The birth of quantum mechanics can be dated to 1925, when physicists such as Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger invented mathematical procedures that accurately replicated many of the observed properties of atoms. The change from earlier types of physics was dramatic, and pre-quantum physics was soon called classical physics in a kind of nostalgia for the days when waves were waves, particles were particles, and everything knew its place in the world.

Since 1925, quantum mechanics has never looked back. It soon became clear that the new methods were not just good at accounting for the properties of atoms, they were absolutely central to explaining why atoms did not collapse, how solids can be rigid, and how different atoms combine together in what we call chemistry and biology. The rules of classical physics, far from being a reliable description of the everyday world that breaks down at the scale of the atom, turned out to be incapable of explaining anything much more complicated than how planets orbit the sun, unless they used either the results of quantum mechanics or a lot of ad hoc assumptions.

But this triumph of quantum mechanics came with an unexpected problem-when you stepped outside of the mathematics and tried to explain what was going on, it didn't seem to make any sense. Elementary particles such as electrons behave like waves, apparently moving like ripples on a pond; they also seem to be instantaneously aware of distant objects and to be in different places at the same time. It seemed that any weird idea could gain respectability by finding similarities with some of the weird features of quantum mechanics. It has become almost obligatory to declare that quantum physics, in contrast to classical physics, cannot be understood, and that we should admire its ability to give the right answers without thinking about it too hard.

And yet, eighty years and unprecedented numbers of physicists later, naked quantum weirdness remains elusive. There are plenty of quantum phenomena, from the magnetism of iron and the superconductivity of lead to lasers and electronics, but none of them really qualifies as truly bizarre in the way we might expect. The greatest mystery of quantum mechanics is how its ideas have remained so weird while it explained more and more about the world around us.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the ideas with the benefit of hindsight, to see if either quantum mechanics is less weird than we usually think it is or the world around us is more so.

Classical Mechanics in Action

Figure 2. Classical mechanics-Maupertuis’ view: the ball moves in a straight line at a constant speed to any given point on its travels, because that is the path of least action between the start and finish.

When we think of planets orbiting the sun, we usually adopt Newton’s view that they are constantly accelerating-in this case changing direction-in response to gravitational forces. From this, we can calculate the motions precisely, and the impressive accuracy of predictions for total solar eclipses shows how well it works.

There is, however, another way of thinking about what is happening that gives exactly the same results. Instead of the Principle of Acceleration by Forces, as we might call it, there is an alternative called the Principle of Least Action, or more correctly, Hamilton’s Principle.

It is a principle that was first put forward about fifty years after Newton’s, in its earliest form by the Frenchman Pierre Maupertuis, and in its ultimate form by the Irishman William Rowan Hamilton.

The general idea is that when a planet travels through space, or a ball travels through the air, the path that is followed is the one that minimizes something called the action between the start and end points. Action, for our purposes here, is just something that can be measured out for some particular object moving along a particular path. It is exactly defined and is measured in units of energy multiplied by time. The details are not important unless you need to make calculations.

We therefore have two quite different ways of describing situations in classical physics that are equally good in terms of giving the right answer. To give the simplest possible example, we can think of a golf ball travelling across an idealized, frictionless, flat green. In Newton’s view (figure 1), the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed, because that is what Newton’s Law says it must do. In Maupertuis’ view (figure 2), the ball does this because this path is the one that has the least action between the start and end points. This trivial example can be made more interesting by making the green have humps and dips, which are like having forces acting on the ball, but the principles stay the same.

Hamilton’s Principle is fundamentally equivalent to Newton’s Laws, and comes into its own when solving more advanced types of classical problems. But as an explanation, it has a major flaw-it seems to mean that things need to know where they are going before they work out how to get there.

Actually, this is where classical mechanics makes its first big step toward quantum mechanics, if only we look at it another way. The mathematics of Hamilton’s Principle can be described in words alternatively like this: given its starting points and motion, an object will end up at locations that are connected to its starting point by a path whose action is a minimum compared to neighboring paths. If locations away from the classical path are considered, no such paths exist-there will always be a path with the least action, but this is not a minimum.

It is an unfamiliar idea, but well worth a little effort to try and digest. One vital change to note is that, while still being classical physics, the emphasis has moved away from knowing the path that is followed to having a test to check whether possible destinations are on the right track. And the crucial factor is being able to compare the actions of different paths.

It leads to a third picture for our moving golf ball, central to the later move to quantum physics, which we can call Feynman’s view of classical physics (figure 3).

Figure 3: Classical mechanics-Feynman’s view: the ball is found at the black points, which happen to lie on a straight line, and not the white points, because only the black points pass the “action test.” This means that there is a path from the start to the black points whose action is a minimum compared to neighboring paths, but there is no such path from the start to the white spots.

If we stay within the world of classical physics, we can choose to ignore this strange new description and stick with the more comfortable idea that things are accelerated along paths by forces, but this would be a personal preference rather than a rational one. The new view prompts the question: “How do things work out whether possible destinations are linked to the start by a path of minimal action?” We should appreciate, however, that the old Newtonian view prompts equally difficult questions like: “How do things respond to forces by accelerating just the required amount, instant by instant?” Moreover, as we will see, the action version is the one that the world around us seems to use.

Roll on, Quantum Mechanics

Suppose we take the action question seriously and give it a rather simple answer: Nature has to check out all possible destinations to see if they are on the right track. It must do this by trying to find out if there is a path of minimal action to each destination. It uses a device that can measure the action along all possible paths to each destination.

The device is a simple surveyor’s wheel for measuring action-just a wheel with a mark on the rim (figure 4). There isn't literally a type of wheel that measures action, but we can imagine that there is. The mechanism assigns probabilities to each destination according to whether, with just this simple measuring tool, it can find a path of minimal action.

