White Paper VIII

What Is Information Entanglement and Why Is It So

Important to Psychoenergetic Science?

by

William A. Tiller, Ph.D. and Walter E. Dibble, Jr., Ph.D.

The William A. Tiller Foundation

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 1

Background

Psychoenergetic science(1) can metaphorically be described by

the reaction equation

Mass  Energy Information Consciousness, (1)

and is a major expansion of today’s orthodox science to include

consciousness as a significant experimental variable in the study of
nature’s manifold expressions. Here, information is the bridging
element that connects consciousness to the thermodynamic structure
of orthodox science (the uncoupled state of physical reality(2)).
Although we don’t presently have an agreed-upon definition of
consciousness, we can agree that it manipulates information in all its
various forms. Further, we experimentally and theoretically(3) agree
that any process in nature that generates an increase in information,
I, automatically generates a decrease in thermodynamic entropy, S,
given by

I = -S = -kBln(P0/P1). (2)

Here, kB = Boltzmann’s constant = 1.38 x 10-16 ergs per degree

centigrade and P is the number of microscopic elementary
complexions (distinguishable states) in the system(3), where the
subscripts 0 and 1 refer to the initial and final states of the system,
respectively.
This important contribution to the thermodynamic free energy,
G, of the system actually restores thermodynamic potential to our
universe, where
 
G  PV  E  T  S0   I j  . (3)
 j 

Here, P = pressure, V = volume, E = energy and T = temperature. S0

is the normal entropy of the system (which generally is positive and
increases with most processes in nature) and the subscript j refers to
the various levels of reality being taken into account. For the
uncoupled state,  I j is given by equation 2; whereas, for the coupled
j

state of physical reality(2), both the electromagnetic energy

contribution (k=kB) and the magnetoelectric energy contribution
(k=km) must be taken into account. Our present working hypothesis is
that km ~ 1010 kB so that this contribution to Equation 3 becomes more

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 2

and more dominating as a thermodynamic driving force in nature as
one investigates higher and higher dimensional realities.
In Equation 1 of White Paper I(2), the properties of materials for
the partially coupled state of physical reality are considered and, for
this level of reality(4), macroscopic, room temperature, large size
spaces have exhibited information entanglement over both small D-
space distances (~ 100 yards), intermediate distances (~ 20 miles)
and large distances(~ 6000 miles)(5,1). By this, we mean that pH-
measurements in laboratory A, which contains an active intention-host
device directed to a specific pH change is reasonably well replicated in
laboratory B, far distant from laboratory A, which has never contained
such an intention-host device. In this White Paper, compelling
experimental evidence will be visited and discussed in an attempt to
understand this odd behavior (by orthodox physics standards). We will
begin by first mentioning quantum entanglement and some of its
limitations.

Quantum Entanglement

In quantum information science, groups of two or more quantum

objects can have energetic states that are entangled. These states
can have properties unlike anything in classical physics. In classical
information science, a familiar example is a string of bits, encoded via
real physical objects, like the spin of an atomic nucleus or the
polarization of a photon of light, but abstractly by zeros (down-state)
or ones (up-state). A qubit, the quantum version of a bit, has many
more possible states than just these two. The quantum version reveals
that each of these two states is split into a multiplicity of states so
that the final outcome can be weighted in many, many different
ways.(6)
Entanglement, as explained by Aczel(7) is an application of the
superposition principle to a system comprised of two or more
subsystems. In his case, he lets each of the subsystems be a single
particle and asks “What does it mean to say that the two particles are
entangled?” He postulates that Particle 1 has equal probability of being
in states A or C, which represent different physical locations. Particle
2, on the other hand, has equal probability of being in states B or D
which have two additional, different locations. When the overall
system of these two particles has fully reacted with each other and is
in the product state, AB, Particle 1 is known to be in State A while
Particle 2 is known to be in State B. Similarly, the other possible
product state CD has Particles 1 and 2 in States C and D, respectively.
The implicit assumption, here, is that non-local states are connected
somehow.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 3

