Shadow Matter,Psi-phenomena and Survival

[Alexander1304]

I've recently read(partially) the book written by G.D.Wasserman "Shadow Matter and Psi-phenomena and possible Survival of Human Personality".
Here is description from Amazon: "A scientist casts new light on psychic phenomena, such as clairvoyance, telepathy, and 'out of body experiences'. He presents an exciting new theory which explains such phenomena, linking the recently discovered 'Shadow Matter' world of physics with parapsychology. It replaces notions of the occult with important new ideas that are figuring in physics (even in recent television programmes). The book contains case histories, showing how this new theory could account for telepathy, clairvoyance, 'out of the body experiences', and apparitions of the living and the dead in terms of Shadow Matter. It also explains how Shadow Matter theory could account for the survival of the human personality after death of the body. The author builds on theories until now discussed only in academic journals. This theory was first published in brief outline in the journal Inquiry in 1988. It develops the concept of the Shadow Matter world introduced in the journal Nature in 1985. Suitable for general readers interested in new developments in science; general readers interested in parapsychology and the occult; specialists and scholars, especially in physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, philosophy and medicine."

"Wassermann contends that every person has a shadow matter brain and body that are exact duplicates of his ordinary brain and body and that are normally in such exact alignment with the ordinary matter body that each particle of the shadow matter body is in sufficiently close proximity to the corresponding particle of the ordinary matter body that it is gravitationally gravitationally bound to it. The shadow matter brain or body is capable of separation from the ordinary body and of serving in the role of an "astral body" during an out-of-body experience.At death, the shadow matter body (SMB) could become permanently projected; thus, the SMB would serve as a "material soul" allowing an indefinite survival of the human personality after the death of the physical body (Wassermann proposes that shadow matter is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy increase, and thus would not be subject to decay and deterioration). "
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shadow+Matter+and+Psychic+Phenomena.-a015383549



What do you guys think about it?So far it doesn't seem that this theory got much acceptance in the scientific circles.

 

[JaredJames]

Are you surprised it doesn't have any acceptance?

There's nothing in any way so far as evidence goes to back it up.

account for telepathy, clairvoyance, 'out of the body experiences', and apparitions of the living and the dead

It also explains how Shadow Matter theory could account for the survival of the human personality after death of the body

None of those things are proven to actually exist. There is no evidence for their existence. And so it doesn't account for anything.

What is actually being said is "something we have no reason to accept (due to lack of evidence) explains something else we have no reason to accept (also due to lack of evidence)".

 

[Alexander1304]

Thanks for the reply,JaredJames,and I see what You say.To me as well this therory looks very strange,to say the least.
As for evidence..well,Wassermann tried to provide some evidence but it is VERY subjestive and is subject to many other explanations.But I didn't trust Wassermann's evidence too much anyway for the simple reason.He was an author of this theory,and of corse was defender of it.I am interesed in some dispationate "side" opinions.As for "shadow matter"...not only there is no confirmation that it actually exists(for now,at least),there is no any evidence that it can form something like brains...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thanks for the reply,JaredJames,and I see what You say.To me as well this therory looks very strange,to say the least.
As for evidence..well,Wassermann tried to provide some evidence but it is VERY subjestive and is subject to many other explanations.But I didn't trust Wassermann's evidence too much anyway for the simple reason.He was an author of this theory,and of corse was defender of it.I am interesed in some dispationate "side" opinions.As for "shadow matter"...not only there is no confirmation that it actually exists(for now,at least),there is no any evidence that it can form something like brains...

They literally have no evidence. Ideas like this are about as much evidence for the paranormal as me concluding how big a leprechaun chair must be is evidence for leprechauns.

Always be wary of people who make conclusions and then try to find evidence. That's not science. It's not even sensible.

 

[Alexander1304]

They literally have no evidence. Ideas like this are about as much evidence for the paranormal as me concluding how big a leprechaun chair must be is evidence for leprechauns.

Always be wary of people who make conclusions and then try to find evidence. That's not science. It's not even sensible.

Thanks,Ryan.What you say make sense to me.I found e-mail of one of "top" researches in the paranormal area,Stephen Braude,and e-mailed him asking for his opinion about that.He kindly replied(I'm coping/pasting his response literally): "Wassermann's is an empirical thesis, and as such there should be some evidence in its favor. For now, I'd say don't bother."

