CHAPTER III

APPLICATION TO CERTAIN OF THE FACTS ELICITED BY PSYCHIC RESEARCH

In this chapter I propose to give some instances of the way in which the higher space hypothesis throws light on certain Psychic Phenomena which, without its aid, appear extremely obscure and difficult of explanation, but I shall make no attempt to cover the whole range of phenomena known to students.

Some are not yet, in my opinion, sufficiently well authenticated to necessitate consideration, and those which are, some--such as Telekinesis, Prevision, and certain aspects of unconsciousness--are more conveniently treated in later chapters; others are so mysterious as to render any attempt at explanation premature until we have a wider and firmer foundation of fact on which to build; others again, such as thought transference or Telepathy, will probably prove explicable without introducing the Higher Space hypothesis in any direct connection.

There are some, however, which may well be considered here.

The first, and by far the most important problem which confronts us in attempting to form an idea of post-mortem conditions, or of the existence of personality apart from the physical body, lies in the fact that we cannot conceive of personality as absolutely disembodied--as pure essence. Yet we know that if personality does in fact survive physical death, it must do so in some form, completely non-material in the ordinary sense of the word, which is invisible, impalpable, in short entirely imperceptible, to our normal senses.

Probably it is the difficulty of conceiving such a mode of existence which has chiefly prevented physical scientists, as a whole, from accepting the obvious interpretation of the evidence for Survival offered by various Psychic phenomena.

Few people, I think, who have studied the literature of the subject, would be prepared to deny that Survival is, at least, strongly indicated by the evidence in question.

But this difficulty of conceiving a state of existence, at once real and non-physical, has induced scientists to prefer to seek an explanation of the observed facts in terms of Thought transference, Secondary personality and so forth.[1]

But as soon as we introduce the concept of the Fourth Dimension this difficulty disappears.

We have but to suppose that after physical death the Individual consciousness is embodied in a vehicle organised, not from physical matter, but from Four-dimensional matter, _i.e._, that which, in four space, corresponds to what we call "Matter" in three space.

Such a vehicle fulfills the required conditions in every way. It is scientifically real--that is to say, it has its habitat in a region as subject to law and as susceptible to mathematical analysis as the three dimensional world in which we at present live.

And yet it must be supposed to be, of its very nature, inapprehensible by our normal physical senses.

We are thus enabled to understand how those who have left this physical world may, although discarnate, be none the less as truly _alive_ as ever, close to us and yet invisible, constantly in touch with us and yet beyond our normal ken.

This is the first and supremely important application of the hypothesis and it is impossible to over-emphasise it.

* * * * *

Of the more specific phenomena suitable for discussion here, I will first deal with Clairvoyance.

This is probably far from being a simple phenomenon of unvarying nature. There would appear to be at least four varieties and it is possible that as our knowledge of the subject increases we shall come to recognise still more.

The four at present distinguishable may be denoted as follows:--

(1) So-called "Etheric Clairvoyance." This is apparently no more than a heightening of the ordinary powers of vision.

(2) Perception of objects and contemporary events more or less removed in space from the percipient and invisible by ordinary means.

(3) Perception of non-material objects or events; as when a clairvoyant describes the appearance of a deceased person alleged to be present in "spirit form."

(4) Clairvoyance in time. That is to say the perception of future events--Prevision--or of past events--Postvision.

Instances of each of these four forms are abundant and amply verified except, perhaps, in the case of class 3 where verification is scarcely possible.

It is easy to understand how clairvoyance of the first type arises. We know that light consists of very rapid vibrations in the ether which impinge upon the retina and cause the sensation of sight. We also know that if a beam of white light is passed through a triangular glass prism it is bent aside and split up into the seven colours of the rainbow, viz., Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet. The resulting band of colour is called a Spectrum. If the Spectrum so obtained is thrown upon a screen and a number of people are asked to mark thereon the limits of what they can see it will be found that these limits vary considerably.

We know, too, that there is a wide range of light-vibrations beyond the furthest of these visible limits, for although our eyes do not respond to them the photographic plate does. We also know that some of these vibrations will penetrate substances which are opaque to ordinary light although the opposite is the case for some substances. This is particularly the case with "ultra-violet" light which consists of vibrations more rapid even than those of violet light which are themselves the most rapid in all the visible spectrum. It seems reasonable therefore to suppose that certain people with abnormal retinæ or in an abnormal condition might be especially sensitive to these ultra-violet rays and that they might not only see things invisible to us but even see them _through_ obstacles which are opaque to the sort of light to which normal eyes respond.

This explanation may serve for certain simple cases of clairvoyant vision but it soon breaks down because the visual image of any object seen in this way must be liable to confusion by the superimposed images of intervening objects.

Suppose for instance that a clairvoyant wishes to see, by this method, what is written on page 100 of a closed book. We will suppose that the covers and paper of the book are transparent to some kind of ultra-violet light to which the eye of the clairvoyant responds, whereas the ink is opaque to the same light.

On looking at the book the writing on page 100 would be visible all right, but so would that on the preceding 99 pages; it would, therefore, be practically impossible to read the 100th page.

It will be seen, therefore, that clairvoyance of this type must be of very limited scope and cannot be held to account for cases of the second type where the clairvoyant perceives events happening at a considerable distance, amounting in some instances to a matter of hundreds of miles.

I freely admit that at present I am not prepared to give an explanation of all cases where the distances involved are very large.

But to cases where the incidents or objects perceived are reasonably near the percipient, the higher space hypothesis offers a simple and elegant solution.

Consider the two dimensional analogue.

Suppose that "A" Fig. 7, represents a two-dimensional observer and that X, Y, and Z are two-dimensional closed spaces, rooms, houses, or what not. The interiors of these closed spaces will be invisible to "A." All he will be able to see will be a straight line as at "B," for the boundaries of X, Y, and Z will be opaque and impassable to him.

But now suppose that he were to be lifted up vertically, out of the plane of the paper altogether. He would from this new position be able to see the interiors of X, Y, and Z, together with any two space incidents occurring therein. They would present approximately the appearance shown in Fig. 7 and the degree of foreshortening would diminish with the height to which he ascended above the plane of the paper.