 Since the mathematical aspects of the superposition principle
also allows the system to be in a combination of product states, the
state AB + CD is also an allowed state and thus, for the entire system,
this is called an entangled state. This entangled state says that there
are now Particle 1 and 2 possibilities that are strongly correlated.
Thus, if an experimental measurement finds Particle 1 in State A, then
Particle 2 “must” be in State B and cannot be in State C or D. This
means that, when Particles 1 and 2 are entangled, there is no way to
characterize either one of them by itself, as if it were isolated from the
other. In the superposition state the two are strongly linked and do
not have independence of action!
Erwin Schröedinger, Nobel Prize Winner in the 1930’s for his
mathematical formulation of the probability wave function
equation for quantum mechanics, was the very first to predict the
existence of quantum entanglement for fundamental particles and
photons. Einstein labeled this “spooky action at a distance”.
In 2003, Ghosh(8) and his collaborators at the University of
Chicago analyzed ten year old experimental data on some very low
temperature (~1o Kelvin) magnetic susceptibility and heat capacity of
a small magnetic salt crystal containing holmium atoms and compared
them to quantum theory. Above ~1oK, classical mechanics theory gave
a good match to the experimental data. However, quantum mechanical
entanglement contributions had to be added in order to give a good
match with his experimental data below 1oK.
This is typical of many, many experiments carried out to
distinguish classical vs. quantum type of behavior as a function of
system temperature and system size. It has been generally found that
(1) as the temperature increases from very low values, a few degrees,
and (2) the system size increases from ~two photons or fundamental
particles to a very small crystal, the boundary between quantum-like
behavior and classical-like behavior becomes very fuzzy. Well-
developed classical-like behavior sets in far below room temperature
and system sizes well below 1 cubic centimeter.
The effect validated by Ghosh et al(8) was first predicted by
Vedral(9) two years earlier. If the theoretical idea of Reznik(10) is true,
that all of empty space (the physical vacuum) is filled with entangled
particles, then quantum-like behavior might be retained up to almost
room temperature. Continuing along this line of thought, Brukner,
Vedral and others(11) showed theoretically that time can become
entangled too. This latter information puts space and time on an equal
footing in quantum mechanics which is an absolute “no-no” for our
“present-day” formulation of quantum mechanics.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 4

Partially Coupled State Space Entanglements

In White Papers I and III(1,11), a measured material property is

given approximately by

QM(t)  Qe + eff(t)Qm(t) (4)

where eff(t) is the time-dependent coupling coefficient between the
electric charge, atom/molecule world, where Qe is its material property
value, and the magnetic charge, information wave world, where Qm is
its material property value.
Mathematically Qe and Qm generally possess very different kinds
of qualities. Most often Qe is a scalar (only one number is needed to
define a property at one point in space); however, the pieces of the
puzzle that ultimately leads to Qm are vectors (one needs three
numbers to define a property at one point in space). To illustrate the
complex issues involved, we must first recognize that we are dealing,
here, with the magnetic information wave domain whose different
material properties are all, at least, of a vectorial character. Further,
an experimental measurement system is comprised of a number of
subsystem R-space vectors that must be appropriately added to one
another in a head to tail arrangement to form the total R-space system
one is trying to measure.
As a very simple example, suppose we consider two pH-
measuring systems probing the same experimental space (a room in a
building for example). For either of these devices, measurement
involves sampling the space at a particular location in the room. The
whole system involves (1) the room and its history, (2) the room’s air
temperature, (3) the character of the air in the room, (4) the pH-
electrode and (5) subtle and not visible factors if the room is in the
uncoupled state. However, we are going to greatly simplify things in
order to make a pedagogical point. We are dealing, here, with a
partially coupled state (eff is non-zero) and will consider only two
factors to be dominant and all the others can be neglected. These two
factors are (1) the pH-electrode change and (2) the space change
relative to the uncoupled state reality. Thus, since we have found a
procedure for converting pH(t)-data in a space to excess
thermodynamic free energy for the H+-ion, G*H+(t), in that space(11),
the actual measured value of (M) can be approximated by