 

[qraal]

Thanks for the reply,JaredJames,and I see what You say.To me as well this therory looks very strange,to say the least.
As for evidence..well,Wassermann tried to provide some evidence but it is VERY subjestive and is subject to many other explanations.But I didn't trust Wassermann's evidence too much anyway for the simple reason.He was an author of this theory,and of corse was defender of it.I am interesed in some dispationate "side" opinions.As for "shadow matter"...not only there is no confirmation that it actually exists(for now,at least),there is no any evidence that it can form something like brains...

Shadow matter is, theoretically, just like regular matter, but of opposite chirality. It was invoked to explain odd behavior of neutrinos and is still viable as a theory. It could easily make brains etc because it is just like matter. But a shadow matter body requires a whole Shadow matter Earth for it to exist on and there isn't any evidence for that. The amount of shadow matter in the Solar System is a small proportion of regular matter, if it exists. Most of it would be diffuse because it is spread through a much larger spherical halo around the regular matter Galaxies in order to be 'dark matter'.

Invoking it in place of the old Theosophical idea of "aetheric doubles" is logical, within that framework, but is placing the cart before the horse, just as other posters have already noted. First there has to be evidence that "astral projection" and similar "phenomena" have objective reality and aren't complex illusions/hallucinations, which seems the more likely explanation for such reports and anecdotal evidence.

 

[Dotini]

It is far, far better to attempt to explain psi phenomena and other unusual experiences in the rigorous terms of physics than it is to continue the failed old paradigm of the occult and supernatural versus denial and ridicule. Even if initial scientific attempts attempts are halting and erroneous, too many credible unexplained phenomena exist to chisel our current ignorance into the stone of dogma. Science must be a humble, diligent and continuous search for the truth.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It is far, far better to attempt to explain psi phenomena and other unusual experiences in the rigorous terms of physics than it is to continue the failed old paradigm of the occult and supernatural versus denial and ridicule. Even if initial scientific attempts attempts are halting and erroneous, too many credible unexplained phenomena exist to chisel our current ignorance into the stone of dogma. Science must be a humble, diligent and continuous search for the truth.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

The problem is the manner of the observations/reports. If there is an anomalous observation that is reported it can be investigated, especially if this observation comes from an experiment in a lab.

With psi, ghosts etc the reports are draped in bias and half truths with many people who claim psychic powers doing it for monetary reasons (yet they avoid testing their "powers" at the places that offer to investigate). It is nearly impossible to draw from such huge amount of conflicting and contradictory reports what are interesting physical phenomenon that have been misinterpreted as supernatural and what are claims aimed at generating revenue.

 

[Alexander1304]

Shadow matter is, theoretically, just like regular matter, but of opposite chirality. It was invoked to explain odd behavior of neutrinos and is still viable as a theory. It could easily make brains etc because it is just like matter. But a shadow matter body requires a whole Shadow matter Earth for it to exist on and there isn't any evidence for that. The amount of shadow matter in the Solar System is a small proportion of regular matter, if it exists. Most of it would be diffuse because it is spread through a much larger spherical halo around the regular matter Galaxies in order to be 'dark matter'.

Invoking it in place of the old Theosophical idea of "aetheric doubles" is logical, within that framework, but is placing the cart before the horse, just as other posters have already noted. First there has to be evidence that "astral projection" and similar "phenomena" have objective reality and aren't complex illusions/hallucinations, which seems the more likely explanation for such reports and anecdotal evidence.

So, if amount of shadow matter in the Solar System is a small proportion of regular matter,how it can form bodies and brains?I had a correspondence with Robert Foot,who wrote a lot about "mirror matter".He replied me: "You see, the particles I'm talking about are the elementary ones, the electrons,
protons and neutrons (or more precisely quarks). I'm not talking about macroscopic
"particles" like you and me... Particle physics deals with the microscopic...
there is no reason that i can see that mirror partticles, if they exist,
should assemble into an exact copy of you and me.."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So, if amount of shadow matter in the Solar System is a small proportion of regular matter,how it can form bodies and brains?I had a correspondence with Robert Foot,who wrote a lot about "mirror matter".He replied me: "You see, the particles I'm talking about are the elementary ones, the electrons,
protons and neutrons (or more precisely quarks). I'm not talking about macroscopic
"particles" like you and me... Particle physics deals with the microscopic...
there is no reason that i can see that mirror partticles, if they exist,
should assemble into an exact copy of you and me.."

