of bacterial products.
Cold, in refrigeration, by inhibiting bacterial activity is also an
excellent preservative.
Other methods in use are smoking, salting, drying, sterilizing,
various antiseptics, and the exclusion of the air, as in coating eggs or
meat for transportation to other countries.
Eggs are preserved for a long period by excluding the air, which
otherwise penetrates the shell. A solution of water glass (silicate of
sodium), dry oats or salt are used for this purpose.
All food intended for preservation should be kept in a clean, cool,
dry, dark place.
Drying, cooking, and sealing from the air will preserve some meats
and fruits, while others require such preservatives as sugar, vinegar,
and salt. The preservative in cider vinegar is acetic acid, in wine
vinegar tartaric acid.
All preservatives which are actual foods, such as sugar, salt, and
vinegar, are to be recommended, but the use of antiseptic
preservatives, such as salicylic acid, formaldehyd, boracic acid,
alum, sulphur, and benzoate of soda, all of which have been used by
many canning merchants, is fraught with danger. By the efforts of the
United States Department of Agriculture the use of such
preservatives has been largely done away with by the most reliable
packers and canners. However, unscrupulous dealers may use this
means of disguising fruits and vegetables not in good condition.
There can be no doubt, that, whenever possible, the best method
is for the housewife to preserve her own food by drying, canning,
preserving, and pickling, with fruits and vegetables which she knows
are fresh. This, however, is not always practicable.
Since economy in food lies in obtaining the greatest amount of
nutriment for the least money, the preparation of simple foods in the
home, with care that no more is furnished for consumption than the
system requires, is the truest economy.
More brands of prepared food are not so much needed as purity of
elements in their natural state.
In the effort to emphasize the importance of pure food in amount
and quality, pure air and pure water must not be overlooked. Much
infection is carried by these two elements.