G*H+(M)G*H+(E) + G*H+(S*). (5)

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 5

For simplicity, each of the R-space terms on the right is a vector and
must be vectorially added to obtain the appropriate system vector for
one measurement device. Since we are using two measurement
systems, we must add each of the device system vectors to obtain the
total system vector. Let us first see how this is done from a
geometrical perspective to help us understand what we are dealing
with. Then, we can more readily convert this vector algebra and,
finally, we can take the last few steps needed to obtain Qm.
This is an extremely important and subtle point – in our normal
physical reality, called the EM state, many of the important qualities of
interest are vectors and thus, for a system of multiple parts, there is
always an information entanglement between the parts unless
they are totally isolated from each other.

Figure 1. Phasor diagrams for

rotating vectors, A. Individual vectors;
B. Vector summation.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 6

Figure 2. Vector summation of two detector systems, M1 and M2 to
produce S**, the overall system vector.

Figure 1A illustrates two vectors, QA and QB, their phase angles,

A and B, the projected components, QAx and QAy, plus the complex
conjugates, Q*A and Q*B, (mirror reflection in the x-axis  dashed
arrows) and Figure 1B illustrates vector addition of QA and QB to obtain
the resultant vector, QR, and its complex conjugate (dashed arrow).
Figure 2 illustrates the vector situation for two pH-measurement
systems where vectors E1 and S1* add to form M1 while vectors E2 and
S2* add to form M2 and vectors M1 and M2 further add to form S**, the
entire system vector.
Although the magnitude of the resultant wave amplitude in
Figure 1, |QR| is an important quantity, it is the resultant intensity
pattern, IR, that is most important because this is what can be
experimentally measured. This is given by the square of QR, QR2. Using
Figure 1(b) and the Pythagorean Theorem, we have

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 7

 
I R  QR2  QR2x  QR2y  QA2  QB2   2 QAx QBx  QAy QBy  (6a)

 QA2  QB2   2QAQB cos  A   B  (6b)

and cos means cosine function.

For the Figure 2 example, we have

I S k   RS k e i S k 
gRS k e i S k 
 X 2
S  YS
2
(6c)

   M sin .
2 2
 M 1 cos M1  M 2 cos M 2 1 M1  M 2 sin  M 2 (6d)

Here, k is the R-space vector coordinate, RS is the system vector

amplitude while S is its phase angle. Equation 6d can be expanded
further via use of Figure 2. However, perhaps going this far illustrates
the complexity of this simple case.
The final step to obtain Qm is given by

Qm   I S k dk . (7)
R
Here, the intensity, IS(k), must be integrated over all of R-space.
In any particular example of the foregoing, the key steps are:

(1) Define all the key subsystems in the total system that is
interacting (often some of these are spatially non-local and
even temporally displaced),
(2) Write them all out in vector form (amplitude and phase
angle),
(3) Vectorially add them together to form the system vector,
RS(k)exp[iS(k)] after having converted all the different
measurement units into one common set of units (information
change, say),
(4) Obtain the system intensity, IS(k), by multiplying the system
vector by its complex conjugate as in Equation 6c and
(5) Obtain Qm by performing the integration over R-space via
Equation 7.

One of the most interesting results is number (4) above which is

illustrated most simply in Equation 6b with the second term where a
product of both vector amplitudes appears. In the general case, where
N-vectors comprise the total system, a term is present for each vector
pair RiRj in the entire system multiplied by a cosine of the phase angle
© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 8
difference, i-j. This very important term is called the Information
Entanglement Term and is always present when the system is in the
partially coupled state of physical reality.
As another concrete example, consider the classical case of a
standard medical, double-blind study using a particular treatment plus
a placebo. The key discriminated elements in this “event” are (1) the
doctor or doctors (D), (2) the patient or subjects (s), (3) the particular
treatment (T) and (4) the placebo (P). Because the human
acupuncture/meridian/chakra system is at the partially coupled state
of physical reality, the “event” must be considered to be a “partially
coupled state event” in terms of Equation 4. Thus, the effQm part of
Equation 4 (see Equations 6c and 7) involves four coupled vectors of
magnitude, RD, Rs, RT and RP and phase angles D, s, T and P. This
leads to an information entanglement, I.E., term of the form