Figure 4: The single most potent image of quantum mechanics- a surveyor’s wheel for measuring action

When the actions it is trying to measure are large compared to the size of the wheel, the system typically works just as classical physics requires. But in some situations the mechanism fails to produce classical mechanics and gives us quantum mechanics instead. We call the circumference of the wheel “Planck’s constant,” after Max Planck, who discovered its importance by an indirect route in 1900.

You may be wondering how exactly the wheel can tell us what we need to know, but we don't need to go into the details here-those interested should read Richard Feynman’s book, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, or see the summary given in the box on page 43.

Differences from Classical Physics

As we might expect, the introduction of a mechanism for carrying out classical mechanics only makes a difference when the mechanism can't do its job properly. Specifically, if we want to check out destinations that are too close to the start, as gauged by the size of the wheel, the mechanism doesn't work. It cannot say where the object should be going, and there is an intrinsic fuzziness associated with it, with a scale set by the amount of action known as Planck’s constant. This is otherwise known as the Uncertainty Principle.

A second feature arises from the simple circular nature of the measuring device. It cannot tell the difference between paths that differ by an amount of action that is an exact whole number of Planck’s constants. This can lead to patterns of probabilities that look just like classical waves, because the mathematics of waves is very similar to the mathematics of circular motion.

The most important change comes when we consider objects in very small orbits, like electrons around nuclei. The mechanism gives zero probability unless the orbit (or more correctly the state) has an action that is an exact multiple of Planck’s constant. This crude mechanism explains why atoms can only shrink to a certain point, to a state with an action of Planck’s constant, where they become stable.

With one extra idea, which we will mention later, the mechanism seems to explain the workings of chemistry, biology, and all the other successes of quantum mechanics, without ever really stopping being classical mechanics.

Three Conceptual Problems with Quantum Mechanics

The way it is normally introduced, quantum mechanics is something quite baffling, and certainly stranger than just classical mechanics with a mechanism. It is worth addressing the three most obvious difficulties directly:

1) Quantum mechanics gives answers that are a set of probabilities all existing at the same time. This is totally unreal. As Schrödinger pointed out, quantum mechanics seems to say that you could create a situation where a cat was both alive and dead at the same time, and we never see this. But this is in fact a very curious piece of ammunition to use against quantum mechanics.

We already have a very good nontechnical word for a mixture of possibilities coexisting at the same time-we call it the future. Unless we believe that all events are predetermined, which would be a very dismal view of the world, this is what the future must be like. Of course, we never experience it until it becomes the present, when only one of the possibilities takes place, but the actual future-as opposed to our prediction of one version of it-must be something much like what quantum mechanics describes. This is a great triumph for quantum mechanics over classical mechanics, which by describing all events as inevitable, effectively deprived us of a future.

Of course, there is now a new big question of how one of the possibilities in the future is selected to form what we see as the present and what becomes the past, but we should not see the lack of a ready answer as a fault of quantum mechanics. This is a question that is large enough, encompassing such ideas as fate and free will, to be set aside for another time. The headline “Physics Cannot Predict the Future in Detail” should be no great embarrassment.

2) Quantum mechanics means that there is a kind of instant awareness between everything. This is quite true, but by introducing quantum mechanics in the way that we have, the “awareness” is of a very limited kind-limited to the awareness gained through the action-measuring mechanism as it checks all possible destinations. It is very hard to see how the only result of this-a probability associated with each destination-could be used to send a signal faster than light or violate any other cherished principle. It is rather revealing that one of the few novel quantum phenomena is a means of cryptography-a way of concealing a signal rather than sending one.

3) Quantum mechanics doesn't allow us to say where everything is, every instant of the time. This is the most interesting “fault” of quantum mechanics, and it can be expressed in many ways: particles need to be in more than one place at a time; their positions are not defined until they are “observed"; they behave like waves. We will summarize this as an inability to say exactly where particles are all the time.

The “classic” illustration of this is the experiment of passing a steady stream of electrons through two slits (figure 5). Instead of the simple shadows we would expect if the particles were just particles, we see an interference pattern, as if the electrons have dematerialized into a wave and passed through both slits at the same time.

Figure 5: A schematic diagram of the two-slits experiment

There are several ways of coming to terms with this. The first thing to note is that the lack of complete information is not really a problem that arose in quantum mechanics-it originates in the third version of classical mechanics. In the Feynman version, the essence of motion is a process of determining if a destination is on or off the right track. Before the move to quantum mechanics, we can do this as often as we like, so that we can fill in the gaps as closely as we like, but the precedent has been set: physics is about testing discrete locations rather than calculating continuous trajectories. If it is inherent in old-fashioned classical physics, not just “weird” quantum physics, perhaps we can relax a little.

The second point is to clarify what the problem is. To take the two-slit example, we never see electrons dematerialize, or rippling through something, we just find it necessary to think that they do to explain the pattern that we see on the screen. If we deliberately try to observe where the electrons go, we see them as particles somewhere else, but the interference pattern disappears. In effect, the problem is that we cannot say what the particles look like only when they cannot be seen.

Now this is an uncomfortable thought, because all our instincts tell us that particles must be somewhere, even when we cannot see them. But if quantum mechanics can accurately describe all the information we can ever obtain about the outside world, perhaps we are simply being greedy to ask for anything more. The headline “Physics Fails to Describe Events That Cannot Be Observed” is, again, rather lacking in impact.

The final point is a little vague but more fundamental. If we accept that the future is not fixed, we expect it to contain surprises. Crudely speaking, this is not very plausible in a world where particles have continuous trajectories and an infinite amount of information is freely available. It is much more plausible in a world that is in some way discontinuous, where the available information is limited. Even though we have set aside the question of how a future full of possibilities turns into an unchanging past, it must involve something that seems pretty weird compared to our normal experience. Perhaps this example of physics not conforming to our expectations is weirdness of the right sort.