POISONING FROM FOOD

Owing to the careful inspection given to various preparations of

foods and the education of the people on the dangers attending the
eating of underripe, overripe, or fermenting fruits and vegetables, or
decomposing canned meats or other foods, cases of poisoning from
food are not so numerous as formerly.
One still reads, however, of illnesses and even fatalities in those
who have, at some gathering, partaken of potted or canned meats,
or ice-cream made from impure milk.
Imperfect sterilization allows the micro-organisms, everywhere
present in the atmosphere, to multiply and produce their toxins.
Any food contained in a can which shows a suspicious bulging in
top or sides (not a dent caused by handling) should be unhesitatingly
rejected, for fermentation has developed gases, which, in trying to
escape, have caused the bulging. Though the practice is less
common than formerly, some grocers offer these bulging cans for
sale at less prices and they are thus purchased by those who look
for bargains in foods instead of for quality.
Sometimes the foods have not advanced to a stage in which the
poisonous products are manifested; but in the intestinal canal the
germs contained in these foods manufacture toxins which are readily
absorbed and produce the severe disturbances noted in cases of
ptomain poisoning.
The liver, which has been styled the “watchdog of the body,” has a
special power to destroy many of the toxins contained in the food
material passing through it, and it is due to this fact that many
deleterious substances, taken with the food, are neutralized and their
poisons rendered harmless to the system. When the liver is
disordered, this important function may be hindered, or cease to be
active. Therefore, the importance may be readily seen of keeping the
liver in a vigorous condition by means of exercises which will send
an active circulation through it and keep the nerves controlling it in
perfect functioning order.
Ptomain poisoning results most often from tainted meat, milk, and
fish. Putrefactive processes may have begun in meat, which is thus
rendered “high,” but if it is thoroughly cooked the poisons may be
made inert. Many enjoy the flavor of such meat. The Eskimos, as is
well known, will cache a seal or other animal against a time when
food is less plentiful and after months, perhaps, will eat it with relish
and without harm, though it cannot be touched by people with less
hearty appetites. Old eggs, eaten as a luxury by the Chinese, and
the fermented fish used by other races are familiar examples of
tainted foods.
The sale of “bob” veal, or the flesh of very young calves, has been
prohibited because in many people its ready decomposition causes
active diarrhea.
The process of smoking various meats affects materially only the
outside portion, the inner may furnish a suitable bed for the
development of germs. Great care should be exercised and thorough
inspection made of any meat which is eaten raw, as dried beef, or
any pork product.
Ice-cream, as made in the home, is usually innocuous, but when it
is made in factories, unless care is exercised to keep containers
clean and sterilized, the cream or milk may become infected from
careless handling, either before or after it reaches the factory—
particularly in warm weather. Toxins which cause serious and often
fatal poisoning develop. Many such cases have resulted from the
free eating of infected ice-cream at picnics or other social gatherings.
One should guard against overripe cheese, though cheese of any
kind acts as a poison with some people. Cases of severe intestinal
disturbance may occur in those who are unable to eat certain articles
of food, as strawberries, lobsters, or oysters; these attacks should be
carefully distinguished from cases of true poisoning.
Sometimes, however, particularly in the case of fish or oysters
which have been frozen, unless they are eaten immediately after
they have been thawed, toxins develop which cause severe
constitutional disturbance, particularly of the nervous system. These
toxins do not seem to affect the gastro-intestinal tract so markedly.
Infected shellfish, particularly mussels, have caused death in two
hours by their effect on the nervous system.
Many fish after being smoked are eaten raw, and if the ptomains
have begun to develop, poisoning follows.
Care must be taken in purchasing fish for the table that the flesh is
firm and the odor absolutely without taint.
Meat or fish may become toxic to the system through substances
eaten by the animal or by its own physical condition at the time it is
killed. Fish and oysters, therefore, are not eaten during the spawning
season.
Cow’s milk may be made obnoxious by substances on which the
cow feeds. Wild garlic when eaten by the cow imparts a nauseous
taste to the milk.
 The flesh from diseased animals slaughtered and sold for food has
occasioned violent sickness. Government inspection, however, has
greatly lessened the dangers from this source.
Unripe or overripe vegetables and fruit may occasion severe
vomiting and diarrhea.
Moldy flour contains a substance which may cause poisoning.
Rye may have a parasite fungus called ergot and if flour is made
from rye contaminated with this growth, a form of poisoning called
“ergotism” may result. It takes some time and a prolonged use of the
flour to cause untoward symptoms.
Pellagra, which has been giving the southern states so much
trouble, was thought to be caused by the use of spoiled corn meal. It
is now thought to be due to the disturbed nutrition following too
monotonous and unbalanced a diet. The excessive use of corn-meal
breads with their heating qualities and the irritation of the intestinal
canal may be an accessory factor.
A food which is so universally used as milk should be surrounded
with every safeguard possible by rigid inspection from producer to
consumer, as many infective epidemics have been traced directly to
a careless or infected handler of this product. Tuberculosis and
typhoid fever germs, diphtheria and scarlet fever may all be
communicated by this means. Live typhoid bacilli have been found in
acid buttermilk. Infected water used in washing the cans will infect
the milk.
Other poisoning may occur by the tin or lead in the inside of cans
being dissolved off by the acids in fruits or vegetables. This is more
likely to occur when the cans of fruit have been kept for a long time.
Housekeepers, who use tin cans, should not put up more fruit than
will supply the family for the season.
Tomatoes, asparagus, strawberries, and apricots are especially
liable to dissolve the tin from the can.
Food should be emptied from the can as soon as it is opened, as
the action of the air hastens deterioration. No cooked fruit should be
allowed to stand in a tin saucepan or other vessel. It should be
emptied as soon as the cooking process is complete.
When a can of fruit, vegetables, or meat is opened, if the interior of
the can is even partially black, it is safe to reject the contents. The tin
in the food will be absorbed in the intestinal tract and may cause
severe disturbance.
Large canners of fruit and vegetables, of the better quality, are
now coating the inside of the can with an insoluble varnish which
prevents the acids from acting on the tin.
The best canners are exceedingly careful and everything in their
factories is scrupulously clean.