 RD Rs cos  D   s  RD RT cos  D  T  RD RP cos  D   P 

 
I.E.  2 eff   (8)
Rs RT cos  s  T  Rs RP cos  s   P  RT RP cos T   P 
 

through all the vector pair terms. Here, everything is connected to

some degree whose ultimate magnitude increases with the magnitude
of eff. In particular, if the doctors change their collective minds (D)
concerning the efficacy of their treatment (T), the I.E. will change in
both magnitude and phase angle so effQm in Equation 4 will change.
This type of effect has been reported by Benson(12).
From Equation 8, one can extract a “placebo effect”, (I.E.)P,
which has the form

 I.E.P  2 eff RP RD cos  D  P  Rs cos s  P  RT cos T  P  (9)

Thus, one sees from Equations 4 and 9, that a placebo is not an “inert”
participant in this event involving the partially coupled state of physical
reality. This phenomenon was reported on earlier by one of us(13).

An Application to “Reconnective Healing” Education

We have participated in the monitoring of four Eric Pearl,

Reconnective-Healing workshops with our subtle energy detector
systems over the past three years, with the fifth event occurring in Los
Angeles in late September-early October, 2009. The working
experimental space can be categorized most simply for our
pedagogical purpose via Figure 3. Our goal was to continuously

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 9

Figure 3. Experimental set-up in a typical Reconnection Workshop.

Measure pH(t), TW(t) and TA(t) in the general room environment and,
from this experimental data, calculate the state of room conditioning
via G*H+(t) and see how it correlates with the events happening on
stage and with the audience.
Figure 4 is data from the opening Friday night July 27, 2007,
which we label the “Friday Night Effect”. When Dr. Pearl starts doing
his lecturing plus energy work. During this period, the magnitude of
the excess thermodynamic free energy in the room |G*H+| increased
in a very linear way by ~2.5 milli-electron volts. This change is
equivalent to an effective temperature, Teff, change for a normal
uncoupled-state room of ~30 oC, while the actual room temperature
change was only ~4 oC. This indicates that the ~2.5 meV change in
excess thermodynamic free energy was of a negative entropy change
type associated with a strong increasing information change process
correlated with the event.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 10

 -2 27
Friday July 27, 2007: Sheraton Universal Hotel Grand Ballroom
-2.5
Air Temperature
23
-3
W ater Temperature

Temperature (degrees
-3.5
19
GH+* (meV)

-4

-4.5 15

Break
Dr. Pearl starts energy
Dr. Pearl on stage
Session
-5
begins
11

work
-5.5

Session
ends
-6
7

-6.5
6:00 PM
-7 3
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 5.000

Time

Figure 4. G*H+ for the space vs. time.

Reconnective Healing I & II: Sheraton Universal Hotel Studio I: July 29, 2007
0 0
Moving
About

then moving
Moving
seated

seated

Moving
About

All seated
-1 -1
About

seated
Moving
seated

About
All

All

room empty

All
All

break
healing

-2 -2
sessio
Lunch

session
end of
-3 -3
GH+* (meV) #1

GH+* (meV) #2
-4 -4

Electrode II
-5 -5

-6 -6

-7 -7

-8
Electrode I -8

-9 -9

-10 -10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Time

Figure 5. G*H+ for the space vs. time.

