In the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), one comes across plenty of bullshit (BS). However, rarely did I encounter BS as impressively pure as in the recent paper entitled: “Quantum Measurement and Quantum Simulation of the Human Biofield“. As we all seem to be short of a few good laughs, I think this absract might distract you:
This paper explores the convergence of quantum physics and human physiology through the lens of quantum measurement and quantum simulation of the human biofield. The biofield- a term used in complementary medicine to describe the dynamic field of energy and information surrounding the human body- is investigated from a quantum perspective. The study discusses how quantum principles such as coherence, entanglement, and superposition may underpin biofield interactions and how quantum simulation techniques can model these complex dynamics. Advancements in quantum sensing technologies, biophotonics, and computational models provide promising tools for validating biofield phenomena and their potential roles in human consciousness and health. This interdisciplinary exploration offers a framework for future research bridging quantum science and holistic health paradigms.
The author, Ivan Domuschiev,Ph.D.- Independent Researcher (Plovdiv, Bulgaria), also added the following comments and conclusions:
The study of quantum measurement and quantum simulation in the context of the human biofield represents a bold and interdisciplinary frontier in science. While traditional biology views the body through biochemical and electrical processes, the quantum perspective suggests that subtler, coherent field-based interactions may also be at play. Quantum measurement technologies- though still in early development- open the door to exploring these phenomena in increasingly precise ways. Meanwhile, quantum simulation offers a novel avenue for modeling the complex interactions of the human biofield, consciousness, and healing. Despite ongoing scientific skepticism and the lack of consensus, growing empirical evidence from quantum biology, consciousness research, and energy medicine suggests that the biofield concept warrants serious investigation. The integration of quantum principles into human biofield studies could transform our understanding of health, illness, and human potential.
In short: with the rapid development of technology and quantum computers, new, more accurate and reliable methods for measuring the human biofield will appear. With their help, it will certainly be scientifically proven.
Allow me to congratulate Ivan to his achievement:
I have rarely seen BS as pure as this!
35 Responses to And the award for the most spectacular ‘quantum bollocks’ goes to …
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
And what’s the problem with the article? It hasn’t been peer-reviewed, but the application of quantum technologies to treatments and technology makes sense. It seems you need a basic physics course, Ernst.
Betraying your ignorance once agin, Sandbox. Quantum mechanics isn’t basic physics. Quantum mechanics is incredibly complex advanced degree-level physics.
It’s also worth asking what physicists think. As Professor Jim Al-Khalili has said: “Let me make this very clear: if you think quantum mechanics allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP etc then you’d better take a proper course in quantum mechanics”.
Much as I hate to once again piss all over your bonfire, it would appear that it is you who needs the physics course.
The paper is akin to the Sokal hoax in that it will be of most interest to those who aren’t sufficiently educated[1] to understand it, or don’t possess the intellectual rigour to analyse it.
I think it’s a gem; as are some of Ivan Domuschiev’s other papers😀
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ivan-Domuschiev
1. For example, an education level that results in the publication of this:
I was wondering if it was a Sokal-style send-up. The abstract certainly reads that way.
I too wondered about this – after considering the paper in full, I rejected this hypothesis.
I used “akin to” because I read the whole paper and some of his others. The references are hilarious.
I think a key thing about the Sokal hoax wasn’t just to write it, but to get it actually accepted and published in literary journal (back when these were printed), and then reveal the hoax thus demonstrating that folks who didn’t know anything about physics didn’t know anything about physics.
I remember at the time thinking what a great coup it was and how stupid the editors were to have published it. My feelings about it now are more nuanced. It shows how much the academic enterprise relies on and assumes people acting in good faith and not setting out to deceive in the first place.
correct!
Zebra, both the Sokal hoax and the paper under discussion (irrespective of its intentionality) serve to shine a spotlight on people who are pretending to know things that they don’t know. Including journal editors.
And as I’ve written previously on Edzard’s blog regarding blather about quantum mechanics in relation to reiki:
… pretending to know things that they don’t know, then further pretending that science doesn’t yet know.
Pete, you’re always referring to empty rhetoric, when many scientists working in the field of homeopathy at the fundamental research level are simply more educated than you and have probably published more and better journals than you’ve ever done in your life.
The same piss-poor arguments. Just because some witless quacks get their nonsense published means nothing. Answer me this little question.
Has any of this published “research” changed anything about how science regards homeopathy?
Nope.
Why have these scientists not devoted themselves to producing conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy?
Because they can’t.
Run and spend some time in the Cochrane archives, kiddo. You’re just making a bigger fool of yourself here.
@Sandbox
Another implicit falsehood. There simply aren’t ‘many scientists’ who are foolish enough to dabble in homeopathy. This notion that there are virtually no scientists in homeopathy is also supported by the extremely small number of homeopathy RCT’s carried out annually – a dozen or so on average.