THE ADULTERATION OF FOOD

Laws against food adulteration have been enacted, but

unscrupulous manufacturers find ways to evade them. On account of
these laws, however, the practice is less general and manufacturers
are beginning to take pride in putting up goods that pass the strictest
inspection. The people, also, are being aroused, through the efforts
of the pure-food propagandists, to the ill effects of adulterated foods
both on the body and the pocketbook and are increasingly
demanding that the foods they buy shall be pure and wholesome.
To lessen the cost of production, many foods are mixed with
various substances before being marketed in order to increase the
profits of the manufacturer or dealer. The contained substance may
not be deleterious to health, but it may lessen the value of the article
as a food.
Among foods which may be so adulterated are jellies, jams and
marmalades, catsups and pickles of all varieties, baking powder,
butter, spices, coffee, corn-starch, mincemeat, vinegar, syrups,
sugar, honey, lard, and flour.
Various adulterants which are used are: wood alcohol (a poison) in
flavoring extracts; vinegar made from various acids and colored to
imitate cider vinegar; rice flour and wheat flour used in ground
spices; kaolin and coloring matter used in candies; paraffin in gum
drops; glucose artificially flavored as maple syrup; cotton-seed oil
sold as olive oil; starch and sugar in powdered cocoa and in
chocolate; chicory, sugar, and pea meal in ground coffee; artificial
coffee beans made of starch, molasses, and chicory; alum and
ammonia in baking powders; artificial coloring of canned peas,
beans, and catsups, butter, cheese, milk, and cream.
It must be said, in justice, however, that housewives are
responsible for many of these productions. Dealers who would be
glad to sell only pure articles say that “the trade won’t have them.”
Many insist on a highly colored cheese, thinking that the color
denotes greater richness, whereas a little reasoning would show
them that the richest old cheeses are pale in color, the deeper color
of the cheese being due to the addition of coloring matter to the curd.
While the coloring matter is not deleterious, the color is no evidence
of richness.
Highly colored green pickles, beans, and peas, should not be
used. Pickles which are hard and crisp are usually made so by alum.
Brilliant red catsup is in demand, though the pure variety is known
by its darker and not so attractive hue.
High coloring in any canned fruit or vegetable is usually an
indication that dye stuffs have been used to produce it.
Fruit jams which are of nondescript color or pale when pure are
colored artificially because the ordinary purchaser demands a pretty
product.
Through the vigilance of the food inspectors of the boards of
health, and because of some vigorous prosecutions, the adulteration
of the people’s food is, however, not so easy and profitable an
occupation as formerly.
The Bulletins of the Department of Agriculture furnish a mine of
wealth in the gaining of knowledge of various foods and their
preparation, and may be had free on application to this Department
at Washington.
 HEAT AND ENERGY