I think the person you quoted was responding to the idea that shadow matter is somehow linked to paranormal phenomenon such as ghosts. The only way for shadow matter to form intelligence would be if it were to form a shadow matter star with a shadow planet populated by shadow life*. But this could only interact with us through gravity.

*no one is saying this has happened only that it is required for shadow life to form.

 

[Alexander1304]

I think the person you quoted was responding to the idea that shadow matter is somehow linked to paranormal phenomenon such as ghosts. The only way for shadow matter to form intelligence would be if it were to form a shadow matter star with a shadow planet populated by shadow life*. But this could only interact with us through gravity.

*no one is saying this has happened only that it is required for shadow life to form.

But how about idea tha we,ordinary people,may have 2 bodies/brains?One on normal matter another of shadow matter?And shat shadow matter body/brain could live after normal mater body decayed?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But how about idea tha we,ordinary people,may have 2 bodies/brains?One on normal matter another of shadow matter?And shat shadow matter body/brain could live after normal mater body decayed?

As I understand it contemporary understanding of shadow matter is that it would only interact with normal matter through gravity. Any shadow matter in the vicinity of Earth would fall straight through and out the other side (or fall into an orbit around the core).

If you want to propose that there is a secondary body/mind first you have to provide evidence for the existence of one before speculating on a viable mechanism for said secondary body/mind.

 

[Alexander1304]

As I understand it contemporary understanding of shadow matter is that it would only interact with normal matter through gravity. Any shadow matter in the vicinity of Earth would fall straight through and out the other side (or fall into an orbit around the core).

If you want to propose that there is a secondary body/mind first you have to provide evidence for the existence of one before speculating on a viable mechanism for said secondary body/mind.

Don't get me wrong - I am not going to propose anything,I just want opinions if above theory is worth attention/could be true.This book was written in 1993 and so far you can find only few references on it

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Don't get me wrong - I am not going to propose anything,I just want opinions if above theory is worth attention/could be true.This book was written in 1993 and so far you can find only few references on it

The above hypothesis is flawed in several ways;

• It is attempting to find a mechanism by which a phenomenon occurs before establishing if the phenomenon is real.
• The mechanism it uses (shadow matter) has not been observed to manifest outside of theory.
• It utilises a flawed understanding of shadow matter, for the SMB hypothesis to be true shadow matter must somehow interact with normal matter to such an extent that it copies the normal matter. Quoting wikipedia

  Mirror matter, if it exists, would have to be very weakly interacting with ordinary matter. This is because the forces between mirror particles are mediated by mirror bosons. With the exception of the graviton, none of the known bosons can be identical to their mirror partners

• There is no explanation for how a shadow matter body could exist, especially as a shadow matter human would require the same nutrients, environment etc as a normal matter human. In effect the only way it could work is if all matter on Earth occupied precisely the same space as an identical shadow Earth. If this was true then both shadow humans would die identical deaths.
• Lastly the hypothesis offers no evidence in support of it and no proposal for research.

In my opinion the guy proposing this hypothesis is just fabricating pseudo-science (weakly based on real science) to give some pseudo-credibility to his belief in supernatural phenomenon.

 

[Alexander1304]

The above hypothesis is flawed in several ways;

• It is attempting to find a mechanism by which a phenomenon occurs before establishing if the phenomenon is real.
• The mechanism it uses (shadow matter) has not been observed to manifest outside of theory.
• It utilises a flawed understanding of shadow matter, for the SMB hypothesis to be true shadow matter must somehow interact with normal matter to such an extent that it copies the normal matter. Quoting wikipedia
• There is no explanation for how a shadow matter body could exist, especially as a shadow matter human would require the same nutrients, environment etc as a normal matter human. In effect the only way it could work is if all matter on Earth occupied precisely the same space as an identical shadow Earth. If this was true then both shadow humans would die identical deaths.
• Lastly the hypothesis offers no evidence in support of it and no proposal for research.

In my opinion the guy proposing this hypothesis is just fabricating pseudo-science (weakly based on real science) to give some pseudo-credibility to his belief in supernatural phenomenon.

