Correlations between the Global Earth Healing and Global Consciousness Projects—Brain-Mind-Matter-Interactions through Physical Noise Generators ()
1. THE HISTORY OF THE GLOBAL EARTH HEALING PROJECT (GEHP)
In October 2013 during an international TimeWaver conference in Frankfurt, Hendrik Treugut, Thomas Baschab and Marcus Schmieke publicly announced the Global Earth Healing Project (GEHP) for the first time. In reference to Roger Nelson’s Global Consciousness Project (GCP) [1], a globally distributed network of around 70 Random Event Generators (REG), the GEHP uses a network of thousands of REG’s to influence the Global Consciousness with positive affirmations such as love, wisdom, responsibility and coherence. Both projects are assuming that physical noise generators (PNG) functioning as REGs are able to communicate with a global field related to the collective consciousness of humanity—in Nelson’s GCP passively, by reacting to the global field’s emotional expressions, in the GEHP actively by entangling the field with the affirmations and intentions of the people involved. The hypothesis behind the GEHP is that the REGs quantum entangles non-locally with an underlying information field and the consciousness of the involved people, the latter being established by the intention of the experimenter. As part of the original study design, the author of this article publicly announced at the aforementioned Bad Nauheim event that the data generated by Nelson’s GCP should be benchmarked against the data of the GEHP to check if both networks were correlated with each other: If the two networks would not be correlated non-locally by some type of entanglement, then the correlation was likely to be purely coincidental; if, however, a non-random correlation would be observed, the hypothesis of an underlying information field would gain some credibility.
The first GEHP event was scheduled for December 1st 2013 at 12:00 pm to entangle the Global Consciousness of humanity with a list of positive characteristics that the initiators thought to be important for dealing with global crises. At this exact time, all the participants were running their information field systems for 3 minutes in order to entangle those qualities with the global consciousness. After his initial event, twenty more took place between 2013 and 2020. The content was selected each time according to the quality of time (Table 1).
![]()
Table 1. All 21 GEHP events with their topical intention.
2. THE GLOBAL CONSCIOUSNESS PROJECT
The Global Consciousness Project was started in 1997 by Roger D. Nelson who served as research coordinator at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory at Princeton University from 1980 to 2002. During its most active time, it consisted of more than 100 researchers, with a core team of 20 people in administration and development and about 80 people overseeing around 80 physical noise generators that were located across the planet, with a focus on the U.S. and Europe. All PNGs are creating a constant data stream consisting of units of 200 bits each. The data structure follows the same principle that has been applied locally since 1980 in the classical PEAR lab experiments [2], where the data was displayed on a screen and observed by subjects trying to mentally influence the histogram. The collected data of the PEAR laboratory experiments are clearly showing that the intention of a conscious observer can shift the histogram of real physical random data in the desired direction in a statistically significant way; this shift is small but significant. By repeating the experiments under changing conditions and with various types of subjects, Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne concluded that the size of the effect depends mainly on the emotional involvement of the observer. For instance, sitting on a sofa in a pleasant atmosphere helped the observers achieve better results than being in a sterile laboratory environment. Based on the phenomena observed in the PEAR experiments, UC Berkeley quantum physicist Henry Stapp suggested a non-linear extension of quantum theory to allow the intention of the observer to influence the result of an observation [3]. In this extension, originally suggested by Steven Weinberg [4], non-real components in the Hamiltonian operator have the consequence of different orthogonal states of the observed universe influencing each other, so that the corresponding brain states related to the observer’s intention can actually affect the outcome of an observation. Furthermore, Stapp suggested another modification of the Schrödinger equation to account for an even more astonishing result of the PEAR lab experiments: In a series of experiments the PNGs’ data was collected and stored in the computer, but not directly displayed to the observers. After 6 months the data was displayed to the observers with the same task of influencing the histogram of the data being assigned, not being aware that the data had already been recorded 6 months ago. Surprisingly, the result was the same as if the data would have been generated in real time. The intention of the observers was clearly mirrored by the recorded data.
The data generating procedures of the PEAR lab experiments were applied in the GCP as well, the difference being that the GCP accumulated the data of up to 80 PNGs distributed all over the planet and collected it through the internet on a Princeton-based server named Noosphere. This name is a term created by Teilhard de Chardin, a French scientist, philosopher and Jesuit priest who envisioned a noosphere as a spiritual counterpart to nature’s biosphere [5]. The noosphere complements the biological sphere of nature in the same way as the mind of an individual complements their body; it could be considered the global spirit of all life on this planet.