In a precisely analogous manner we must suppose that three-dimensional obstructions do not exist for, and that the interiors of closed three-dimensional spaces are entirely open to, anyone who could regard them from a point situated in four space, _i.e._, removed from three space to a suitable distance in the direction of the fourth dimension. The greater this distance the less will be the foreshortening and the greater will be the range of vision.

There would be no question of intervening objects obscuring the view, simply because, in four space, three space objects do not intervene--the view of X in Fig. 7 is in no way obscured by the presence of Y or Z.

Compare with this the statements of many clairvoyants to the effect that when in the clairvoyant state they can, and do, see the front, sides, back, and every internal point of three space objects simultaneously.

The parallel is almost irresistible in its significance. Compare also the following case given by Professor de Morgan, and which is typical of the very numerous cases of this nature on record.

In this case the percipient was a little girl who was undergoing mesmeric treatment for fits by Mrs. de Morgan. While in the mesmeric state she was desired to follow Professor de Morgan mentally to the house at which he was dining and which was totally unknown to the child. The girl got there at once and gave an accurate description of the room in which the Professor was, the furniture which it contained, the people to whom he was talking and various small incidents which took place. On his return Professor de Morgan confirmed every detail of the description.

This is, of course, a very condensed resumé of the occurrence. Interested readers should consult contemporary Psychic literature which abounds with such cases. The point is that no amount of retinal hypersensibility will so much as begin to explain this sort of case, whereas it is not so utterly incomprehensible when we introduce the idea that the percipient may have been seeing four-dimensionally.

It is hardly necessary to observe that the sense organs involved cannot be the physical eyes. They must be supposed to belong to the four dimensional vehicle.

In attempting to explain this second type of clairvoyance along these lines, there seem to be two main difficulties involved and these are admittedly very great.

First, how is it that the four space vehicle possesses organs capable of perceiving three space objects and incidents? One would expect it to respond to four space impressions only.

Secondly, as soon as the distances involved become more than quite small it is very difficult to conceive how the percipient can simultaneously describe the events by the use of physical speech mechanism and also perceive them from a point of view which must be supposed to be very considerably removed in the direction of the fourth dimension.

A correspondent of my own who appears to possess this power of clairvoyance at a distance in a remarkable degree and to be able to exercise it at will, tells me that when she is seeing a distant scene, she is yet so closely in touch with her physical body that she is conscious of moving her hand, for example.

It is difficult to account for this on the four dimensional or any other theory.

I have no wish to minimise these difficulties or to claim that the introduction of the Higher space hypothesis clears up the whole matter. It does nothing of the sort.

But it does give us a dim inkling of what the general nature of the causes at work may be, especially as regards the power of "internal vision" mentioned above and which I particularly wish to emphasise.

This is more than can be said of any alternative theory with which I am acquainted.

Future study will probably show that this class of phenomena is far from simple and is really capable of being resolved into a number of sub-classes, each requiring its own appropriate explanation.

It is interesting to note that Mr. C.W. Leadbeater, the well-known Theosophical writer and clairvoyant, definitely introduces the four-dimensional concept in his book on Clairvoyance and ascribes the power of long-range perception to the intervention of what he calls an "astral telescope"; but there would appear to be no evidence in support of this idea beyond the _ipse dixit_ of the writer and even he is very vague on the point.

The third form of clairvoyance, namely, the perception of non-physical things, is readily explicable on the hypothesis which we are considering.

Just as the physical body has sense organs adapted for the perception of physical things, so the four-dimensional body or "vehicle" will presumably possess analogous organs adapted for the perception of four-dimensional things.

In ordinary persons, we must suppose either that these organs are almost completely undeveloped, or else that the mechanism, whereby the impressions received are conveyed to the consciousness and recorded as memories, is defective or inhibited.

In the clairvoyant on the contrary we may suppose that they are well developed and active and that he is able consciously to perceive by their aid.

In advancing this explanation of the third form of clairvoyance, I do not wish it to be thought that I attribute an objective origin to all visions of objects which have no obviously physical reality.

Hallucination is often a _vera causa_ and indeed it is comparatively seldom that we can eliminate it with certainty.

But I do not think it can legitimately be applied to all visions of this class.

The point is of some interest and worthy of a moment's thought even though it involves a digression from the main topic.

The essence of hallucination is that it should have a purely subjective origin and be unfounded on objective reality.

If I were to look round and find my sofa occupied by three green cassowaries playing nap I should, I think, be justified in assuming that I was the victim of an hallucination having no foundation in objective fact. It would, presumably, have arisen from a simultaneous excitation of the memory centres associated with the game of nap, cassowaries, the number three, and the sensation of greenness, occasioned, more or less fortuitously, by over-work or alcoholic excess.

On the other hand if I were to see the figure of an old man with a long white beard, one front tooth missing, shaggy eyebrows, black velvet smoking jacket, gold watch and chain, and so forth and were subsequently to find that such a person, answering the description in every detail, and previously entirely unknown to me, had really once lived, or was still living, then the view that this vision was the result of pure hallucination, would be untenable.

The probabilities against any chance stimulation of memory centres giving rise to precisely that combination of characteristics, are immeasureably large.

In such cases--and they are by no means unknown--we must attribute some degree of objectivity to the origin of the vision.

This is of importance in view of the tendency in some quarters to dismiss all such visions as purely hallucinatory.

We shall see later that the problems connected with Prevision and Postvision are also, if not completely explained, at least rendered less utterly incomprehensible by the introduction of the higher space hypothesis.

With the third class of clairvoyant phenomena is closely associated that group of facts known as "Phantasms of the Living, of the Dying, and of the Dead."

Certain aspects of the dream state, again, seem to be related to clairvoyance at a distance and are conveniently dealt with here.

Let us follow up the idea of a four-dimensional vehicle and see what light, if any, it throws on these questions.