That's the point,Ryan,the author was "reductive materialist" and tried to explain psi phenomena/possible life after death in purely materialistic terms,invokin the concept of "shadow matter"

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's the point,Ryan,the author was "reductive materialist" and tried to explain psi phenomena/possible life after death in purely materialistic terms,invokin the concept of "shadow matter"

He can call himself what he likes he still is making grave logical errors. The mistake of assuming false premises (he assumes that psi phenomenon exist) and using a flawed understanding of the current science (his use of shadow matter is incorrect).

The hypothesis mentioned has as much credibility and logical sense to it as me saying "wormholes must be created by rainbows when they touch clouds because how else would would Bifrost bridge Midgard and Asgard?"

 

[Alexander1304]

He can call himself what he likes he still is making grave logical errors. The mistake of assuming false premises (he assumes that psi phenomenon exist) and using a flawed understanding of the current science (his use of shadow matter is incorrect).

The hypothesis mentioned has as much credibility and logical sense to it as me saying "wormholes must be created by rainbows when they touch clouds because how else would would Bifrost bridge Midgard and Asgard?"

As I told ,one of the most "active" writers about "mirror matter" is Robert Foot.I found his e-mail and asked him what he thinks about Wasserman's theroy.Here is the correspondence,his reply is in bold:

"Did you hear/read G.D.Wassermann's book?

I haven't heard of his book
How do You regard his theory?

Sounds very speculative...
Do You agree that humans have 2 bodies/brains?

I don't think there is any evidence for this...and certainly is not expected if
"mirror matter" exists...
Even if so - You states that ordinary particles and mirror particles hase the same mass/lifetime?Does that mean that when the ordinary dies - the "mirror" dies too?

You see, the particles I'm talking about are the elementary ones, the electrons,
protons and neutrons (or more precisely quarks). I'm not talking about macroscopic
"particles" like you and me... Particle physics deals with the microscopic...
there is no reason that i can see that mirror partticles, if they exist,
should assemble into an exact copy of you and me..Is any connection between "mirror matter" to paranormal even rellevant?

no...

I think this is very unlikely."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There you go then, more evidence that Wasserman doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

 

[Alexander1304]

There you go then, more evidence that Wasserman doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Wassermann based his theory on publication in "Nature",April 1985 "Shadow world of superstring theories",made by few cosmologists.Moreover,as follows from the book review(the only detailed review publish on Intenret),Wassrmann postulated HIS version of the shadow matter.Here is from the review: "Shadow matter consists of dark twins of ordinary matter particles whose mode of interaction with particles of ordinary matter is restricted to gravity. For this reason, shadow matter would normally be expected to sink to the center of a planet such as the Earth. This does not happen in Wassermann's theory, because he postulates a much lighter variety of shadow matter than do Kolb et al. (Wassermann asserts that because Kolb et al.'s assumptions about the masses and modes of interaction of shadow matter particles are arbitrary, he is free to make his own assumptions.) The lowered mass of Wassermann's shadow matter may reduce its ability to account for much of the undetected "dark matter" in the universe, which is one of the main appeals of shadow matter in physics. Of course, even this lighter version of shadow matter should still quickly settle at the center of the Earth. Wassermann resolves this difficulty late in the book by asserting that the entire Earth has a shadow matter twin that prevents the surface-based shadow matter from sinking further."
Aren't too many arbitrary assumptions for good science?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Wassrmann postulated HIS version of the shadow matter...he postulates a much lighter variety of shadow matter...asserting that the entire Earth has a shadow matter twin that prevents the surface-based shadow matter from sinking further

This is not science, this is (at best) fiction. One cannot just make things up to explain phenomenon, there must be evidence.

 

[Alexander1304]

This is not science, this is (at best) fiction. One cannot just make things up to explain phenomenon, there must be evidence.

Thanks,Ryan.
You know I thought this theory is not worth because after 18 years it has just a few mentions/references.But on the other hand - how many other good theories were unnoticed at the beginning but later were recognized?
Right now I found only few references on this theory,and none of them are in good scientific sites.
Here is another piece from the review,of how precognition is explained in this theory: "After presenting a few spontaneous cases suggestive of precognition, he finally feels compelled to offer an account of the phenomenon in terms of his theory. He devotes a mere three pages to it, but what a three pages they are. He proposes that shadow matter copies of the entire Earth are continually being manufactured. These copies then shrink to a small size, enabling them to interact with the brain of percipients. Because time is accelerated on these shrunken copies of the Earth, a percipient may be able to peer into a future state of the world when he interacts with one of these miniature copies of the planet."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

He really is just grasping at straws there!