Figure 5 shows a two-measurement system use event two days
later (recall Figure 2) with other teachers periodically on the stage. If
we focus our attention on the electrode I measurement as a function
© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 11
of time, one sees that (a) during speaker on-stage presentations to
the seated audience, the magnitude of G*H+ always seems to increase
at ~ a constant slope with time. This signals positive information
production and thus thermodynamic entropy annihilation and (b)
during audience standing, moving around and talking, the magnitude
of G*H+ always seems to decrease. This signals that net positive
entropy production is occurring in the measurement space.

A specific Experiment to Enhance I. E. between Two Sites

with D-space Locations ~ 90 Miles Apart

Site-A was located in a specially-constructed shed about 100

yards from the William A. Tiller Foundation laboratory; site-B was
located in a SW Phoenix industrial facility about 90 miles distant from
site A. Both sites contained identical, continuously running pH, TW and
TA measurement equipment that was printed out and recalibrated on a
weekly cycle. This data was utilized to generate G*H+-values at each
site for comparison. In this particular experiment, the imprint
statement for the intention-host devices to be utilized at sites A and B
was the same, one was taken to site A, plugged into a wall socket and
switched on while the other was taken to site-B 90 miles away and
given the identical treatment.
Figure 6 shows the G*H+-correlation at these two sites for
weeks 5 to 10 of the experiment. Here we see a remarkably strong
correlation, 96%, but of an inverse nature. At site-B, 10 cases of a
proprietary product were placed in the measurement space at about
week 6.5 and another 10 cases added at about week 8.5; however, no
such material was added at site-A.
Figure 7 shows the G*H+-correlation for a longer time
frame that extended from the beginning of the experiment for 19
weeks. Here, one sees a positive correlation for the first ~4 weeks, but
only at the 51.7% level, followed by the Figure 6 negative correlation
which was, in turn, followed by 95.5% positive correlation data out to
~ week 19. We do not presently have a clear understanding for the
sign reversal of correlation between weeks ~5 to ~10. However, the
factory atmosphere would be much more emotionally noisy that the
site-A environment.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 12

 2

Site A
Weekly Average G* H+

-1

Site B
-2
10 cases

20 cases
-3

Feb 16 to Apr 1, 2009

-4
5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (weeks)
Figure 6. Weekly average value of G*H+ vs. time for two sites with
identical IIEDs running utilizing the same intention imprint

Site B: Jan 19 to Jun 1, 2009 Site A: Jan 22 to May 28, 2009

5
Week 12-18
Positive Correlation
95.5%
4 Negative
Correlat ion
96% Site A
3

2
Weekly Average G*H+

0
IIED ON

-1
10 cases

-2
20 cases

Site B
-3

-4
Positive Correlation
51.7%

-5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time (weeks)

Figure 7. Weekly average value of G*H+ vs. time for sites A and B.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 13

 In past site-A intention-host device use, G*H+ would steadily
increase to values of ~ 20-30 meV. Some small amount of information
entanglement (I.E.) would normally be noticed (at other times) at
other external sites where no intention-host device (IHD) was present
but that were using our detector system for measurement. However,
nothing like Figures 6 and 7 have ever been experimentally
experienced before.
If, indeed, we are dealing with a magnetic charge situation in the
R-space counterpart of sites A and B, the mathematical expression for
the R-space contribution to the thermodynamics is expected to be of
the form G*H+qH+H+where qH+ is the net magnetic charge and H+
is the net magnetic potential. From our past experience, G*H+ for site
A has always been positive and large in magnitude whereas, for site B,
it has generally been the reverse (but not necessarily large in
magnitude). Thus, looking at Figure 6 one might speculate that
positive qH+ from site-A flows through reciprocal space to site-B to
reduce the positive value of H+ for site-A and increase the negative
value of H+ for site-B. In such a case, the absolute value, |H+|, of H+
does not move far from zero for either site.

Closing Discussion

This is a huge area for future research in coupled state physics.