Let us suppose that the four-dimensional vehicle becomes detached from, and loses touch with, the three-dimensional physical body during unconsciousness; or rather that unconsciousness is due to this detachment.

It follows that the "Ego" embodied in this four-dimensional vehicle can no longer receive impressions through the three-dimensional sense organs and that it is wholly dependent for communication with the outside world on those which belong to the four-dimensional vehicle. The nature of the impressions received will depend on the degree of development of these organs.

If they are completely undeveloped the Ego will be utterly oblivious of its surroundings, whereas if they are well developed the reverse will be the case and we may suppose the Ego to be as fully cognizant of the surrounding world as we are in ordinary waking life. It is interesting to compare with this the statements of those who claim to have consciously explored the "Astral plane" or four space world. They often describe sleepers as being present, but "in a brown study." Compare also the statement often found in communications purporting to emanate from discarnate personalities to the effect that, "We have seen so-and-so, but do not know whether he is dead or not."

Of course, it by no means follows that it will be possible, even under these latter conditions, to remember in waking life the impressions received during unconsciousness. On the contrary we should expect this to be the exception rather than the rule.

In their passage from sense organ to consciousness the impressions received will, _ex hypothesi_, not pass through the physical brain and the memory centres with which they become associated may be located in a position which is inaccessible to consciousness when embodied in the physical vehicle.

It would be possible, though not perhaps absolutely necessary, to account on these lines for the impression which most people have sometimes had, of apparently "remembering" a place which they have certainly never visited previously in waking life. They might, however, on this theory, have done so in sleep.

It would also account for those dreams in which the dreamer perceives an incident at a distance which is subsequently verified.

As for the ordinary chaotic dream, this, it seems to me may be accounted for in either of two main ways. If we suppose that the stimulation of certain cells (memory centres) in the brain causes an uprush into consciousness of the associated item of memory or "souvenir," it is not unreasonable to suppose that such stimulation is going on _in the body_ all the time. But it will only be in the state, intermediate between profound sleep and waking, that these aroused souvenirs will, on the one hand get through to the consciousness--which in deep sleep is separated from the body altogether--and, on the other will escape over-ruling by the Will or obliteration by the influx of normal sensory impressions.

This would account for the fact that the majority of dreams appear to be of very short duration and to take place in the very act of waking.

The other cause of ordinary dreams is probably in its general nature suggestive. That is to say the Ego cut off from the outside world by the imperfections of its four-dimensional senses is quiescent, and in a state peculiarly favourable for the telepathic picking up of stray thoughts which suggest dreams.

This of course is especially the case when the dream is deliberately suggested by a hypnotic specialist, as is sometimes done.[2]

The subject of Phantasmal apparitions is also both complex in its varieties and obscure as to its causes.

The commonest explanation, namely, the telepathic influence of the percipient by the agent, does not seem to me to be applicable to every case. For instance, it is difficult to conceive how a man shot through the head can visualise himself sufficiently clearly at that moment to project a telepathic image of himself, including the wound, to the percipient. And, more generally, it is probable that few of us could visualise our own appearance with sufficient accuracy to do more than convey, telepathically, a vague general impression. On the other hand, if we are to suppose that the details are filled up, so to speak, by the percipient, how are we to explain accurate perception of clothing and so forth of which the percipient could have no knowledge?

Finally, the whole telepathic theory seems weak in this respect. If I in the act of death, vehemently long for, or think of, a certain person, it is clear that the thought in my mind which is most likely to be transmitted to the brain of a percipient will not be the thought of myself--still less of my own appearance--but rather of the other person. Why should this suggest _me_ to his mind?

In experimental telepathy it is the idea on which the agent concentrated his mind that is transmitted to the percipient, not some other idea, and I see no reason for supposing that this is not always the case.

In cases where the apparition has been deliberately produced as the result of an act of will on the part of the agent, the apparition has invariably been preceded by the agent concentrating his mind on the person to whom he wishes to appear, _not_ on himself.

In view of these considerations I frankly do not see how the telepathic theory can be unreservedly maintained.

When we add that in some of these experimentally produced cases the agent has himself seen the percipient and given details, subsequently verified, of the circumstances prevailing at the percipient's end; and then compare this with certain of the varieties of clairvoyance at a distance, we must surely admit that the supposition that the agent was really present, though not in the physical body, is by far the simplest explanation.

For cases of this sort the reader should consult "Phantasms of the Living." Some good selected instances are also given in "Death, it's Causes and Phenomena," by Messrs. Carrington and Meader.

The idea that conscious existence in a vehicle other than the physical body is possible even during life is borne out to some extent by the evidence of those who testify to having seen their own body, from outside, while in a state of unconsciousness. An interesting one is given in the above mentioned work. The narrator describes how as he lay in bed he felt a cold sensation creeping up his legs from the feet and gradually extending throughout his body. After this had gone on for some time he became momentarily unconscious and on coming to himself again "seemed to be walking on air" and to be entirely free from his body. He thought of a friend who was some hundreds of miles distant and in a few seconds he found himself in the presence of his friend in circumstances which he describes. His friend spoke to him but he could not stay. After much difficulty and perplexity he decided that he ought to return to his body and as soon as he had made up his mind on the point he found himself looking at his apparently dead body propped up in bed as he had been when this experience began. He tried to control it and in due course was able to do so and after a time successfully "re-embodied" himself apparently none the worse for his experiences.

The credentials of this case are good, and it is important to note that the friend referred to wrote spontaneously to say that he had seen the narrator at the time and in the circumstances which the latter describes.

For this reason it can hardly be dismissed as a mere hallucination or dream and it is relevant to the present discussion because the narrator saw his own body from outside and was apparently embodied all the time in a vehicle of some sort.

Another somewhat similar and equally remarkable case is given in the same work. This I shall deal with in a later chapter. In view of the foregoing considerations, I think it fair to say that the idea of a non-physical vehicle of consciousness capable, under the proper conditions, of temporary detachment from the physical body, has strong claims to be adopted as a working hypothesis for future investigations even though it is too early, as yet, to accept it as a proven fact.