That may be – but the really funny thing is that a homeopathic ignoramus (in your view) like me can have ‘scientific publications’ like the ones you describe retracted.
https://edzardernst.com/2025/06/the-current-research-activity-in-so-called-alternative-medicine/
Lenny, I no longer respond to its pathetic libellous goading. My first response provides sufficient explanation:
The foundations of quantum physics can be seen by any physics student, didn’t you know that, Lenny? If you want to validate your nonsensical comment on Jim’s authority, I remind you that he doesn’t have a Nobel Prize. Montagnier and Josephson, on the other hand, did. How strange, today we know that quantum biology (based on Schrödinger’s work) is a plausible reality, even in “wet” and “hot” environments; quantum processes occur in biological systems that weigh decoherence through very rapid processes. Ironically, Jim doesn’t deny quantum biology; you do. I can understand why you’re impressed by his words, since you’ve probably never taken an advanced mathematics course, although at least you know how to fix teeth.
“Nonsensical”
You keep using these words, Sandbox. I don’t think you know what they mean. You seem to be able to understand my comment perfectly.
But anyway. To be able to pass comment on YOUR nonsense you now have to have a Nobel prize, do you? Just being a university professor isn’t enough?
But at the same time “The foundations of quantum physics can be seen by any physics student”.
Well well. Truly a quantum duality there, Sandbox.
What an idiot you are.
Luc Montagnier is a virologist, not a quantum physicist. Why not cite Nelson Mandela? he’s a Nobel laureate as well.
Brian Josephson is indeed a quantum physicist. But since you’re so keen on the Appeal To Authority, let’s make a big list of all the of the Nobel prize winning physicists who agree with his batshit spoutings.
That’ll be..
None.
Let’s open the list up to any physicists and that’s also..
None.
Josephson is a risible and inconsequential crank, just like you. Nobody pays him any attention, same as with you. You don’t have a Nobel prize. He does. It just means he’s made a bigger public tit of himself than you have.
For how many years have you been coming out with your bullshit, Sandbox? Has it made even the faintest jot of difference to anything? Nope.
Like Dana, you are an inconsequential and irrelevant fool, shouting your imaginings at a world that pays you no heed whatsoever. You could of course and as ever prove me wrong with evidence. But you have none. It’s why we laugh at you.
I’ll go back to making a difference for my patients. You go back to fantasising about shaken water.
Lenny, you are a dentist; you have never received formal education in basic physics, let alone quantum physics. I have.
You don’t need a Nobel Prize to comment, but if you mock Nobel laureates (such as Josephson or Montagnier) with ad hominems, I hope you can at least contribute a prize like theirs. Do you have one? Obviously not.
And as always, you never discuss anything with studies or evidence, you just insult and show your resentment and aggression, that’s all you have in life.
Luc Montagnier was indeed a virologist, but his articles are always co-signed by physicists. Haven’t you noticed? Of course you know, but you prefer to perpetuate the lie that he “worked alone” to create a straw man.
Brian Josephson is one of the youngest people to win the Nobel Prize, something you would never even dream of doing. Brian is a real genius and his ideas are quite coherent. In fact, since you say that “no one pays attention to him,” that is wrong. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full
Here I only see four people (including you) commenting day and night to Ernst, as if they had nothing else to do. Interestingly, those four entities are not scientists, they are merely trolls like you who devote themselves to insulting others. Of the four, the most relevant is Rasker, who at most has a letter published in a complementary medicine magazine complaining about a researcher (while mocking those magazines). The others are a German engineer who made a fool of himself against Frass (in fact, we could say that thousands of “skeptics” in Germany and German journalists made fools of themselves, including Ernst). The defeat was so humiliating that the media did not mention anything or retract their statements (as is typical of pseudo-skeptics).
Do your patients know that you are an aggressive troll? Good God, I hope they don’t know that they have a psychopath pulling their teeth. Anyway, you don’t know anything about physics, go stand in the corner.
Grade A A level in physics here, Sandbox. You appear to have learned your science from the back of a Cornflakes box.
You spend your time trying to attack the credentials of posters with fallacious arguments because you know you are unable to refute them with evidence. It’s pathetic to witness.
And of course Josephson’s fellow cranks will talk about him. That ten year old opinion piece has certainly turned science on its head, hasn’t it?
You’ve got nothing apart from namecalling. Run along, troll.
@Sandbox
First, you use an argument from authority.
Second, both men suffered or suffer from the noble disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
It is only an argument from authority if it is merely an opinion. But Montagnier published results, and these were replicated. Furthermore, there is no such thing as “Nobel disease.” If you disagree, show me the page in the DSM manual where it is included.
@Litterbox
You are talking nonsense and trying to evade the issue. That iss the standard behavior of pseudo-experts and pseudo-intellectuals like you.