The second use of foods, as mentioned before, is to furnish heat

and energy for the work of the body. Heat and energy are produced
automatically by the action of the heart, the movement of the lungs in
breathing, and by muscular activity through the digestion, absorption,
and assimilation of food elements, and through the activity in tearing
down and eliminating waste. They are produced consciously by
muscular activity in exercise.
Just as any engine requires fuel, water, and air to create the force
necessary to run the machinery, so does the human engine require
fuel, air, and water.
The fuel for an engine consists of coal, wood, or oil. As these are
brought in combination with oxygen, combustion or oxidation takes
place, liberating heat and setting the engine in motion.
The amount of energy or force given off by an engine should
exactly equal the amount of latent energy provided in the fuel. Much
of this energy is commercially lost, since much of the latent force in
fuel is not fully liberated, some passing off in the smoke, while some
may remain in the cinders.
The amount of heat and energy generated by the body equals the
amount of latent energy released by the burning of food material
during oxidation.
The carbohydrates and fats constitute the most of the fuel.
The body cells are constantly surrounded by the lymph which
contains the food material—the protein, the carbohydrate, and the
fat.
The lymph carries all of the food elements, therefore the protein,
the fat, and the carbohydrate reach the tissues at the same time. If
the fat and carbohydrate predominate, their excess serves to keep a
portion of the protein away from the cells. The cells can use
carbohydrate more easily than fat, so the surplus amount of
carbohydrate is first used to produce energy. This spares the protein
which is held in reserve for tissue repair, and the fat, being least
readily used, is stored.
When the carbohydrates and fats are not supplied, or when the
system fails for any reason to appropriate those eaten to its use, the
protein is used for heat and energy instead of being used for tissue
building. If the demand, either in mental or physical energy, exceeds
the daily supply for long, the body becomes lean.
In order, therefore, to maintain a perfect equilibrium the supply of
protein, carbohydrate, and fat should bear the proper relation, any
excess at one time being equalized at another. If an overhearty meal
is eaten the next should be light.
Fat is harder to burn than the starches and sugars so that they are
acted on first as an economy of effort, and the fat is held in reserve
until the carbohydrates are exhausted.
If one is cold, the quickest way to get warm is to generate more
heat within by “turning on the draught,” or, in other words, by
breathing in more oxygen. If cold, one should depend more on the
oxygen within than on extra clothing. So many people put on more
clothing to conserve the body heat and forget to generate more heat
by arousing the fires within. This is like covering a dying fire, instead
of turning on the draught to create more combustion.
The carbon in the body is burned by being brought into contact
with oxygen in the blood through exercise and full breathing, just as
a fire is fanned to flame by bringing oxygen in contact with the fuel,
by means of a draught of air. Keep all air away from a fire and it “dies
out,” it has exhausted the oxygen and no heat is produced; keep all
air from within the body, by cessation of breathing, and it also dies.
A room is heated with difficulty if the air in it does not contain
sufficient oxygen. Just so the body which is not constantly supplied
with pure air generates very little heat. The effect of oxygen in the
creation of heat is practically demonstrated by voluntary, rapid, deep
breathing, completely filling the lungs with air, while out in the cold.
The body will become quickly warmed on the coldest day by this
practice.
 Ten to twelve deep breaths in succession “turn on the draught”
inside and create combustion (heat), just as opening the draught to a
stove by causing more air to circulate within it increases combustion
or heat.
Remember that heat is the result of combustion—the more rapid
the combustion in the body, caused by oxygen breathed in through
the lungs, the greater the heat.
Just as much heat is created when fat is burned in the body as
when it is burned outside of the body.
The heat from “burning” wood is produced by the union of the
oxygen from the air with hydrogen and carbon, forming carbon dioxid
and water.
The light in the burning of wood is caused by the rapid
combustion. Combustion occurs within the body more slowly, hence
no light is produced.
The exact process by which the potential energy latent in food is
converted into heat and energy is not known. It is partly released
during the digestive process, through the chemical action produced
when the elements of the food come into contact with oxygen and
with the digestive juices. This combustion gives to the digestive
organs the necessary warmth to enable them to do effective work. A
certain amount of heat is necessary for the chemical changes, and
digestive juices flow more freely when the body is warm. Heat is
necessary, also, to aid the peristaltic movements of the digestive
organs.
It has been estimated that about one-sixth of the heat liberated
evaporates through the skin, the lungs, and the excreta, while five-
sixths is required to maintain the body heat.
If the digestive forces are not working perfectly and if the food is
not properly prepared, some of the fuel is not utilized. But, in normal
conditions, if the food is supplied in proportion to the energy
required, the heat and energy given off should exactly equal the
latent heat and energy consumed. If more food is taken than is
necessary to produce heat and energy, the excess of material is
stored and if the excess continues the bodily machinery may be
clogged. The relief lies in consuming the excess through exercise.
More oxygen is required to put the excess in condition for use, and
the extra amount of oxygen is gained by means of the deep
breathing occasioned by exercise.
It is to be noted, also, that no force within the body is lost. In the
very process of the removal of waste, heat and energy are created,