The Addition of Spin

It was mentioned earlier that another new idea is needed before the classical physics of electrons and nuclei properly turns into chemistry. That idea is spin, a third property of electrons and nuclei alongside mass and electrical charge. Paul Dirac showed that spin is a natural property of charged particles within quantum mechanics. Wolfgang Pauli showed that the spin of the electron prevents more than one electron occupying the same state at the same time-the Exclusion Principle-a fact responsible for the whole of chemistry. The details are not important here, but quantum mechanics with spin seems to account for pretty much all the world we see around us.

Quantum Mechanics-Bringer of Stability

One of the benefits of viewing the quantum world as not fundamentally different from the classical world is that we can imagine how one changes into the other. With a few simple assumptions, a classical world of point-like electrons and nuclei is blindingly chaotic. Atoms are continually trying to collapse, but are prevented from doing so by the huge amount of electromagnetic radiation that is released in the process. It is not the comfortable place that the word classical implies.

As we imagine moving to the quantum realm by increasing the size of Planck’s constant from zero, something remarkable happens. At some point, the blinding light disappears to reveal stable atoms, capable of forming molecules. Far from making everything go weird, quantum mechanics makes it go normal. To be sure, if Planck’s constant increases too far, the atoms fall apart and a different form of chaos takes over, but that just makes the story even more interesting.

So it seems that quantum physics is not weird and incomprehensible because it describes something completely different from everyday reality. It is weird and incomprehensible precisely because it describes the world we see around us-past, present, and future.

Reference

• Feynman, Richard P. 1985. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Velikovskyism saw ancient world history through a bizarre prism of civilization-affecting planetary pinballs.

Von Danikenism attributed major achievements of ancient history, especially in the New World, not to the ingenuity of indigenous peoples but to ancient astronauts visiting Earth and stimulating creation of its archaeological wonders.

Gellerism promoted a showman conjuror as a real psychic with an ability to bend spoons with his mind and to cause several prominent but credulous physicists to lose their grips on reality.

Astrology had gained such a foothold on thought that astronomer Bart Bok and Paul Kurtz provoked worldwide controversy over a simple “Objections to Astrology” statement signed by 192 prominent scientists saying that astrology was bunk and had nothing to do with astronomy.

Paranormalism seemed everywhere, and New Age mystical thought that arose as part of the counterculture revolution of the late '60s influenced and entwined broad segments of society.

And reports of UFOs, despite the critical Condon report only seven years earlier, flew in regularly and gained credulous publicity in the press.

In the intervening three decades the specific claims that we might broadly label paranormal or pseudoscientific have changed dramatically. Most of the specific manifestations of the enthusiasms I just mentioned have waned. Some have even disappeared.

The situation has changed so much that Paul sometimes argues that no one is interested in the paranormal anymore. (I almost detect a certain longing!) We have some interesting internal debates about that, but to the degree it is true I have argued, and still do argue, that one key reason has been the remarkable work of CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer . . . and the network of scientists, scholars, and investigators worldwide it invigorated in forcefully addressing these and similar claims, providing detailed scientific analyses that showed their empirical poverty, and-in the end-debunking them. Solidly. Convincingly. Comprehensively. I think it has been a remarkable achievement.

Of course, as many of us note, although the cultural climate has shifted a lot, and in some respects for the better, the modern communications revolution has multiplied almost exponentially the number and types of outlets now available for the rapid promulgation of all new information and ideas, good and bad, reliable and unreliable-and that goes for pseudoscientific and paranormal nonsense and all its popular manifestations.

I won't even begin to detail all this here. We've dealt with all these matters in the Skeptical Inquirer now for years-and of course will continue to do so. Also, we have never limited ourselves to just the paranormal and pseudoscience. We deal with all topics at the intersection of science, public perception, and public misperception, with emphasis on those that attract large notice or that raise important public issues.

What I want to do here is sketch out some new and-I think-disturbing aspects of the cultural climate we find ourselves in and emphasize the higher values that CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer exemplify and promote-values that seem essential to a modern, progressive, humane society; values that are under assault from broad quarters of society here and abroad. No matter the specific, topical subjects we analyze and critique-the defense of these values is what we are really all about.

If thirty years ago Paul Kurtz and others were worried that we were in danger of descending toward a new dark age of superstition, paranormalism, mysticism, and pseudoscience, we in fact seem now to be in danger of descending toward a new dark age of a slightly different-and perhaps even more dangerous-sort. The first was more one of credulous, wide-eyed acceptance of wondrous, incredible claims. In retrospect, it all has a certain air of innocence. These claims all had their counterparts, after all, in science and could be seen or interpreted as just misguided but understandable fascinations uninformed by real science. Show people the real science and they might easily-at least in principle-shift their support to it. UFOs ’ the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Astrology ’ astronomy. Van Daniken pseudoarchaeology ’ real archaeology. Psychic powers and parapsychology ’ experimental psychology and modern studies of neuroscience and cognition. And so on.

But the new areas you and I are most concerned about now aren't like that. Not at all. They arise from deep-seated ideologies. They arise from a dangerous capturing of mainstream, liberal, open-minded, religious viewpoints by those with far more extreme, narrow, rigid, authoritarian, judgmental religious viewpoints. They a- rise from a willingness, even a devout-many think God- sanctioned-determination to impose those viewpoints on everyone else. We've seen this abroad, but it is happening here in American too.

Their attacks are on many things, but among those that concern us here are-

The open-minded tolerance of others slightly different from oneself that marks a progressive society.

The love of learning and the quest for new knowledge that mark a progressive society.

The willingness to entertain and examine new ideas that marks a progressive society.

A free and open society’s distrust of authoritarian dogma, whatever the source-biblical or otherwise.

Freedom of expression and the clear separation of church and state on which this nation was founded.

Reliance on science-based evidence over unexamined belief and prejudice.

The basic rights of women to make their own choices, to be educated, and to shape their own futures.

A deep appreciation for education and a nurturing of environments for creativity and achieving novel solutions to problems.

A related deep appreciation for not just the useful achievements of science but for the methods of science in determining and advancing provisional new truths, small and large, about the natural world.

An acceptance that those methods of science often result in reliable judgments about what is real and what is not.