 

[Alexander1304]

He really is just grasping at straws there!

And,it is not clear how this theory can be tested(if at all).But Wassermann stated that the view that theory should be able to be tested is "datetd",in his vew.He states ,that it is enough that theory can "adequately explain" things.But do all agree with such view?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

And,it is not clear how this theory can be tested(if at all).But Wassermann stated that the view that theory should be able to be tested is "datetd",in his vew.He states ,that it is enough that theory can "adequately explain" things.But do all agree with such view?

He doesn't have a theory in the scientific sense, he has a poor hypothesis. He is putting forward an explanation for a phenomenon however his explanation is illogical, not based on current science and has neither evidence to support it nor research proposals to investigate it.

His opinion on the matter is moot, no explanation can ever be accepted on the basis of "it fits" without plenty of strong, independent evidence.

 

[Alexander1304]

He doesn't have a theory in the scientific sense, he has a poor hypothesis. He is putting forward an explanation for a phenomenon however his explanation is illogical, not based on current science and has neither evidence to support it nor research proposals to investigate it.

His opinion on the matter is moot, no explanation can ever be accepted on the basis of "it fits" without plenty of strong, independent evidence.

You know,I was initially intrigued by this theory,but found that it is difficult to discuss it for one simple reason - just few people read this book/heard about this theory.I e-mailed to famous paranormal author Alan Gauld,and to my luck he's read this book.His reply was brief and to the point: "The problem I had with Wassermann's book was that there was nothing it couldn't in some sense explain so that correspondingly it did not really explain anything.".
By the way,do you know Richard Carrier,from "Infidels" site?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You know,I was initially intrigued by this theory,but found that it is difficult to discuss it for one simple reason - just few people read this book/heard about this theory.I e-mailed to famous paranormal author Alan Gauld,and to my luck he's read this book.His reply was brief and to the point: "The problem I had with Wassermann's book was that there was nothing it couldn't in some sense explain so that correspondingly it did not really explain anything.".
By the way,do you know Richard Carrier,from "Infidels" site?

No I haven't, even if Wassermann's book explained everything perfectly if it has no evidence and no research proposals it is nothing more than speculation.

 

[Alexander1304]

No I haven't, even if Wassermann's book explained everything perfectly if it has no evidence and no research proposals it is nothing more than speculation.

And Douglas M.Stokes(the only detailed review on Internet) called this theory(hypothesis) "outlandishly speculative".
No,I'd to show you what Richard Carrier from "Infidels.org" wrote in reposnse to my question about his opinion on this hypothesis:
"The theory is, first, simply unproven: no evidence yet confirms any
shadow matter exists, nor that it would form structures like brains
at all (there is no evidence, even theoretically, that shadow matter
obeys any of the same laws of chemistry, e.g. you would need shadow
carbon forming shadow neurons using shadow electron bonds, and no
shadow matter theories even posit such things), much less that normal-
matter brains cause identically arranged shadow-matter brains to form
and follow them around. Thus "outlandishly speculative" is an apt
description. You may as well claim souls consist of shadow peanut
butter that obeys a completely invented psychic physics.

The theory is, second, fatally implausible: it requires assuming
(without any justification) that the disassembly of the normal-matter
brain structure would leave the shadow-matter brain assembled, which
is implausible, since the shadow brain could only correlate to the
normal brain if changes in the structure of the normal brain, e.g.
memories of what just happened, caused identical changes in the
shadow brain (so that it can remember even what was going on or who
they even are or what objects look like, what words mean, etc.). But
if changes in the normal brain cause identical changes in the shadow
brain, then the death of the normal brain (a rather dramatic
structural change indeed) would cause the death of the shadow brain.