so that the parts no longer needed are utilized by the system, while
they are being removed from it. Here is a lesson in economy of
force.
A small portion of the heat of the body is gained from the sun or
from artificial heat, but by far the greater part is generated within the
body.
As mentioned before, the fuel for the body consists of fats,
starches, and sugars, which, in combination with oxygen, create
force.
From the foregoing, it follows that the fuel value of any food
depends on the amount of fats, starches, and sugars it contains.
The chemical combination of oxygen with food elements and with
the body tissue is known as oxidation. It is this chemical action of the
oxygen on the food and on the tissues which produces heat and
energy, either in muscle, gland, or nerve. This energy, in the muscle,
expresses itself in movement; in the gland, in chemical action, and in
the nervous system, by activity of brain or nerve centers. The
nervous energy is closely allied to electrical force.
Nature provides for a reserve of heat and energy, above the
immediate needs, by storing a supply of heat-producing material
which is utilized whenever the daily supply is insufficient or is
lacking. Many hibernating animals store up sufficient fat in summer
to provide heat for the entire winter. This fat would not last
throughout the winter, however, were the animal active. Many
individuals carry sufficient fat to supply all of their needs for months,
even though all fat-building elements were omitted from the diet.
 The fact that more oxygen is required for combustion of fat than of
starches and sugars is important for those who wish to call on the
fats stored within the body for daily heat and energy and thus reduce
in weight.
If sufficient starches, sugars, and fats are not consumed in the
body to supply the daily heat and energy released by exercise, the
body calls on the reserve store in the tissues. If much fat or
carbohydrates are consumed in the daily food this will be oxidized
before the fat stored in the muscular tissue is called on.
The scientific reduction of weight, therefore, lies in the regulation
of the daily consumption of starches, sugars, and fats, and the
oxidation of more of these substances through an increase in the
daily exercise.
Deep breathing of pure air should accompany all exercises to
supply sufficient oxygen for combustion or oxidation.
In warm weather little fat is needed for fuel, and Nature provides
fresh green vegetables to replace the root vegetables of the cold
weather, which, consisting largely of starches and sugars, are readily
converted into heat.
In cold weather, especially in high altitudes or latitudes, more fuel
foods are required to keep the body warm and more fat is eaten.
It must be remembered that anything which creates a greater
activity of the tissues, such as muscular exercise, liberates a greater
amount of heat. The reverse is also true. A decrease in the amount
of muscular movement means a decrease in the liberation of heat.
During exercise, a large amount of carbohydrates and fats are
released by the movements and oxidized; the liberated heat is
carried to all parts of the system and the temperature is raised.
Food in the alimentary canal causes an activity in the glands of the
digestive organs maintaining their temperature.
Of course, while digestion and muscular activity are at their height,
the body temperature is highest. The temperature, as a rule,
decreases from about six at night until four or five in the morning,
when it is usually at its ebb. This is a point of importance. A degree
or two of increase in temperature, above normal, if recorded about
six at night, is not, in most conditions, considered alarming by the
physician.
Anything which causes an increase in heat radiation, as
perspiration, lowers the temperature, and the open pores of the skin
are valuable aids in equalizing the body heat. A person who
perspires freely does not suffer with heat during excessive exercise,
as does one whose pores are closed.
Diuretic foods and beverages, such as water and fruits (melons,
lemons, oranges, grapefruit, etc.), which increase the activity of the
skin and the kidneys, also tend to lower the body temperature.
One ready means of regulating the body heat is the bath. If one
takes a hot bath, the temperature is materially raised by the artificial
heat, but there is a recompense in the increase of heat radiation
from the skin and the reaction is cooling. If one takes a cold bath, the
immediate effect is cooling, but the activity set up within, to create a
reaction, soon heats the body to a greater degree than before the
bath.
The best way to increase the evaporation and thus decrease the
temperature of the body is by a tepid shower or a tepid sponge. The
tepid water will not create a strong reaction, and it will cause a
decrease in temperature. Thus, for fever patients or on a warm day,
the tepid shower or sponge is commended; for a cold day, or for the
individual whose circulation is sluggish, the cold bath, followed by
friction, is desirable. When the vitality is low, so that reaction is slow
or chilly feelings persist, the bath must be tempered and greater
friction used.
The generation of heat is also increased by solid foods that require
more than normal activity on the part of the digestive organs. For this
reason the food given fever patients should be that most easily
digested and should be reduced in quantity. Liquid or semiliquid
foods are best.
While the elements of the food are being oxidized, the latent
(potential) energy released by the oxygen creates mental and
physical force and keeps active the metabolic changing of food into
tissues and cells, also the changing of cells and tissues into waste.
Scientists have measured the energy latent in food material, also
the amount of heat given off in the oxidation of a given quantity of
waste. The unit of measurement is the calorie—the amount of heat
which will raise one pound of water 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
The fuel value of any food denotes the total number of calories
which may be derived from a pound of that food if it be completely
oxidized in the body.
C. F. Langworthy gives the fuel value of proteins, fats, and
carbohydrates as follows:

1 pound of protein yields 1860 calories

1 ” ” fats ” 4220 ”
1 ” ” carbohydrates yields 1860 ”

That is, according to fuel value—the capacity of the nutrients for

yielding heat and mechanical power—a pound of the protein of lean
meat or egg albumen just about equals a pound of starch or sugar,
and about two pounds of these would about equal a pound of the fat
of meat or of the body fat.
The calculation has been made, based on experiments, that one
who does no muscular work needs only an amount of food which will
produce 2700 calories. One doing light muscular work needs 3000
calories. An individual doing moderately heavy work should take
3500 calories, while heavy muscular work takes 4500 calories.
One hundred grams of protein food, however, gives only fifteen
per cent. of the amount of energy required. About 500 grams of
carbohydrate and 50 grams of fat are needed to make up the 3000
calories which must be furnished by the daily supply of food for one
doing light muscular work.
The brain worker, who is using brain tissue more rapidly than the
day laborer, should have a diet equally as rich in protein, though less
fat and carbohydrates are needed.
 It has been estimated that an ordinary man on full diet excretes
about twenty grams (about five-eighths of an ounce) of nitrogen a
day. As protein material contains about sixteen per cent. of nitrogen,
such an individual needs to take about 120 grams of protein a day to
supply the nitrogen needs of the body. Because of its need for
protein, the body does not store it.
A day laborer needs 0.28 of a pound of protein a day with enough
fat and carbohydrate to give a fuel value of 3500 calories. A
professional man requires 0.25 (1/4) of a pound of protein a day.
Much more than this is usually taken. This means from 1/3 to 1/2 a
pound of lean meat.
Nothing is lost in Nature’s distribution of force and energy.
Everything accomplished in life, either in the physical handling of
material, the brain work in planning the constructions, the mental
movements of thought in art, literature, or science, are all
representatives of the heat and energy released from the body, and
every man and woman should endeavor to make the body yield as
large an income as possible in the expression of this energy. In order
that it may do so, it must be used with intelligence, just as any other
great machine must be used intelligently; it must be fed, exercised,
and rested judiciously.
 CHAPTER V
REPAIR AND ELIMINATION OF WASTE (METABOLISM)