A realization that we humans-while unique in our humanity-are nevertheless part of the natural world, and derived from and influenced by a long co-evolutionary history with the other life forms, large to microscopic, of the natural world.

In short, these attacks are on many key aspects of the modern world first shaped by the Enlightenment and the beginnings of science-when we began to develop the first abilities to actually deeply understand nature and, to some degree, exert some fledgling, limited controls of it for the well-being of people. They are attacks on curiosity and learning and on the scientific outlook itself. They are attacks on intellectual inquiry and thought-the open-minded, no-holds-barred examination of competing ideas and claims that is essential to an open, democratic society.

In many respects - although their proponents in America would no doubt dispute being so characterized-these are attacks on democracy itself. For these fundamentalist partisans would-if allowed-willingly impose their own, very specific ideological views on those they oppose.

We have to fight these trends.

We will fight these trends.

Our efforts at CSICOP and in the Skeptical Inquirer can't and don't deal with these issues in the abstract. Instead, we examine, critique, review, and report on specific, concrete topics, within the broad context of science and reason.

But it is important to keep in mind the higher values we nevertheless are defending:

• Reason and rationality, among the highest, most hard-won attributes of thinking, independent people.
• The scientific outlook, with its rich tradition of creative, open-minded, empirical inquiry and evidence-based probing of nature’s secrets.
• The skeptical attitude, a key component of the scientific outlook, with its obligation to put all new assertions to tests of empirical evidence.
• The traditions of learning-real learning, deep and broad-and the value of education not only in achieving a better life for each person but in creating reflective minds and in improving the lot of society.
• The deepest traditions of democracy-valuing human dignity and rights, drawing on the free and open interplay of ideas, and depending upon an educated, informed citizenry for making wise decisions.

No small matters. No small challenges.

Are we up to it? We have to be. There is no choice.

“Skull of Doom”

Perhaps the most famous of the artifacts—dubbed “the weirdest gem in the world” (Welfare and Fairley 1980, 51) and “the granddaddy of all crystal balls” (Garvin 1973, 6)—is the one commonly known as the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull. It is referred to as “the Skull of Doom” by those who believe it holds the power of death over anyone who would mock it (Nickell 1988, 30).

Fashioned from a single block of natural rock crystal (massive clear quartz) although its lower jaw detaches, it weighs 11 pounds 7 ounces. It allegedly first came to light in 1927 (or 1926 or 1924) during the excavation of a lost Mayan citadel in Belize (then British Honduras). The adventurer F.A. Mitchell-Hedges participated in the work, and it was supposedly his young adopted daughter, Anna, who found it under an altar of the ruined city of Lubaantun (from the Mayan word for “place of fallen stones”). (See figure 1.)

Mitchell-Hedges mentioned the skull in the first edition of his auto-biography, Danger My Ally (1954), yet did not specify where or by whom it had been found. He merely published a photograph of what he called “the sinister Skull of Doom,” stating in his customarily glib fashion: “It is at least 3,600 years old and according to legend was used by the High Priest of the Maya when performing esoteric rites. It is said that when he willed death with the help of the skull, death invariably followed.” Of the skull’s provenance, Mitchell-Hedges said only that “How it came into my possession I have reason for not revealing.” As if that were not mysterious enough, later editions of Danger My Ally omitted all references to the skull, an action which the publishers disclaimed knowledge of.

To answer the many questions posed by the crystal skull—specifically, Did Anna Mitchell-Hedges indeed find it at Lubaantun or, if not, where did it come from? and, Does the skull actually have the mystical powers ascribed to it?—I began an investigation with my forensic colleague John F. Fischer that ran from 1982 to 1984. We obtained as much data on the skull as possible: we combed through old newspaper records; corresponded with major museums and laboratories; consulted distinguished experts; amassed information on the Maya, on rock crystal, on the skull motif in art; and sought out those who had examined the skull, as well as Anna Mitchell-Hedges herself.

So far as is known, F.A. Mitchell-Hedges—a habitual liar and faker (Nickell 1988, 38; McConnell 1998)—made no reference to the skull at the time of his return from Lubaantun or in the years immediately following. In the 1930s he wrote newspaper articles and a book that discussed Lubaantun at length, but omitted the “Skull of Doom” in favor of relatively humble figurines.

Evidence Uncovered

In fact, as we discovered, the earliest published reference to the celebrated skull—the July 1936 issue of Man (a British anthropological journal)—makes no reference to the adventurer. Instead the skull was described as “in the possession of Mr. Sydney Burney,” a London art dealer (Morant 1936, 105).

Moreover, there is documentary evidence that Mitchell-Hedges bought the skull in 1944 from Burney, who was said to have owned it for the preceding ten years (Morrill 1972, 28; Welfare and Fairley 1980, 53). Anna Mitchell-Hedges has attempted to rationalize this damning evidence by claiming—in a letter to me—that her father had left the skull with Burney “as security for a loan to finance an expedition” (Mitchell-Hedges 1983).

Asked if she had any record—such as a letter or newspaper clipping—that might help establish her father’s prior ownership of the skull, Anna Mitchell-Hedges (1983) replied that she had “no documentary evidence” but added, “all my father’s papers were lost in Hatteras during a cyclone—photographs and all—also a trunk of his belongings was lost in Plymouth.” Be that as it may, none of those who were actually at Lubaantun ever mentioned Anna being at the site or the skull being discovered there (Nickell 1988, 35–36).

Subsequently, a letter surfaced that further discredits Anna Mitchell-Hedges’s claim that she discovered the crystal skull at Lubaantun. Written by Sydney Burney to George Vaillant of the American Museum of Natural History, it makes clear that Burney had the skull at that time (March 21, 1933), and that he had indeed “bought it” from an unnamed collector (Burney 1933).

Clearly F.A. Mitchell-Hedges’s crystal skull did not come from Lubaantun, but he acquired it later from Burney. This might explain why references to the skull were deleted from subsequent editions of Danger My Ally. No doubt in 1954 (some three years after Sydney Burney’s death) there were persons who could recall Burney’s prior ownership of the skull and its sale to Mitchell-Hedges. Might not such a person have threatened to expose the deceiver?