In Chapter 5 of Reference 5, a great deal of experimental data has
been presented on local information entanglement between different
pH-measurement stations in our Payson laboratory and between an
electronic balance station and a closed vs. open window some distance
away (regarding R-space geometry of the room in the Payson
laboratory). Of course, in the very early days of this work, when we
placed an IIED and a UED ~100 meters apart, and both in the
electronically-off state, within 3 to 5 days, the information transferred
from this IIED to this UED (ME vs. EM information). These are all
examples of instrument-instrument information entanglement. In
reference 11, White Paper III, the electrodermal diagnostic instrument
study represents a good example of human-instrument information
entanglement. Many, many examples of this particular type of I.E.
exist in the technical literature. Likewise many, many examples of
human-human I.E. exist in the literature, but perhaps the most
compelling is that provided in reference 14.
As an example to illustrate enhancement of energy/information
coupling between humans,(14) consider the situation where two
humans (A and B) are wired up for EEG (electroencephalogram)
monitoring and placed in separate rooms a short distance apart. Light
stimulation is projected on the closed eyelids of A and this produces a
© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 14
readily distinguishable signature in A’s brain waves. Such a signature
was also looked for in the brainwaves of B but it was not found.
However, when subjects A and B were first asked to sit side-by-side
and meditate together for ~10 minutes before the EEG experiment
was repeated, this time the special EEG signature was observed to also
be present in B’s brain waves when A’s eyelids were light-stimulated.
Here, we propose that an enhanced value of eff momentarily occurred
via the joint meditation process and it was of sufficient magnitude that
A-B entanglement could be instrumentally observed.
Figure 8, is presently thought to represent the five essential
items that must be considered in any communication event between
two or more humans and, in particular, any treatment event between
a practitioner and a client. In Figure 8, for the practitioner box, one
could also substitute the words spouse, parent, minister, human
performer, etc., and correspondingly, for the client box, could
substitute the words spouse, child, congregation, audience, etc.,
respectively. Here, for the client, it must also be realized that they
may be strongly R-space connected (via ME radiation fields) to others
at distant sites so that the actual experimental system may be larger
than it appears on the surface. We are always R-space connected to
others to some small degree but certain relationships and practices
can greatly enhance that coupling.

Figure 8. The simplest possible general communication system

between practitioner and client in CAM.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 15

 As a next to last piece, let us consider the pH=+1 unit
replication experiments. Here, we wish to focus first on the spatial
information entanglement aspects. How might we come to understand
the long-range information entanglement between the (P, K and M)
IIED laboratory results and the (B1, B2, U.K. and Italy) non-IIED
laboratory results?
Consider Figure 9. It provides a schematic illustration of D-space
and R-space as a construction for discussion purposes. I represent
these two, four-dimensional subspaces as parallel, two-dimensional
sheets for the simplicity of exposition (as parallel worlds, perhaps) that
are initially uncoupled (eff ~0). Let us suppose that I set up identical
pH-measurement stations at D-space sites A and B, thousands of miles
apart and begin to gather background data. Next, I add a pH = +1
unit IIED at the A-station, but not at the B-station. This slowly causes
a significant deltron activation to occur in the local environment of A.
In turn, this begins to raise the electromagnetic symmetry state of
station A at the D-space level.

Figure 9. A schematic illustration of D-space and R-space as a

construct.

This means that eff begins to increase at A and a

thermodynamic driving force begins to develop for the construction
of the equilibrium R-space conjugate amplitude pattern for the D-
space measurement equipment and changing pH. This occurs first with
the low frequency wave components so the rough outlines of this