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2013-0273/html
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/luc-montagnier-and-the-nobel-disease/
PS: Yeah, I am messing with you. I am mocking you. 😀
That’s a good one, RPGNo1. Don’t you think ‘Bullshitterbox’ is more appropriate? 🤣
@Sandbox
This is a lie.
@Sandbox
Two problems:
1. This ‘biofield’ does not exist.
2. This person clearly is completely clueless about quantum physics.
1. If you claim it “doesn’t exist,” you should be able to prove it with an experiment, since the biofield is an experimentally testable concept (there’s a whole book on it). Oh, but you yourself told me you accept biophotons; ironically, the biofield usually refers to that phenomenon. Is Rasker in a state of qubit coherence in which he is both 1 and 2 at the same time?
2. If you’re complaining about it, Edzard Ernst doesn’t have the basic physics either, although he has published works stating that “this is physically implausible” or appealing to concepts of electromagnetism that he doesn’t understand. The biofield, as a concept, can be approached by someone with knowledge of medicine or physics, obviously with its limitations, because it’s an interdisciplinary concept. But you don’t seem to understand that!
science is not a good tool to prove the absence of something; even the most scientifically illiterate know that, I thought.
@Sandbox
Wrong. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim, i.e. this Domuschiev guy. He admits that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of biofields, but goes on to say that this does not prove him wrong, and that ‘more subtle’ measurement methods might eventually provide the requested evidence.
Which of course means that until that moment, scientists must assume that those biofields do not exist.
FYI: there is a complete category of literature with millions of books about things that don’t exist. It’s called ‘fiction’.
The fact that our host is not particularly knowledgeable in the field of quantum physics doesn’t mean a thing of course. Most people – including you – don’t know anything about quantum physics. The fact that some of them know magic words like ‘entanglement’ and ‘coherence’ doesn’t change this.
Domusevich wrote a manuscript with references. If you say it’s wrong, you must indicate and prove that it’s wrong. It’s crazy that you’re a veteran “skeptic” and don’t know that it’s possible to prove negatives in several cases. And even more ironic that you yourself cite them with the article by Shang et al, or Ernst’s reviews. What’s more, your teacher Paul Kurtz pointed out several times that ‘skeptics’ were wrong to assume that “it’s not possible to prove a negative.”
I am familiar with the most common concepts of quantum physics (yes, I am also familiar with Jim Alkahil’s book), and I am aware of the criticisms that are made. You, on the other hand, demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge of basic topics, as reflected in your book and comments.
@
LitterSandboxYup, that he did. And it has great imaginative qualities, as well as amusement value. What it doesn’t have, however, is a solid foundation in science and reality.
The funny thing of course is that he is the first to admit this. From his work of fiction:
“The topic of the human biofield is one of the most discussed by scientists …”
Make that: ‘a priori rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence’.
“It also has quite a few opponents.”
Let’s just say that it has very, very few proponents. The overwhelming majority of scientists can’t be bothered to spend any time or thoughts on it, simply because it is a concept from la-la-land, much like homeopathy or astrology.
“But if something cannot be measured accurately so far, this does not mean that it does not exist.”
This is formally true of course. But apart from being an admission from the man himself that ‘biofields’ indeed can’t be measured so far, it also means that it is useless to discuss biofields until such time that biofields are actually detected and measured. And until such time, scientists should reject the notion that they exist. This is a basic scientific principle.
It is up to Domuschiev to convincingly demonstrate their existence – and so far, he has done nothing of the kind. If anything, he admits that the existence of biofields hasn’t been proven.
So, you complain about the manuscript because it mentions that it is a debated but rejected concept, and from there you invent that “the same thing happens with homeopathy.”
If you read the literature, you would notice that several authors refer to biophotons as components of the biofield. Once again, you have adopted a schizoid attitude, in which you reject and accept biophotons. Are you going to be able to answer me why Robert Leslie Park denied biophotons? Are you going to answer me why, to date, no “skeptical” organization has come out to apologize for denying biophotons and hormesis? When will you, Ernst, and the rest of you come out to apologize for denying the existence of nanoparticles in high potencies? How far do you plan to continue making fools of yourselves?
@
LitterSandboxI’ll explain it one more time, even though I have the strong impression that I’m talking to an imbecile.
– Yes, biophotons exist. They can be detected and even measured in terms of wavelength and intensity/numbers. They are byproducts of chemical reactions, without further meaning or function,
– No, ‘biofields’ do NOT exist. They have never been detected or observed, let alone measured. And no, Biophotons are not evidence that biofields exist.
(And yes, hormesis also exists – but by the same token, it is not evidence that homeopathy works, just like vaccines are not evidence for homeopathy’s imaginary similia principle.)
Thank you!
This is Tooth Fairy Science at its finest!
… but only the Tooth Fairy fails to relaize it.
You seem to be referring to meaningless rhetoric on a regular basis, Pete, even though there are many homeopathic researchers at the fundamental research level who have more education and, perhaps, more journal publications to their names than you do.