We had hoped to conduct an examination of the skull in anticipation of learning more about its origins, and we had contacted various experts—including famed microanalyst Walter C. McCrone—about additional analyses that might be performed. Disappointingly, however, Anna Mitchell-Hedges (1973) refused. Nevertheless, we learned that, contrary to assertions that the skull lacked any evidence of modern workmanship, there were “traces of mechanical grinding” on the teeth (Dorland 1973) and holes, intended for support pegs, that were drilled by metal (Hammond 1983).

Further Claims

There remained many fanciful assertions about the skull. In his autobiography, F.A. Mitchell-Hedges (1954) described the “Skull of Doom” as “dating back at least 3,600 years, and taking about 150 years to rub down with sand”; the rock crystal, he exaggerated, was “nearly as hard as diamond.” He said further of the skull: “It is stated in legend that it was used by a high priest of the Maya to concentrate on and will death. It is said to be the embodiment of all evil; several people who have cynically laughed at it have died, others have been stricken and become seriously ill.” Or so “it is said.” Richard M. Garvin, author of The Crystal Skull (1973, 100), concluded: “. . .the claims that the crystal skull has caused or can cause death should most likely be filed right next to the curses of old King Tut.”

Other claims about the skull also failed to survive scrutiny. One was that it remained at a constant temperature of 70° Fahrenheit regardless of the temperature it was subjected to. In fact, the skull was no different in its physical properties from other natural quartz crystals, according to California art expert Frank Dorland (1983).

Mystical properties of the skull—perceived sounds of silver bells and images such as faces—are probably only what Garvin (1973, 100) terms “the result of intense concentration and meditation.”

Less in touch with reality is the approach of one Joshua Shapiro, who, with others, has had channeling sessions to seek psychic impressions from the crystal artifact. These led him to opine that it was an “ancient computer” storing messages for humanity. Instead of a Mayan origin, he posits that the skull could be from a lost civilization or even some extraterrestrial site (Hunter 2005).

Closer to earth, at age ninety-eight Anna Mitchell-Hedges told reporter Colin Hunter (2005) that the skull was the secret to her longevity. Hunter had made a pilgrimage to visit her at a friend’s home in Indiana. She stuck to her story about having found the skull at Lubaantun, although continuing to give conflicting versions of the facts. Hunter’s investigative report reviewed my findings and essentially substantiated and augmented them.

As to the true origin of the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull, there is little evidence beyond the object itself, the meager historical record, and some similar rock crystal skulls in museums and private collections.

Additional Skulls

Various other crystal skulls exist, ranging from as small as an inch in width to a half-life-sized one in the Musée de l’Homme (Museum of Man) in Paris and other life-sized examples, notably one in the British Museum. They are generally classified as Aztec, but there are doubts that any of them are pre-Colombian, according to Gordon F. Ekholm (1983), an anthropologist from the American Museum of Natural History.

At least one, the British Museum skull, has recently been scientifically examined. Although fashioned in a single piece and having more stylized, circular eye sockets than the Mitchell-Hedges skull, it nevertheless looks remarkably like it (Nickell 1988).

Ian Freestone, former head of the museum’s scientific research and now a professor at the University of Wales, led a museum team that conducted the examination. The scientists used dental resin to obtain casts of the skull’s surface, then studied them with a scanning electron microscope. According to professor Freestone: “It does appear that in some areas of the skull they have used a rotary tool, and as far as we know that sort of technique was only introduced after the Europeans came to the Americas, so it’s post-Columbus.” He also observed that the type of rock crystal used has never been found in Mexico, the domain of the Aztecs.

The evidence led Freestone to conclude that the skull was likely a fake, apparently fashioned from a lump of rather poor quality Brazilian crystal. The great gem’s cutting and polishing was probably done by a lapidary in nineteenth-century Europe, perhaps Germany, who used a rotating wheel like those common to the jewelry houses of that place and time (Pennink 2005; Connor 2005).

In recent years, yet another skull—dubbed “Max,” the Texas Crystal Skull—has surfaced. It is billed as the “largest ancient crystal skull,” and is reputed to be up to 36,000 years old. However, despite the allegation that it was “found in a tomb in Guatemala between 1924 and 1926” (“Max” 2005), there appears to be no documentation of that claim. Rather, the skull’s owner, a JoAnn Parks of Houston, reportedly received the skull from one Norbu Chen, a “Tibetan Healer” whom she met in 1973. Before his death he gave her and her husband the artifact which they kept in a closet from 1980 to June 1987, while “Max” talked to her in her dreams. Then, seeing a television program on UFOs that featured the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull, they began to publicize Max.

According to Parks, Max says he comes both “from Pleiades” (a group of stars in the constellation Taurus) and “Atlantis” (the mythical continent). Parks adds: “He is a gift to mankind. He’s here as a teacher, and as a tool, to bring people together as a Oneness. . . . He seems to open up an energy in the mind. . . . People pick up visions of the past, of other planets and some are creatively inspired. They feel healing . . .” (Max 2005).

Toward a Solution

Interestingly, Jane Walsh, an archivist at the Smithsonian Institution, has uncovered documents showing that at least two of the crystal skulls were sold by the same man, a French collector of pre-Columbian artifacts named Eugene Boban. The British Museum purchased its skull in 1897 from Tiffany’s, the New York jeweler, which in turn had bought it from Boban. (Boban had earlier attempted to sell it to the Smithsonian.) And the skull at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris was donated by a collector who likewise purchased it from Boban (Connor 2005).

From what we know, it is conceivable that the Mitchell-Hedges skull was also sold by Boban. Putting aside the discredited claim that it was discovered at Lubaantun, the skull’s provenance traces back to Sydney Burney who owned it as early as 1933. He wrote that it was “for several years in the possession of the collector from whom I bought it and he in his turn had it from an Englishman in whose collection it had been also for several years” (Burney 1933). But where did the English collector get it?