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 16

equilibrium pattern begins to take shape. Eventually, the high
frequency components begin to form so that the fine details of the
equilibrium R-space amplitude pattern become highlighted. In this
fashion thermodynamic equilibrium between D-space and R-space at
station A are thought to develop. However, since R-space is a
frequency domain, this magnetic information wave amplitude
spectrum is now present everywhere as a thermodynamic driving
force for change everywhere in D-space even though eff is only
significant at station-A. But, it is only at station-B that identical pH-
measurement equipment is present and station-B is the only site,
informationally, that is a part of the overall experiment. Thus, the
deltron coupling coefficient only begins to develop non-zero values at
this D-space site (it requires much more to materialize the
measurement equipment). Now, the information transfer process
occurs at station-B, from the now existing R-space, Station-A
equilibrium information wave amplitude pattern, to increase the
station-B, eff value so as to be equivalent with that at Station-A. This
is what ultimately converts the measured station-B, pH-value to that
of station-A.
Because there are other D-space sites wherein this process
does not occur, one must conclude that there is an underlying
conscious intelligence involved here that selects, to some degree, only
those sites that are understood to be part of our overall experimental
system. This is a very important point that is not, presently,
satisfactorily understood.
As a final piece in this information entanglement chain, we would
like to address information entanglement in time. In mathematically
analyzing the spatial profile of air temperature oscillations and the
experimental exponential time-dependence of pH-change observed(4,1),
we found it absolutely necessary to convert time into a fourth space
coordinate, X4, in the same way Einstein did for his relativity work, in
order to mathematically solve the relevant equations. Applying this to
our pH-replication procedure, we found that the periodic cyclic water
change and electrode recalibration at a remote site could be most
simply approximated as D-space spatially periodic impulse events,
evenly spaced along the X4 distance coordinate which information
entangle with each other spatially. This concept is illustrated
schematically in Figure 10. Here, each of the corresponding R-space
impulses decay via the phantom effect processes of Chapter 6 in
reference 4 and grow via the information entanglement process from
the other impulses of Figure 10. This implies interaction of each
impulse with those existing at both larger and smaller X4-locations. In
turn, this means interactions both forward and backward in time!
This is information entanglement in the time domain.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 17

Figure 10. The corresponding R-space impulses decay, via the
phantom effect process, and growth via information entanglement
from other impulses in the array. This implies interaction both with
impulses at larger X4 locations as well as at smaller X4 locations which,
in turn, means interactions both forward as well as backwards in
time!

References

1. W. A. Tiller, Psychoenergetic Science: A Second Copernican-

Scale Revolution, (Pavior Publishing, Walnut Creek, CA, USA,
2007).
2. W. A. Tiller and W. E. Dibble., Jr., White Paper I, A Brief
Introduction to Intention-Host Device Research,
www.tiller.org
3. L. Brillouin, Science and Information Theory, 2nd Ed,
(Academic Press, New York, N.Y., 1962, Chapter 12).
4. W. A. Tiller, W. E. Dibble, Jr., and M. J. Kohane, Conscious
Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics (Pavior
Publishing, Walnut Creek, California, 2001).
5. W. A. Tiller, W. E. Dibble, Jr. and J. G. Fandel, Some Science
Adventures with Real Magic, (Pavior Publishing, Walnut Creek,
California, 2005).
6. M. A. Nielsen, “Rules for a complex quantum world?, Scientific
American, 287 (5) (2002) 67.).
7. A. D. Aczel, Entanglement (A Plume Book, Penguin Group,
London, 2003).
8. S. Ghosh, Nature 425 (2003) 48.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 18

9. M. C. Arnesen, S. Bose and V. Vedral, “Thermal Entanglement
in 1D Heisenberg Model”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 017901 (2001).
10. B. Reznik, “Entanglement from the Vacuum”, Foundations of
Physics, 33 (1) 167-176, January 2003.
11. W. A. Tiller, White Paper III, Why CAM and Orthodox Medicine
Have Some Very Different Science Foundations,
www.tiller.org
12. H. Benson and M. Stark, Timeless Healing: The Power and
Biology of Belief (Scribner, New York, N.Y., 1996).
13. W. A. Tiller, “Human Psychophysiology, Macroscopic
Information Entanglement and the Placebo Effect”, JACM 12
(10), 2006, pp1015-1027.
14. J. Grindberg-Zylerbaum, M. Delafor, L. Attie and A. Goswami,
Physics Essays 7 (1994) 422.

© 2009 William A Tiller – www.tiller.org 19