Another important difference between the GCP and PEAR experiments is that the accumulated data of the GCP is not influenced by an observer; it is considered by the experimenters around Roger Nelson to be a neutral (as in non-influenced) equivalent to the state of the global consciousness or mind of humanity. In this setting, the data is assumed to be related to the movements of the collective mind or consciousness and not a response to an active attempt of changing it. It is applied in a similar way as the PNG in the experiment performed by Blasband [6], where a single PNG was non-locally applied to monitor the emotional states of patients during psychotherapeutic interventions. In the data presented by Blasband, the PNG, placed a few blocks away of the trial location, clearly responded to the different therapy phases, distinguishing between three different phases, each of which changed the direction of the bias in the random data. Taking this data seriously, the question arises which mechanism related the PNG to the therapeutic process, in particular to the emotional state of the patients. Since local proximity can be ruled out, only the intention of those who designed the experiment can be considered as the cause of the correlation.
This is our hypothesis: The conscious intention of the experimenter is causing an entanglement between the physical random process (PNG) and the observed process, in this case, the emotional state of the patients, in the case of the GCP the mental activities of the global mind of humanity.
This being a very strong hypothesis, the question arises why and how the experimenter’s consciousness, especially their free will to establish such an intention could be able to establish entanglements between (physically) non-related processes. In the variant of quantum theory as established by Heisenberg, the experimenter has a similar role, as he is able to choose the experimental design that decides the observational values of an experiment; they can for instance decide whether the location or the momentum of a particle should be measured. Both experimental setups exclude each other, as momentum and location are complementary, non-communicating observables. In a similar way, in generalized forms of quantum theory as proposed by Steven Weinberg and Henry Stapp, the experimenter’s intention, as represented by their particular brain state, can influence external physical reality and might also be able to establish generalized quantum entanglements as proposed by Harald Walach [7]. The experimental data of Blasband and Nelson as well as Schmieke [8] confirm this hypothesis.
This hypothesis is the basis for the GEHP: In the GEHP events, hundreds of users of the network of PNGs in the participating information field devices, the intention of the initiators and the participants of the project entangle with the global spirit of humanity, the network of hundreds of PNGs and the intention of the participants to bring positive affirmations into the global field of consciousness.
3. RESULTS OF THE GLOBAL CONSCIOUSNESS PROJECT
The GCP shows a highly statistically significant deviation of the data from the expected value in more than 500 formally defined events over nearly 20 years [9]. The odds against this outcome were above a trillion to 1 [10]. Analyzing the nature of the events and the degree of data deviation, Nelson concludes that the significance of the anomaly depends mainly on how strongly people are emotionally connected to the event in question. Primarily, those events are correlated with strong deviations that affect people emotionally globally.
4. THE INFORMATION FIELD
If one accepts the hypothesis of a global consciousness being entangled or in some way related to the GCP’s network of PNGs and the intention of the experimenters and observers of the project, the question arises as to how such a complex interrelationship is technically achieved. One interpretation assumes the existence of an underlying information field, emerging from global consciousness, which connects all the aforementioned active contributors. Information is the language of consciousness and also of the individual PNGs. By their nature, the information content of PNGs is minimal, as physical noise possesses maximum entropy. Regularities may appear in the spectral distribution of the noise or in the histograms when information is exchanged over them by quantum entanglement or by the influence of intentional or unintentional consciousness. Each conscious observer could possess their own information field and participate in total in the global information field. The definition of the information field is the sum total of all quantum entanglements of a system, internally and externally [11]. The information field is an expression of the interconnectedness of all elements of reality. An information field is a whole that connects all fragments of a system and the system itself with its environment. If quantum entanglement is understood in a generalized form as described by Harald Walach, consciousness can feed information into the information field. The information contained in the information field is available non-locally to entangle with PNGs and conscious entities.
5. CONCEPT OF AN INFORMATION FIELD SYSTEM USED IN THE GEHP
The information field is the link between matter and consciousness, between the body and the mind; It is neither physical nor mental, and it is something completely different, carrying both those properties within itself and can therefore translate from the language of the body into the language of the mind. It is the tertium non datur of Aristotelian logic [12]. The two parts can speak to each other: the mind can create shapes within the information field that manifest in matter. This also works the other way around: The material realm can influence the mind through the information field.
The psychologist C. G. Jung was the first to discover that the individual unconscious is directly communicating with some kind of global information field; he called this the collective unconscious. Similar physical and psychological events sometimes occur in different places simultaneously or almost simultaneously without there being a causal relationship between them. Jung called this phenomenon synchronicity [13]. Between such events that may appear to us as just being a chain of interesting coincidences there seems to be a clear context, although one that usually remains hidden from our understanding. This context can be identified with the information field.
The PNGs of the GEHP are using a pulsed laser beam that behaves like a series of single photons; it is directed at an angle of 45 degrees towards a semitransparent mirror. The laser beam can be either diverted from this mirror or crossed; the decision on which direction it takes is a pure quantum effect or “random”. There is no physical cause for it to go either way and no influence from external factors. It is exactly those seemingly random quantum leaps that constitute information in its purest form.