A possible source for many of the crystal skulls was the renowned gemstone center of Idar and Oberstein in Germany. The area underwent a resurgence in the 1870s with the shipment of quartz crystals from Brazil. Those were carved into various objects—including “even a few crystal skulls”—by the region’s skilled artisans. (See Max 2005, which displays a modern example; see also Kunz 1913, 54.)

New Agers assert that, according to “prophecy,” one day thirteen authentic ancient crystal skulls—all reputedly from Mexico or Central America—will be brought together and, by uniting people of all races, will heal the earth (Max 2001; Smoker 1995). Yet none of the famous skulls appears to be pre-Columbian, and all may, in fact, be European forgeries.

The chief power of the skulls seems to be that of attracting the credulous, including some with fantasy-prone personalities, and transporting them to a mystical realm from which they return with addled senses. It seems likely that further revelations about the crystal skulls will best come, not from channeling sessions, but from science and scholarship.

Acknowledgments

The portion of this article regarding the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull is largely abridged from my book Secrets of the Supernatural (Nickell 1988). Also, once again I am indebted to Timothy Binga, Director of the Center for Inquiry Libraries, and Vaughn Rees for research assistance.

References

• Burney, Sydney. 1933. Letter to George Vaillant, March 21; copy from Gordon F. Ekholm, American Museum of Natural History.
• Connor, Steve. 2005. The mystery of the British Museum’s crystal skull is solved. It’s a fake. Independent News (UK), January 7.
• Dorland, Frank. 1973. Quoted in Garvin 1973, 84.
• —. 1983. Letter to Joe Nickell, May 20.
• Ekholm, Gordon F. 1983. Letters to Joe Nickell, January 5; February 1.
• Garvin, Richard M. 1973. The Crystal Skull. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
• Hammond, Norman. 1983. Letter to Joe Nickell, May 27.
• Hunter, Colin. 2005. Caretaker to a mystery. Kitchener, Ontario, Record, August 20.
• Kunz, George Frederick. [1913] 1971. The Curious Lore of Precious Stones; reprinted New York: Dover.
• Max, the crystal skull. 2001. Ad for an “Evening Circle with JoAnn Parks,” The Learning Light (The Learning Light Foundation newsletter, Anaheim, California) 7:11 (December), 3.
• Max: The Texas crystal skull. 2005. Online at www.v-j-enterprises.com/maxcs.html; accessed December 22.
• McConnell, Rob. [1996]. The Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull. Online at www.crystallinks.com/ crystalskulls.html, accessed January 3, 2005.
• Mitchell-Hedges, Anna. 1983. Letters to Joe Nickell, March 1 and April 25.
• Mitchell-Hedges, F.A. 1954. Danger My Ally. London: Elek Books, 240–243; caption to illus. facing p. 241.
• Morant, G.M. 1936. A morphological comparison of two crystal skulls. Man 36 (July), 105–107.
• Morrill, Sibley S. 1972. Ambrose Bierce, F.A. Mitchell-Hedges and the Crystal Skull. San Francisco: Caledon Press.
• Nickell, Joe. 1988. Gem of death, chapter 3 of Secrets of the Supernatural. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 29–46.
• Pennink, Emily. 2005. ‘Aztec’ crystal skull ‘likely to be fake.’ Online at http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/printable_version.cfm?objectid=15050983&siteid=50082; accessed January 7.
• Smoker, Debbie. 1995. Max, the crystal skull. New Avenues, June/July; reprinted at Max 2005.
• Welfare, Simon, and John Fairley. 1980. Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World. New York: A&W Publishers.

About a year ago Leonard Finegold at Drexel University and I decided to look into the controversial field (no pun intended) of “magnet therapy.” As a physics professor, Finegold knows a bit about magnets and magnetic fields. As a physician and former research chairman, I know a bit about therapy and medical research. Perhaps a physicist and a physician could shed some light on this interesting topic. We knew that magnets were touted as a treatment for many medical conditions and we knew that they were popular. But we were both quite surprised to learn just how popular they are. In the U.S.A., their annual sales are estimated at $300 million (Brody 2000), and globally more than a billion dollars (Weintraub 1999). You can get a rough idea of the magnitude of the magnet healing industry by doing a Google search for magnet healing. A search in January 2006 yielded 459,000 Web pages, many of them claiming that magnets have almost miraculous healing power. Do they? Professor Finegold and I reviewed the literature on magnet therapy and found very little supporting evidence. An abbreviated version of our review was recently published in the British Medical Journal (Finegold and Flamm 2006). What follows are a few comments on the magnet healing industry, a brief synopsis of our BMJ paper, and a look at magnet therapy from a theoretical point of view.

Magnet Therapy Is Big Business

If you try the Internet searching experiment described above you will notice that in addition to almost half a million pages dealing with magnet therapy, Google automatically provides a list of “sponsored links.” Your computer screen will fill with the names of companies that have paid to help you find their site. What do these sites offer? If you click on magnetsandhealth.com, you will learn that “magnets help to flush out toxins in our body” and that “our magnet products have both beauty and health benefits, they increase blood flow and they increase the oxygen level in the body.” Really? They also point out that their magnets are small and mobile, which “allows you to heal the ailments of yourself and your family without having major interruptions in your life and routine. You also get all the benefits without having to go for expensive sessions with a magnetic therapist or having to take expensive courses of drugs which can also have harmful side effects.” The message seems quite clear: Why bother with doctors and medicines when magnets are safe and effective?

Another of the scores of sponsored links is magnetictherapymagnets.com. This site is interesting because, in addition to selling dozens of magnetic healing devices for humans, it doesn't forget about Fido. For only $11.95 plus shipping they will send you an amazing pet collar that will “keep your cat or dog in excellent health and vitality with constant magnetic therapy.” My wife and I are now kicking ourselves for spending thousands of dollars on veterinary care over the past several years. If we had only bought that collar!