And finally, it's demonstrably false. If shadow matter could "see"
normal matter (as it would have to do to have an "experience" after
death of the operating room, etc.) and likewise "hear" sounds (which
are vibrations in normal matter) it would have to interact
energetically with photons and sound waves, and that interaction
would be scientifically observable. As it is never observed, we can
conclude no shadow matter interactions occur, therefore there can be
no shadow brains hovering above the dead."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Douglas M. Stokes has it bang on in my opinion. As I said earlier, one must be wary of people searching for evidence to fit their conclusions.

 

[Alexander1304]

Douglas M. Stokes has it bang on in my opinion. As I said earlier, one must be wary of people searching for evidence to fit their conclusions.

As for evidence,Wassermann demonstrated that :"Wassermann cites examples of hydrocephalic people with high IQs despite having minimal cortical tissue as evidence that the shadow matter brain may develop normally and permit the development of elaborate conceptual skills despite the inadequacies of the ordinary matter brain."

I am not sure how credible such "evidence" is,though.And this is the only "evidence" demonstrated

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As for evidence,Wassermann demonstrated that :"Wassermann cites examples of hydrocephalic people with high IQs despite having minimal cortical tissue as evidence that the shadow matter brain may develop normally and permit the development of elaborate conceptual skills despite the inadequacies of the ordinary matter brain."

I am not sure how credible such "evidence" is,though.And this is the only "evidence" demonstrated

This is not evidence at all. Hydro- or even microcephalic conditions have many causes and features. High IQ individuals with hydrocephaly are evidence for the adaptability of brain function.

Examples like this are clear indications that the proponent is grabbing at straws. As Stokes has adequately pointed out in the second paragraph you cite any shadow brain under Wassermann's hypothesis would faithfully replicate the normal matter brain. It is nonsensical to advocate that shadow matter brains change in personality and memory in line with the normal matter brain (they would have to otherwise how could he account for personality change and memory loss over time?) yet claim that when the normal matter brain is damaged the shadow matter brain takes over.

In addition how can he account for conditions that, unlike hydrocephaly, do not develop gradually? If his hypothesis that; shadow matter brains follow our normal ones around, disconnect to live on separately after our death and take on brain function during brain damage was true then we would never see brain damage. Indeed that would be good evidence that the brain is not the seat of the mind.

Wassermann is just becoming desperate to protect his faith in the paranormal and life after death by modifying his hypothesis in an ad hoc manner that often contradicts his previous statements.

 

[Alexander1304]

This is not evidence at all. Hydro- or even microcephalic conditions have many causes and features. High IQ individuals with hydrocephaly are evidence for the adaptability of brain function.

Examples like this are clear indications that the proponent is grabbing at straws. As Stokes has adequately pointed out in the second paragraph you cite any shadow brain under Wassermann's hypothesis would faithfully replicate the normal matter brain. It is nonsensical to advocate that shadow matter brains change in personality and memory in line with the normal matter brain (they would have to otherwise how could he account for personality change and memory loss over time?) yet claim that when the normal matter brain is damaged the shadow matter brain takes over.

In addition how can he account for conditions that, unlike hydrocephaly, do not develop gradually? If his hypothesis that; shadow matter brains follow our normal ones around, disconnect to live on separately after our death and take on brain function during brain damage was true then we would never see brain damage. Indeed that would be good evidence that the brain is not the seat of the mind.

Wassermann is just becoming desperate to protect his faith in the paranormal and life after death by modifying his hypothesis in an ad hoc manner that often contradicts his previous statements.

Ryan,
Thanks for the reply and I agree with what you said.The only thing,the second paragraph you mentioned is not of Stolkes,but of Richard Carrier from infidels - his kind direct reply to me when I asked his opinion about this hypothesis.I wish I could e-mail to Douglas Stokes! - just don't have his e-mail address
But that's minor point
And regarding to Wassermann's claim that this would demonstrate that shadow matter brain could develop normally Stoke writes in his review: "He does not explain how this is supposed to occur if the SMB is constructed as an exact copy of the ordinary matter body."

 

[Alexander1304]

Wassermann is just becoming desperate to protect his faith in the paranormal and life after death by modifying his hypothesis in an ad hoc manner that often contradicts his previous statements.

Douglas Stokes also noted this in his review,pointing that "In general, he seems to vacillate between his version of shadow matter and the more orthodox version in which shadow matter is assumed to interact only gravitationally, thus indicating that he has not thought the properties of shadow matter in his theory through in a consistent manner.