It certainly seems to clear up certain cases of apparition and abnormal acquisition of information as to distant events, in a way which other theories do not do without being strained to an extent which I regard as unwarrantable.

It seems probable that the chief reason why such an hypothesis has not been adopted before is simply the difficulty of conceiving the nature of such a vehicle. But this is overcome if we suppose that it is four-dimensional.

The theory has, of course, its own attendant difficulties and I have no desire disingenuously to ignore them.

First it may be asked: How does the percipient see the apparition? For four-dimensional objects are, _ex hypothesi_ invisible to three-dimensional sight.

Second: Why does the four-dimensional vehicle present the exact appearance of the three-dimensional body--clothes and all?

Third: How can it speak, _i.e._, set up vibrations in three-dimensional matter, as it is sometimes recorded as doing?

It is admittedly far from easy to answer these questions, in the light of our present knowledge.

As regards the first, I should feel disposed to say that such apparitions would be the rule rather than the exception, were it not for the fact that only those whose four-dimensional organs are fairly well developed can see them. Even so it may be that they are only called into activity as a result of some special "rapport" existing between the agent and the percipient.

Professor Joire, in his book "Psychical and Supernormal Phenomena" points out that in nearly every case the percipient is in a state which he describes as "superficial somnambulism or passive mediumship" _i.e._, in some condition which from the facts of Hypnosis we may consider to be especially favourable to the receiving of supernormal impressions of any kind.

This observation appears highly relevant and important.

The second difficulty may be met, though not, I must admit, in a particularly convincing manner, by supposing that the four-dimensional vehicle is so mobile and plastic, in respect to appropriate forces, that it is capable of being moulded by the mere power of will.

It would thus take the form which the agent commonly associated with himself, or which he observed his physical body to have after he had left it.

It would be possible to adduce a number of considerations in support of this view, but none of them are in any way conclusive and I therefore leave the reader to form his own opinion on the matter.

As regards the third point, there are two possible answers which might be offered.

On the one hand it might be suggested that the words heard are really objective; the result, that is to say of actual vibrations in the atmosphere, and that this result is produced because, in all such cases, the percipient is sufficiently mediumistic to provide the necessary material for the agent to "work up" some form of speaking apparatus. This is very difficult to conceive as possible, and yet we must suppose some such process to be involved in the production of the "Direct Voice," a phenomenon which, though baffling, seems well authenticated.

But this is rendered improbable by the cases where the speaking agent has been a living person, who records no such process as having taken place.

Besides, it is grossly improbable that a living person, or for that matter a newly 'dead' person, would know how to perform this operation.

The most probable explanation seems to be a combination of telepathic communication between the agent and the percipient accompanied by an auditory hallucination on the part of the latter. This would be, I think, quite natural.

These difficulties are much reduced, though not entirely removed, if we suppose that the agent is embodied, not in the four-dimensional vehicle, but in what, for lack of a better word, is called the "Etheric Double." This appears to be of a semi-material nature and is discussed at length in the chapter dealing with "The Connecting Link."

But this supposition would involve special difficulties of its own.

There is reason to suppose that the "Etheric Double," if it exists at all, is incapable of moving far from the physical body during life and it does not appear well adapted for use as a vehicle after death.

But on this point I shall have more to say later.

Generally speaking, it seems probable that no one of these explanations will be found to cover all the cases in question. But each is likely to prove applicable to some of them, although much careful investigation and analysis will be necessary before we can hope to be able to allot each case to its true cause with any degree of assurance.

None the less I am convinced that the hypothesis of a four-dimensional vehicle, detachable on occasion from the physical body, puts us, at least, on the right track.

I will now turn to the consideration of a series of phenomena which, from the point of view of the higher space hypothesis, are of far greater interest and significance than any we have yet considered.

I refer to the phenomena of "apport" and of "apparent penetration of matter by matter."

If we have a closed room, of which all the windows, doors, and other apertures have been carefully shut and sealed, it is clearly impossible to introduce any solid object into that room, by normal means, without breaking the seals and opening one of the apertures. The same would apply to a closed, locked and sealed box.

But the literature of Psychical research abounds with instances where objects are alleged to have been introduced into such closed and sealed rooms and boxes--or removed from them, which comes to the same thing--_without_ breaking the seals. This is the phenomenon of "apport" properly so called and it forms a special case of the more general class of "apparent penetration of matter by matter."

Other cases of the latter are the tying of knots in an endless cord of such a nature that they can only be untied by breaking the cord or separating its previously sealed ends; or the passing, on to the wrist or ankle of some person or other, of a ring so small that it could not possibly be pushed on over the hand or foot.

A very good test would be the interlinking of two rings turned from different sorts of wood--as was attempted without success in the Slade-Zöllner investigation; or the passing of a piece of weldless drawn steel tube on to the middle portion of an ordinary wooden dumb-bell.

With regard to these phenomena I propose, first, to show in what their very great importance lies and then to discuss the nature of the evidence we have for their actual occurrence.

If the reader will refer back to the first chapter, he will at once perceive why I laid what must have appeared to be unnecessary stress on the fact that "rooms" and "boxes" which would appear to be absolutely closed to a two space being would be perfectly open to us who live in a three space world. Just as every point in the interior of a two space figure is absolutely open in the direction of the third dimension, so we must suppose from analogy that the interior of a closed three space figure--a box or room--is perfectly accessible from the direction of the fourth dimension.

Consequently on the hypothesis that four space actually exists as a reality, and is peopled by intelligent beings, possessed of the necessary "apparatus"--whatever that may be--the explanation of the phenomenon of apport is quite simple.

We have only to suppose that the object in question is moved out of the containing space, in the direction of the fourth dimension, and then put down again into three space outside the box or room in which it originally was. Or conversely, when it is a question of introducing an object _into_ a closed space.

During transit, the object would, of course, be located entirely outside of three space.

I will not go at length into the question of how the tying of knots in an endless cord could be performed in four space. Any reader who cares to tie together the two ends of a piece of string for himself, will soon realise that it is not possible then to tie a simple knot in the string without untying the ends. If such an operation were to be performed, under test conditions, it would clearly be a case of apparent penetration of matter by matter.