I don't mean to pick on these two companies or imply that their claims are any more outrageous than any others. In fact, there are now hundreds of companies selling similar devices and making similar claims.

Among the companies touting magnet therapy I was surprised to find the Sharper Image, a seemingly reputable outfit. They offer a device called a “Dual-Head Personal Massager with Magnetic Therapy.” It is somewhat phallus-shaped, small enough to fit in a purse, and claims to be a “discreet personal massager with two independent vibrating heads.” That certainly seems enticing enough, but they insist that it does far more that your average vibrator. “A smaller pinpoint node enhances its massage with magnetic therapy for focused treatment.” Hmm . . . magnet therapy for focused treatment.

Some companies actually claim that their magnets prevent, reverse, and cure cancer. For example, at one site purveyors of cancer-curing magnets will sell you, for only $2,595, the “Dr. Philpott Designed and Approved Polar Power Super Bed Grid.” According to the site, “This is the strongest, deepest penetrating, permanent static magnet, biomagnetic therapy device available anywhere that we know of. It is used in many of Dr. Philpotts’ magnetic research protocols for prevention and reversal of cancer and other serious disease that requires a full systemic deep penetrating treatment of the whole body.” Similarly absurd claims can be found at stopcancer.com/magnets.htm.

Do the legions of magnet therapists and magnet purveyors really believe the incredible claims that they make? Are they well-meaning but misguided individuals or con artists willing to say anything to make a buck? Both types are most likely involved.

Studies on Magnet Therapy

The overall conclusion of our BMJ review was stated in the first sentence, “We believe there is a worldwide epidemic of useless magnet therapy” (Finegold and Flamm 2006). As you can imagine, this statement was not well-received in the magnet healing community. We found that many studies on “magnet therapy” were published in “alternative” journals as opposed to peer-reviewed medical journals. Many studies included too few patients to reach statistically significant conclusions. Others had problems with their placebo control groups. For example, study subjects realized that they were wearing a magnetic bracelet rather than a placebo bracelet when it attracted paper clips or other small metal objects. In light of the vast amounts of money spent each year on supposedly therapeutic magnets, surprisingly few legitimate randomized controlled trials have been conducted to evaluate their efficacy. An excellent critique of magnet therapy by Quackwatch founder Stephen Barrett, M.D., can be found at quackwatch.org.

Is Magnet Therapy Even Theoretically Possible?

In reality, many people find anecdotal reports of healing, particularly from athletes or other trusted celebrities, to be more convincing than scientific studies.

There are certainly many people touting magnet therapy. But is there, even theoretically, any way that magnets could have any healing effect? In our BMJ review we restricted our comments to typical magnetic devices claimed to have therapeutic value: these use “static” magnets like those used to attach paper notes to a refrigerator door. In this context, static means nonmoving and has nothing to do with static electricity. Moving magnets or pulsed electromagnets can create electric fields and electromagnetic radiation that could have some effect on living tissue. In contrast, a typical nonmoving magnet produces only a magnetic field. Is there anything in the human body that is affected by magnetic fields? Surprisingly, the answer appears to be no. This seems counterintuitive since most people know that oxygen in our blood is carried by hemoglobin and that hemoglobin contains iron. This is why iron tablets are often recommended for the treatment of anemia. However, the iron in hemoglobin is not ferromagnetic (see badscience.net). If hemoglobin contained ferromagnetic iron it would be simple to separate red blood cells from other bloods cells with a magnet. Several studies have shown that static magnetic fields do not affect blood flow (see hfienberg.com/clips/magnet.htm and quackwatch.org). Perhaps more important, if hemoglobin contained ferromagnetic iron people might explode or be flung across the room when exposed to the extraordinarily powerful magnetic field of a MRI scan. For a fascinating look at things that can go wrong when ferromagnetic materials get too close to the powerful magnetic field of an MRI machine, visit http://mripractice.tripod.com/mrpractice/id69.htm and simplyphysics.com/flying_objects.html.

However, for the sake of argument, what if some effect of magnets on human tissue could be demonstrated? What is the likelihood that it would be a therapeutic or healing effect? Probably slim to nil. By analogy, consider chemical compounds. The number of known chemical compounds is on the order of ten million. However, only a handful have ever been shown to have any therapeutic effects. Yet millions are toxic. It would be most unwise to eat or drink anything found on the shelves of a typical chemistry lab. If a magnet had an effect on human tissue, there is no reason to believe that it would necessarily be a healing effect.

Moreover, even the rare chemical compound that has healing effects usually does so only in very specific dose ranges. Almost any prescription drug can harm or kill you if you ingest enough of it. If, theoretically, a magnet had some effect on human tissue and if, astoundingly, the effect was beneficial rather than toxic, would one not expect there to be an optimal dosage? Yet, advertised healing magnets vary widely in their field strength. Many magnet purveyors claim that the more powerful the magnet, the greater the healing effect. This sounds good but makes little sense. All known effective therapies-including medications, x-rays, and lasers-become toxic or damaging at high levels. Nevertheless, the “magnet therapist” who debated me on BBC radio immediately after our paper was published chided me for not understanding that some magnet healers fail because they don't use strong enough magnets. She was so convincing that I think she actually believes this. The BBC radio host made a point of stating that the magnet therapist was “certified.” By whom, I wondered? The Intergalactic Association of Magnetic and Crystal Healers? After the show my colleague Professor Finegold, who was raised in the United Kingdom, informed me that the word “certified” has a derogatory mental health connotation in the UK. Perhaps the BBC host was not flattering my opponent.

Some magnet advocates contend that no one has conclusively proven that magnets cannot heal. Of course, they have it backwards. When it comes to healing, the burden of proof is on the seller, not the buyer. One is supposed to prove that a therapy works before marketing it to the public. If this were not true, medical companies could save billions by selling all sorts of untested drugs and devices. In reality, the government insists that every medicine and therapeutic device be meticulously tested for both safety and efficacy. This protective system generally works and only rarely do unsafe or ineffective products slip through and reach the public. Sadly, it seems that no such protective laws exist for magnets, crystals, amulets, magic potions, or other claimed miracle cures.