The information flow of light quanta is assigned to a particular object with the intention to read the information field of this very object; of course, this description is greatly simplified. In the same way one can attempt to write or feed information into the information field. The first phase of this process is called “analysis”, and the second phase is “optimization”. In the latter phase, all information that is to be transmitted to the recipient is compiled in an “optimization list”. The term “recipient” applies not only to humans, but can also target the global consciousness of humanity, as in the GEHP. The content of this optimization list is then brought in resonance with the recipient(s); this is achieved through the noise generators described above. The selection of information is determined by the information field analysis, but can be complemented by manually entered elements. The content of the optimizations of the 21 GEHP events is specified in Table 1.
6. THE GEHP DATA
As publicly announced by the author in October 2013, the accumulated data of the GCP of the 21 events should be analyzed. For this purpose, a time window of 48 hours was intuitively chosen to collect random numbers of 200 bits each from the moment of the optimization of the GEHP. The GEHP events only lasted for 3 minutes each, but a non-causal “influence” of 48 hours seemed intuitively plausible. The 48 hours time window was not optimized to achieve the largest effect, but the first intuitive choice was prior to data evaluation. Table 2 contains the data of the 21 events.
The data of the GCP is continuously displayed in real time on the website of the Global Coherence Initiative. For the first two events of the GEHP the cumulative data from the PNGs of the GCP moved steadily toward a maximum within 24 hours, well above the 99% confidence interval. The following two events displayed similar behavior.
![]()
Table 2. Data of the 21 GEHP events with the normalized Stoffer (abs(Stof − 0.5) * 2) probabilities, indicating the size of a potential effect influencing the deviation from the expectation value.
The following figure (Figure 1) shows the accumulated deviation from the expectation value of the 21 events from 2013 to 2020. In this figure, 0.0 corresponds to the data matching with the expectation value, whereas 1.0 corresponds to maximal improbability, meaning that the value has been obtained randomly. A value of 0.99 would signify that the probability of a value having been obtained randomly is smaller than 1%.
The average value for all 21 events is 0.64. In order to evaluate this value, it is compared to the average value, which 21 randomly chosen events would generate. To obtain this value, a software application has chosen 10 times 21 random dates between 2013 and 2020 and calculated their average score, altogether containing 210 random dates (Figure 2).
The average value of these 10 sets of 21 randomly chosen dates is 0.508 with a 99% confidence interval from 0.434 to 0.582. The average score of the real GEHP events is clearly higher than this control score and clearly above the confidence interval. The probability that the GEHP score is randomly generated is therefore clearly lower than 1%.
![]()
Figure 2. 10 sets of 21 random dates between 2013 and 2020.
![]()
Figure 3. 21 GEHP events with linear approximation with a clear decline defect.
This data hints towards a correlation between the GEHP dates and the reaction of the GCP PNGs. From the intrinsic logic of the GEHP, the GCP’s response could be seen as a reaction of the intention of the GEHP events and their amplification through the GEHP network of hundreds of PNGs. In a weaker formulation it is a hint to the assumption that the PNG networks of the GEHP and GCP are communicating with each other. In any case, the observed correlations served as an inspiration for the participants of the GEHP to continue with their endeavors to feed positive values and qualities into the field of global consciousness.
Looking at the data of the first four GEHP events gives an average score of close to 0.95, giving only a 5% chance of a random correlation. The following events showed weaker results, as generally observed in parapsychological data. Whenever non-local correlations are closely observed, that data shows a similar effect, known as the decline effect in parapsychological literature [14]. The above figure (Figure 3) shows the data of the 21 events with a linear approximation. It shows a decline of 0.0173 per event, starting from 0.8 and declining to finally 0.5, which corresponds to the average of the random simulations. This supports the hypothesis, that the underlying effect is acausal, non-local and based on quantum entanglement.
7. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper the GEHP is described based on the hypothesis that there is a global consciousness, single PNGs or PNG networks can passively and actively resonate with global consciousness and that the resonance between PNGs and the global consciousness is based on quantum entanglement. For understanding the mutual interaction between individual and global consciousness and PNGs, the existence of a global information field is assumed, as information is the common language of consciousness and physical quantum processes as PNGs. This hypothesis is supported by the correlation of the GEHP events with the deviation of the GCP data from expectation value within 48-hour windows after the events.
Another interpretation of the results would be to assume that the choice of the 21 dates for the GEHP events coincides with the course of the GCP data, independently of the involvement of the GEHP network of PNGs and the involved intentions. This interpretation would be based on the finding that the GEHP events shall be correlated with the GCP data. In this case, the conscious intention of the initiators of the GEHP would be a cause of the observed coincidence.
A third interpretation assumes that the brain states of the observers influence the PNGs of the GCP to cause the observed deviation from the expectation value.
All three interpretations support the correlation between the PNGs of the GCP and the intent of the operators of the GEHP, including mind-matter interactions based on an information field corresponding to the underlying quantum entanglement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My thanks go to Dr. med. habil. Hendrik Treugut and Thomas Baschab for initiating the project, to the staff who conducted the events, to the thousands of participants and to Mikkel Aagaard for preparing the data and statistical calculations.