Consider this case which is analogous to that of the steel tube and the dumb-bell suggested above:

Let A and B be two space objects. Fig 8. A two space being could not conceive of their being brought into the second position shown in the figure.

But we, having the advantage of a third dimension of space could very easily pick up the object A and put it down in the second position with regard to B. Similarly a four space being of sufficient knowledge and manipulative ability could, theoretically, slip on to the middle part of the dumb-bell a piece of steel tube of a diameter too small to be passed over the two large ends. There are, of course, a large number of variations which could be introduced into this class of experiment but the foregoing will be sufficient to indicate their salient features.

For the purpose of detailed consideration I shall deal only with the case of the removal of a solid object from the interior of a closed and sealed box, which is typical of the whole of this class of phenomena.

Let it be clearly understood that at the moment I am not expressing any opinion as to whether this or any allied phenomenon has actually occurred. I am concerned merely with the inferences we should be compelled to draw if such an occurrence were substantiated scientifically beyond all possibility of doubt.

We have seen that given four-dimensional space as a reality and an intelligent four-dimensional being equipped with the necessary knowledge, powers, facilities and so forth, which I have included under the general term of "apparatus" the thing could be done in a comparatively comprehensible manner, although the actual manipulative details would still require clearing up.

The question now arises: Is this the only conceivable _modus operandi_ that could bring about the same result? It is not. There is one other, and so far as I know only one other, theory which has been advanced to account for this type of phenomenon.

It has been supposed that the solid object in question is dissociated, by some obscure means, into ultra-atomic particles, is passed in this condition through the walls of the box and finally "integrated" again into its original form outside the box.

Now, apart from the obvious difficulty of imagining how these ultra-atomic particles are integrated into the precise form originally possessed by the object, this theory has at first sight a certain plausibility.

We know that all matter is probably susceptible of dissociation in a fashion that was originally supposed to be the exclusive property of Radium and other Radio-active substances.[3]

If, then, we postulate the existence of intelligent beings in a non-physical state of existence, there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that certain of them have acquired a sufficient knowledge of physical laws to enable them to effect a process of this nature artificially.

I do not say that this idea commends itself to me; but it is the explanation most commonly offered for the phenomena in question, and this fact taken in conjunction with its _prima facie_ plausibility, entitles it to careful consideration before we dismiss it as untenable.

The real objection to it is a mere matter of Physics. The work of the scientists mentioned above goes to show that what we call matter is no more than a condensation of energy in the ether; and that the dissociation of matter is invariably accompanied by an enormous liberation of energy.

For calculations on this point the reader may refer to M. Le Bon's book "The Evolution of Matter."

Without going into such calculations it may be said that the amount of energy that would be liberated in the dissociation of a gramme of matter, would be amply sufficient, if it were produced in the form of heat, to fuse, and for that matter vaporise, the experimenters, the room, the whole house, and probably about half the town as well!

What becomes of this enormous quantity of energy which must be liberated during the process if the dissociation theory of the phenomena is correct? Why is its liberation not apparent, and painfully apparent, to the experimenters? How is it prevented from being dissipated and how is it collected again and recondensed into matter?

This point seems to me to be insuperable.

If the object within the box is dissociated, then energy must inevitably be liberated. If energy is liberated, then it cannot conceivably escape detection in such quantities.

I hope I have made my point clear. I am quite sure that any scientist accustomed to think in terms of energy will at once see the difficulty to which I allude.

I can see only one way out and that is to suppose that in some mysterious manner the liberated energy is stored in a "reservoir," so to speak, _which is not situated in our space at all_, and this at once lets us in for the original idea of a fourth dimension and higher space and all the rest of it.

Hence I maintain, and I think I have reason to maintain, that if these phenomena do actually occur at all, then we are compelled to admit that four-dimensional space does actually exist; and this no matter whether we accept as the proximate cause of the phenomena a simple four-dimensional movement or the far more elaborate and less satisfactory notion of dissociation and re-integration.

The reader will now understand why it is that I attach such great importance to these phenomena of apport and of the "apparent penetration of matter by matter."

If one of these phenomena could be established by absolutely incontrovertible experimental evidence, with the same degree of certainty, for instance, as the phenomenon of levitation without contact has been established by the recent researches of Crawford, I should regard the four-dimensional hypothesis as virtually proven.

I should be much interested to hear whether any interested reader can get out of the difficulty, assuming the authenticity of the phenomenon for the sake of argument, but I do not think that it will prove possible.

* * * * *

I will now pass to the consideration of the nature of the evidence that exists for the actual occurrence of this sort of phenomenon.

I will preface my remarks by two quotations from writers who appear to hold somewhat different views on the subject.

In "The Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism" Mr. Hereward Carrington says:

"Without now stopping to consider any _a priori_ speculations as to the scientific possibility or impossibility of such a thing; the mere historic evidence in the case would certainly seem to point to the conclusion that fraud and nothing but fraud has been operative throughout and is quite sufficient to account for all the phenomena observed (save in the case of W.S. Moses, perhaps, that stumbling block to the rationalistic psychical researcher), in the presence of professional mediums.... In fact _all_ these cases sift themselves down to the one primary consideration: could the medium, in spite of the searching, have introduced into the séance room, unseen by his sitters, the objects materialised."

It should be noted that the above refers to cases where the séance room is found, after the sitting, to contain objects which were certainly not there before. In this connection the last sentence of the passage quoted above is eminently justifiable and it is for this reason that I prefer to deal with varieties of the phenomenon which are more amenable to experimental control on the part of the experimenter; as for instance the removal of a solid object from the sealed box which we are considering.

Compare with this first quotation the following taken from Mr. Gambier Bolton's book "Psychic Force."