T HE work of the body never stops. If it is to be kept in thorough

working order its tissues must be rebuilt as incessantly as they
are torn down in the process of producing heat and energy. These
chemical changes are called collectively metabolism.
They are divided into two groups: the chemical process of building
up complex substances from simple ones is known as anabolism;
the chemical process of oxidizing and breaking down the complex
substances into simple ones, so that they are in a state to be
excreted, is called catabolism. While the process of oxidation in
catabolism is going on, heat and energy are set free. Many of the
chemical changes in the body are catabolic in character. This work
never ceases—even in sleep.
It is not enough that the proper foods be furnished the body in kind
and quantity. The essential thing is that the system be kept in
condition to assimilate the foods to its needs and to promptly
eliminate the waste. Few people assimilate all of the foods eaten.
By assimilation is meant the process by which foodstuffs are made
soluble and diffusible, so that they can pass into the blood; also, the
metabolic activity by which the food is converted into cells and
tissues.
Truly the body is a busy workshop. Think of the billions on billions
of cells being formed and destroyed every instant in the liberation of
heat and force! Think, also, of the necessity of perfect circulation to
bring sufficient blood to the lungs, that it may gather the oxygen and
carry it, without pausing for rest, to every tissue of the body! Even in
sleep this stream continues incessantly.
There is also a great lesson here in the law of supply and demand.
When the body is at mental or muscular work, the potential energy
liberated leaves through muscle or brain, as energy, and is
expressed in the result of the work. When the body is at rest, energy
leaves it as heat (excepting such part as is necessary to carry on
metabolism, circulation, etc.).
If much muscular energy is called for, a deep, full breath is
instinctively drawn to supply the oxygen necessary for the added
force.
If strong mental work is required, attention should be given to
exercise and deep breathing, that the blood may carry off the waste
liberated by brain activity. The difficulty is that in doing close mental
work, the body is too frequently bent over a desk in such a manner
as to restrict the action of the lungs; thus, the brain worker, in order
to continue strong mental work, must often go into the open air, as
he says, “to rest his brain,” but in reality to obtain the oxygen needed
to put the waste, liberated by brain energy, in condition to be carried
away. The supply of blood has been called on for the brain work; the
poor circulation through the body has allowed an excess of carbon
dioxid to accumulate and the condition of the body designated as
“tired” has resulted. Until the necessary oxygen has been supplied,
the brain and body are not balanced, not “rested.”
In its conversion into tissue, heat, energy, and waste, the
importance of the chemical exceeds that of the mechanical action of
digestion, absorption, assimilation, and elimination; yet the chemical
changes are aided by the mechanical.
Nature provides against ignorance of the amount of supply
necessary, by enabling the system to carry off a limited amount of
surplus food above the bodily requirements. Her capacity in this
regard is limited and varies with each individual. Therefore common
sense is required in deciding for oneself the amount of food which
will aid, and not hinder Nature in her processes.
Without doubt many eat more food than the system requires, and
when it is overloaded they do not take the pains to burn up and
eliminate the excess through exercise and oxygen.
 On the other hand, this theory of overeating has been so long
discussed that many have not eaten sufficient food and their bodies
are undernourished. Many, also, from lack of exercise, hence lack of
demand of the body for food, have supposed this lack of appetite to
be Nature’s call “Enough”; inertia has resulted and waste remains in
the body. They have failed to exercise sufficiently to create a
demand for food. It is thus undernourished because sufficient new
building material has not been supplied. The relief from this condition
is exercise and deep breathing so that Nature removes the waste
and calls for fresh building material.
Many others, through mental and physical activity, burn up much
fuel and the result is the body does not store up sufficient fat for a
reserve, or for beauty and comfort. The nerves require a certain
amount of fat for their protection. People of this type should take a
more full and sometimes a more varied diet, particularly more liquid,
and should not fail in daily exercise and deep breathing.
Each individual should know, approximately, the chemical
constituents and the proportion of these constituents in normal
blood, because from the elements in the blood, the tissues are
constructed. If certain elements are lacking, the foods containing
these elements in largest proportions should be supplied until the
blood no longer shows the deficiency. This is Nature’s method of
correction. The variations in the blood can be known only by
chemical analyses and until physicians have access to chemical
laboratories the giving of drugs cannot be a science.
Each meal, or each day’s food, may not contain the amount of
protein or of fuel ingredients necessary for that day’s work and
resupply, but the body is continually storing material, and this
reserve is constantly being drawn on to provide any element which
may be lacking in that day’s supply. Thus, an excess or a deficiency
one day may be adjusted the next. Healthful nourishment requires
that the balance, as a whole, be kept and that a deficiency or
oversupply be not continued for too long.
The distinct steps in anabolism and the effect of oxygen on
assimilation are discussed in the following pages.
 DIGESTION

Any discussion of the digestibility of foods must be general,

because food which agrees with one may disagree with another, and
a food which disagrees with one at a particular time may entirely
agree with him at some other time according to the condition of his
system. Therefore, before one passes on the adaptability of a food to
his system, he should know that this food agrees or disagrees with
him under various conditions.
The chances are that the food is right but that the attitude of mind
and the condition of the body are abnormal.
The digestibility of food depends largely on the physical condition
of the individual, because the amount of digestive juices poured into
the alimentary canal is influenced by this condition, particularly by
the condition of the nerves. If sufficient juices, in proper proportions,
are not poured into the digestive tract, the foodstuffs are not made
soluble for absorption.
Digestion is practically synonymous with solution—all solid foods
must be reduced to a liquid state by means of the digestive juices
and water before they can pass through the walls of the stomach
and intestines and enter the blood.
Each individual should learn to like the foods containing the
nutrient elements which experience and blood tests have shown to
be lacking in his case.
Yet while it is true that in most cases the aversion to a particular
food is largely mental, there are kinds of food which, to certain
individuals, according to the chemical composition of the body, act
as actual poisons, e. g., strawberries, cheese, or coffee.
The question of likes and of dislikes in foods, is largely habit, and
one can learn to like almost any food, if one really has the desire to
do so.
When the habit has been formed of discriminating too much in the
food, of discarding this food or that, because at some time it has
disagreed, due to the particular condition at the time, the mind