Finally, in the firestorm of criticism that followed the publication of our BMJ article, a frequent complaint was that I don't have an “open” mind. It might be more fair to say that my mind is open-but not to nonsense. If properly conducted research demonstrates a genuine healing effect of static magnets, I will cheerfully incorporate magnet therapy into my clinical practice. Until that time, I hope that parents will take their sick children to evidence-based physicians rather than “certified” magnet healers.

Notes:

1. Brody, J. 2000. Less pain: Is it in the magnets or in the mind? New York Times, November 28: F9.
2. Weintraub, M. 1999. Magnetic bio-stimulation in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A novel intervention-a randomized, double-placebo crossover study. American Journal of Pain Management 9: 8-17.
3. Finegold, L., and B.L. Flamm. 2006. Magnet therapy: Extraordinary claims, but no proved benefits. British Medical Journal 332: 4.

Possibly hoping to show Doyle how easy it is to be fooled by mediums, Houdini once gave his friend an extraordinary demonstration, in his own home, in the presence of Bernard M.L. Ernst, Houdini’s friend and lawyer. Ernst’s memoirs reveal what happened that night.

Mene, mene, tekel upharsin

Houdini produced what appeared to be an ordinary slate, some eighteen inches long by fifteen inches high. In two corners of this slate, holes had been bored, and through these holes wires had been passed. These wires were several feet in length, and hooks had been fastened to the other ends of the wires. The only other accessories were four small cork balls (about three-quarters of an inch in diameter), a large ink-well filled with white ink, and a table-spoon.

Houdini passed the slate to Sir Arthur for examination. He was then requested to suspend the slate in the middle of the room, by means of the wires and hooks, leaving it free to swing in space, several feet distant from anything. In order to eliminate the possibility of electrical connections of any kind, Sir Arthur was asked to fasten the hooks over anything in the room which would hold them. He hooked one over the edge of a picture-frame, and the other on a large book, on a shelf in Houdini’s library. The slate thus swung free in space, in the center of the room, being supported by the two wires passing through the holes in its upper corners. The slate was inspected and cleaned.

Houdini now invited Sir Arthur to examine the four cork balls in the saucer. He was told to select any one he liked, and, to show that they were free from preparation, to cut it in two with his knife, thus verifying the fact that they were merely solid cork balls. This was accordingly done. Another ball was then selected, and, by means of the spoon, was placed in the white ink, where it was thoroughly stirred round and round, until its surface was equally coated with the liquid. It was then left in the ink to soak up as much liquid as possible. The remaining balls Sir Arthur took away with him for examination, at Houdini’s request.

“Have you a piece of paper in your pocket upon which you can write something?” asked Houdini to Doyle. He had a pencil.

“Sir Arthur,” continued Houdini, “I want you to go out of the house, walk anywhere you like, as far as you like in any direction; then write a question or sentence on that piece of paper; put it back in your pocket and return to the house.”

Doyle obeyed, walking three blocks and turning a corner before he wrote upon the paper. When he returned Houdini invited him to take a spoon and remove the cork ball, which had been soaking in the white ink, then to touch the ball to the left side of the slate. The ball “stuck” there, seemingly of its own volition. Slowly, it began rolling across the surface of the slate, leaving a white track as it did so. As the ball rolled, it was seen to be spelling the words: “Mene, mene, tekel upharsin,” the very same words that Doyle had written. The guests were speechless.

Houdini turned to Doyle and said: “Sir Arthur, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this illusion; I have been working at it, on and off, all winter. I won't tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure trickery. I did it by perfectly normal means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Arthur, do not jump to the conclusion that certain things you see are necessarily 'supernatural,' or the work of 'spirits,' just because you cannot explain them. This is as marvelous a demonstration as you have ever witnessed, given you under test conditions, and I can assure you that it was accomplished by trickery and by nothing else. Do, therefore, be careful in future, in endorsing phenomena just because you cannot explain them. I have given you this test to impress upon you the necessity of caution, and I sincerely hope that you will profit by it.”

“Sir Arthur,” remembered Ernst, “came to the conclusion that Houdini really accomplished the feat by psychic aid, and could not be persuaded otherwise.” Doyle’s reaction, and the refusal to consider trickery even when admitted by the trickster, was so typical, noted Houdini, that “here is little wonder in his believing in Spiritualism so implicitly.”

Berol’s Secret

The secret of the trick remained a mystery for years until magician and historian Milbourne Christopher revealed it in his book Houdini, A Pictorial Life. “Neither Doyle nor Ernst,” wrote Christopher, “could fathom this mystery. They might have been less startled had they seen Houdini’s friend Max Berol perform in Vaudeville.” Berol had been performing for years, both in Europe and America, an act in which a ball dipped in ink would spell on an isolated board the words called out by members of the audience:

“Berol did this by switching a solid cork ball for one with an iron core. A magnet at the end of a rod, manipulated by an assistant concealed behind the board, caused the ball to adhere and move-apparently under its own power. After Berol retired, Houdini purchased the equipment. An assistant in the room adjacent to Houdini’s library had opened a small panel in the wall and extended the rod with a magnet through it. The ball on the slate had an iron center, of course.

“Ernst had not remembered that when Doyle returned to the room, after writing the words outdoors, Houdini had checked to make sure the slip of paper on which Doyle wrote was folded, then immediately returned it to his friend. Before doing so, the magician had switched slips. While Doyle was busy retrieving the ball from the inkwell and taking it to the board, Houdini read the words. His conversation cued his hidden assistant. Once the message had been written on the slate, Houdini asked Doyle for the folded slip to verify his words. He opened the blank paper, pretended to read from it, then switched it for the original as he returned the paper to his friend. Later, Houdini explained this switching process during his public lectures on fraudulent mediums.”