"During my sixteen years of experimental investigation into the question of the existence of this Psychic Force, the apparent penetration of matter by matter has been such a common occurrence at our experimental meetings, that unless this happens to take place in connection with some unusually large and ponderous object that is suddenly brought into our midst, or removed from the place where we are holding our meetings, I take but very little note of it. I could fill a large volume with instances where this has taken place in my own presence.... I am not engaged in an attempt to explain such things, but am merely recording phenomena which I myself have witnessed and which have been witnessed hundreds, nay thousands, of times by well-known investigators like Sir William Crookes and Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace under the strictest test conditions."

These two views are, to say the least of it, somewhat divergent. We must, therefore, see what is to be gathered from such original records as are available.

The _locus classicus_ of this sort of phenomenon is the Slade-Zöllner investigation of 1877-9.

This investigation has received so much attention that it is impossible to avoid giving it somewhat careful consideration here.

Johann Carl Friedrich Zöllner was born in 1834. He was Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leipsic, a member of many learned and scientific societies and the author of a number of scientific treatises.

He was assisted, from time to time, in his investigations by Professors Weber, Fechner, and Scheibner all of whom were men of considerable eminence in one branch or another of mathematical or physical science.

The medium in whose presence the phenomena were produced was the well-known "Dr." Slade. This medium has been demonstrated to have resorted to fraud with a certainty that admits of no dispute.

But, as Mr. Hereward Carrington points out, we ought not to allow this fact to influence us in the consideration of any particular case. In the first place it is fairly certain that mediums who are capable of producing genuine phenomena under suitable conditions are also liable to resort to trickery when the genuine thing does not come off. (Cp. the case of Eusapia Palladino.) In the second, too great a reliance on antecedents is apt to produce an unreliable _a priori_ prejudice. Every case should be considered on its merits alone and the medium's past history should only be allowed to influence our judgment if it can be shown that fraud has not been rigorously excluded and that the only argument against it is the argument from moral integrity.

In this case the argument from integrity is obviously inadmissible and as a matter of fact the precautions taken to guard against fraud were so very inadequate that we cannot accept the experiments in question as worth anything at all from the scientific point of view.

Zöllner's account of his experiments is to be found in his book "Transcendental Physics," translated into English by Mr. C.C. Massey in whom the author found an able and enthusiastic champion against his many critics.

Among the more important of his experiments were:

Production of knots in an endless string.

Slate writing under "test" conditions.

Disappearance and reappearance of solid objects.

Coins transferred from closed and fastened boxes.

Other instances of the apparent penetration of matter by matter.

The careful study of this book is of the greatest value as an exercise in the criticism of evidence and as a guide for anyone who proposes to study such matters at first hand.

I do not think that I can illustrate my meaning better than by a description of my own impressions in connection with the book.

When I first read it I was much impressed by the scientific eminence of those who bore witness to the authenticity of the events described.

I reflected that here we had a Physicist of no mean order, assisted by other scientists of European reputation, men trained, presumably, in the art of exact observation and not likely to be deceived by the manipulations of a conjuror. Surely we must believe their testimony if we are to assign any value to human evidence at all!

Then, as I thought over the matter more and became more convinced of the importance of the conclusions to be drawn from these experiments, if genuine, I felt that these considerations, although possessed of their own importance, were yet not sufficient to warrant acceptance of the evidence without careful examination of the intrinsic qualities of the latter.

On further study of the book I was struck by the fact that not one of the special experiments, carefully designed by Zöllner to establish the genuineness of the phenomena and the validity of the four-dimensional explanation beyond all doubt, had succeeded. This was suspicious, although not, of course, conclusive. Specially devised test experiments may very likely fail simply because they may involve the upsetting of some essential condition which is not fully understood by the experimenter. But when such experiments fail, while others of, apparently, identical general nature succeed, it gives one cause for thought.

Finally, when I came to examine the records of individual experiments in the light of the criticisms of Mr. Carrington, of Dr. Hyslop and others, I realised that the nature of the evidence was emphatically _not_ good enough to justify our accepting as demonstrated the facts which Zöllner claimed to have established.

I shall not waste my own time and that of the reader by giving numerous instances of the sort of thing I mean.

I will confine myself to the case that we are more especially considering as being typical of the whole of this class of phenomena, _i.e._, the case of the removal of a coin from a closed and fastened box.

Zöllner describes how in December 1877 he put some coins in a small cardboard box and had closed it by glueing a strip of paper round the sides. He had done this in the expressed hope that Slade might be able to remove them and thus give a proof of the reality of the fourth dimension which was Zöllner's pet hobby. In May 1878 Slade came again to Leipsic and performed the feat, at any rate to the satisfaction of Zöllner.

The box was put on a table together with some slates and other objects and Slade and Zöllner and his colleagues sat round. Zöllner satisfied himself by shaking the box that the coin was still inside and in answer to Slade's enquiries explained the purpose of the experiment and its importance if successful. There was a little preliminary slate writing and then Slade began staring into a corner of the room and saying "I see funf and eighteen hundred seventy six." Then a hard object was heard to fall on the slate which Slade had held under the table all the time and on withdrawing the slate it was found to be a five mark piece of date 1876. Zöllner then snatched up the cardboard box and shook it only to find that it was empty.

This is a very highly condensed description of the proceedings but I do not think I have been guilty either of "_suggestio falsi_" or of "_suppressio veri_".

Interested readers can refer to the original.

Now, if Zöllner had been writing no more than a casual account of a well-known experiment, inserted for the sake of completeness or for similar reasons, it would be well enough.

But to offer his account, in the face of a very natural scientific incredulity, as a conclusive demonstration of a highly controversial point, was an insult to one's intelligence.

There are numerous criticisms that might be made, but I shall confine myself to pointing out only the more conspicuous of them.

In this experiment there are two main methods by which the result might have been obtained by fraudulent means.

There seems no doubt that the coin was really in the box at the beginning of the sitting. We may equally accept the statement that the box shaken at the end of the experiment did not contain a coin.

On the hypothesis of fraud, therefore, one of two things must have happened.

Either Slade must have contrived, during the sitting, to possess himself of the box, open it, abstract the coin, close the box again, and return it to the table; or else he must have substituted for the box, which at the beginning of the sitting contained the coin, another (empty) box, previously prepared to resemble the original.

I do not think the former method to be at all likely.

One cannot unstick a length of glued paper and stick it up again in a few seconds unobserved.

On the other hand everything lends itself to the supposition that the second method was actually adopted.

In the first place we know that the box was prepared some six months previous to the experiment.

It is true that Zöllner is a trifle hazy as to dates, saying at the outset that Slade's first visit to Leipsic was in December 1877, and, later, that the first and second visits were in November and December 1877.

But this is comparatively immaterial, the point being that Slade had presumably had ample time and opportunity for finding out all about these boxes and for preparing substitutes. I say "presumably" because in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary, we have no reason to suppose that these boxes were kept in an inaccessible place or that Zöllner had never mentioned his intentions with regard to them to Slade himself or to anyone else. I consider then that so far as the records go, we are perfectly entitled to suppose that Slade was able to prepare, and, in fact, actually did prepare, an empty counterfeit box, externally similar to that prepared by Zöllner. The second, and almost incredible, point to be noticed is that apparently no steps of any sort were taken by Zöllner to identify either the box or the coin after the sitting with those originally prepared by him.

In fact, he definitely says that he had completely forgotten, indeed had never so much as observed, the value or dates of the coins used!

With such gross carelessness in the control, the trick becomes exceptionally easy to perform.

Slade goes to the séance armed, among other things, with an empty, counterfeit box resembling Zöllner's, also with a five-mark piece of the right date--I think that even Zöllner would have been suspicious if the coin that fell on the slate had been dated 1878! Zöllner shakes _his_ box--the genuine one--and satisfies himself that the coin is really there. Then follows a little preliminary play with the slate and so on, the simplest matter in the world to an artist like Slade. At the critical moment Slade diverts the attention of the experimenters from the table by the world-old conjuror's dodge of gazing fixedly in some other direction and murmuring "I see--see--funf," etc. While Zöllner and his colleagues are glancing in the same direction to see what he is looking at, Slade swiftly substitutes his counterfeit box for the original, and the trick is to all intents and purposes done. All he has now to do is to drop the coin which he brought with him on to the slate at any convenient moment and draw out the latter in triumph!

Given the astounding guilelessness of Zöllner and the complete lack of control revealed by the records, the thing was absurdly simple.

And yet Zöllner refers to it as having been performed under "such stringent conditions!"

The foregoing example will, I hope, make quite clear how much importance I attach to the Slade-Zöllner investigations.

I am not prepared to say that Slade never produced genuine phenomena, either with Zöllner or with anyone else.

On the contrary, I think it probable that he possessed a certain amount of genuine mediumistic power which, however, he did not hesitate to supplement by cheating when occasion offered.

Some, or for that matter all, of the Slade-Zöllner experiments may happen to have been genuine. But in view of the known untrustworthiness of Slade and the complete lack of proper scientific control revealed by a study of the published records we must write them off as quite valueless from a scientific point of view.

I have dealt with this particular case at some length partly on account of the vehemence of the controversies which have raged round it and partly because the discrediting of Zöllner's observations has done much to bring the whole idea of the fourth dimension into disfavour and even into ridicule. This, I feel, is unfair and I wish to make it clear that my present advocacy of the claims of the higher space hypothesis is in no way based on the Zöllner experiments.

There are, of course, in the literature of the subject a large number of other cases which are not so obviously unreliable--some, in fact, which are distinctly good.

Dr. S.A. Peters gives an account of an early experiment by Dr. Hare--one of the pioneer investigators--in which two small balls of platinum were transferred to the inside of two hermetically sealed glass tubes. It is not a bad case but is a very old one and the record gives no particulars of any special precautions taken to exclude fraud.

The Milan Committee appointed to investigate the mediumship of Eusapia Palladino failed to obtain any confirmation of Zöllner's experiments, but they seem to have been puzzled by an unaccountable incident where the medium managed to get into, or partially into, a coat while her hands were being held by the Committee. I do not myself regard this case as convincing.

The American Society for Psychical Research recorded some observations with a Mrs. Roberts of New York, who managed to liberate herself from a carefully made and sealed cage which was closed and sealed by members of the investigating committee. I do not know anything at first-hand about the credentials of this case. Dr. Paul Joire quotes it and I suppose, therefore, that he considers it reliable.

The same author also quotes at length a case observed by Dr. Pogorelsky and other Russian investigators with the medium Sambor. In this case a cane chair was passed on to the arms of two of the experimenters whose hands were clasped and bound together. That is to say, whereas to start with the chair was by itself and independent of them it was, at the end of the proceedings, found suspended from their arms by the opening at the back. As the opening was too small for either of them to have wriggled through even if they had wished to do so this was a clear case of apparent penetration of matter by matter.

The evidence in this case seems to be well above the average although it cannot be said to amount to mathematical certainty.

Mr. Gambier Bolton gives a distinctly good case in his book "Psychic Force," p. 65. Under exceptionally favourable conditions he observed the removal of a light table from a sort of tent which he had constructed and very carefully closed and secured. This is one of the best cases I know; it took place in the observer's own room, it was done impromptu, it was well observed in light, and all the objects concerned were the observer's property and not of a kind to admit of prestidigitation. It is difficult to see any way out of it and yet I must confess that I am not wholly satisfied. I feel that in every case there is just something more needed to carry complete conviction and I should very much like to see a good case myself.

Other instances are common. The records of the mediumship of Stainton Moses, for instance, abound with them. But as there were never any test conditions imposed, so far as I am aware, it follows that the question of the genuineness of the phenomena is simply a matter of the integrity of the medium. On this point every reader must be left to form his own opinion. Many authorities have professed the greatest confidence in Moses. Mr. Podmore, on the other hand, presents the suspicious features of the case in a very able criticism in his "Modern Spiritualism." Anyway on a point of such importance as this I do not think it would be right to allow the matter to be settled by any purely moral considerations of the type adduced in the case of Moses.

In general, then, I should say that the phenomena of the apparent penetration of matter by matter are not established with the same degree of certainty which characterises certain other phenomena, and which we ought to demand before accepting them as scientifically proven or utilising them without reserve as a basis for the construction of theories.

In the interests of the science it is in the highest degree important that experiments of this nature should be carried out under real test conditions.

Should any of my readers be so fortunate as to be acquainted with any medium capable of producing these very rare phenomena with regularity, I should esteem it a great favour if they would kindly inform me. I would very much like to arrange some definite experiments to settle the matter--if possible once and for all.

There is one other direction from which, in my opinion, we receive a strong hint that four-dimensional space is intimately connected with Psychic phenomena.

I refer to Crawford's work on table levitation. This investigation is undoubtedly destined to take rank as a "classical" research of the first magnitude and no one who professes to take an intelligent interest in the scientific and experimental aspects of Psychic investigations can afford to be without his book.[4]

In a later chapter I shall have occasion to refer to certain aspects of his results and to show how they fit in with those of other investigators working on very different lines.

In the present context I propose only to call attention to the rigidity of his "cantilever," a phrase which perhaps needs some explanation.

As a result of the most careful and painstaking researches extending over a period of nearly three years and performed under conditions which were singularly favourable for observation, he has been enabled to arrive at certain definite conclusions as to the mechanical causes of telekinesis in general and table levitation without contact in particular.

He finds that when the table is lifted clear of the floor it is supported by a definite structure or cantilever. This structure is invisible and impalpable, or nearly so, and appears to be organised out of some form of matter actually taken from the body of the medium.

Dr. Crawford has been able to work out the form and size of this structure with considerable accuracy. For the details of method and results the reader should consult his book. It is possible to pass a thin rod through this structure in any direction without causing a breakdown, and without encountering any perceptible resistance.

Nevertheless the structure can resist compressional, tensional and torsional stresses of very considerable magnitude as I am able to testify from personal experience.

I may mention here that I have witnessed these phenomena myself under good observing conditions and that I am prepared to certify in the most unequivocal manner that they are absolutely authentic; that is to say the result neither of fraud--conscious or unconscious--nor of illusion.

Indeed, I do not suppose that an intelligent person could suppose them to be due to anything of the sort after a careful study of Dr. Crawford's book, quite apart from any personal observation and I only add my own testimony as a small make-weight for what it may be worth.

We are here confronted with a sort of mechanical paradox. How can we conceive that the structure manages to combine the contrary attributes of rigidity and impalpability? Rigidity means simply the power of resisting deformation under stress. That is to say that in order for a body to be rigid it must be capable of developing within itself forces which shall counteract those which tend to deform it. If we apply a stress--a deforming force--to a rigid body, then this force must be met by some opposing force; otherwise the body will be deformed. Normally this is a matter of molecular cohesion, etc.

Now, this structure resists deformation under stress, and it therefore follows that the deforming forces must be counteracted by opposing forces.

But the structure is impalpable, and we can pass a rod through it in any direction without encountering any resistance.

This being so it is difficult to conceive how the forces resisting deformation can be applied from any direction in which we can move the rod, _i.e._, from any direction known and accessible to us.

The more one tries to think out what is involved in the idea of an impalpable and yet rigid structure, the more hopeless it seems.

But I think that the concept of four-dimensional space will help us even here.

We know two things. First that the structure is rigid and therefore that the deforming stresses are counteracted by opposing forces and, second, that these opposing forces are apparently not applied from any direction with which we are acquainted. But is it not possible that they may be applied from some direction with which we are _not_ acquainted?

From some direction, in fact, of which the hypothetical fourth rectangular axis of space is a component.

Is it possible that the matter which is drawn from the body of the medium, and which forms the structure, is composed of molecules whose atoms are arranged not in space of three dimensions but in space of four dimensions?

I do not say that this is necessarily so; but I must confess that to me it looks rather like it. Still less am I prepared to say that the atoms are arranged four dimensionally. We do not know enough for that yet. But it is, I think, a possibility, although for all I know to the contrary there may be many other ways in which forces operating in four space might act on three-dimensional atoms and molecules.

Consider a two-dimensional analogy again.

Imagine a number of flat-headed drawing pins lying points upward on a flat surface. Taken collectively as a system they will have no rigidity. Now imagine a board pressed down on those points so that they penetrate into the board. The points and the board alike will be invisible to the two space beings inhabiting the surface and yet the drawing-pins, taken collectively as a system would have acquired rigidity. Deforming stresses would be resisted by cohesive forces operating outside the two space surface altogether.

This analogy is, naturally, imperfect; but I think that it enables us to form some idea of the way in which the rigidity of the levitating structure might result from its being held together by binding forces operating outside our space.

The only alternative is to suppose that the particles of which the structure is composed are rendered rigid by virtue of some peculiar motion of the ether of a nature entirely unknown to us and different from any type of ethereal motion with which we are at present acquainted. This is palpably unsatisfactory and has the grave defect, in an explanation, of failing even to begin to explain.

In an article published in "Light," for July 14, 1917, I discussed this point in somewhat greater detail.

This is all that I have to say with respect to the phenomena which are essentially "Psychical." In the next chapter I shall deal with two other applications of the theory to more general questions.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Far be it from me to suggest that these last-mentioned factors play no part in the phenomena. On the contrary, their effect is at least very considerable, and does much to obscure and complicate the work of interpretation.]

[Footnote 2: NOTE.--The foregoing remarks on the subject of Dreams might be taken to imply an ignorance of the views inaugurated by Freud, and extended by Jung, Pfister, and others of the Psychoanalytic school. But I do not think that there is any fundamental contradiction involved. Even if, as this school tends to maintain, there is no dream without it's hidden and esoteric meaning, it is still perfectly legitimate to suppose that the _form_ which a dream takes may be determined by causes of the type which I have been discussing here. These would provide the raw material so to speak which would be worked up into the finished dream in accordance with Freudian principles.]

[Footnote 3: Compare the recent work of Rutherford, Soddy, Le Bon and others.]

[Footnote 4: "The Reality of Psychical Phenomena" (Watkins).]