In 1936, Isaac Newton’s private manuscripts were up for sale. The economist John Maynard Keynes purchased them at an auction at Sotheby’s. He was shocked by what he found when he began to go over the manuscripts. He realized that they were specifically and devotedly about alchemy, which led Keynes to declare that, “Newton was not the first scientist of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind that looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago.”

This is a profound thing to say. Up until this point Newton’s devotion to Alchemy wasn’t well known, minus the smallest cadre of disciples. That isn’t what is often taught when you learn about Newton in school. It is still the mainstream view to see Isaac Newton as a rational scientist who relies on logic and reason predominantly — a symbol of scientific realism.

Simultaneously, a debate was still on-going at the time which was perhaps the most critical debate of the early era of quantum mechanics. As is well known, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr were in high contention for the correct interpretation of the new science. This debate gained steam in 1935 with a paper published, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen and came to be known as the ‘EPR paradox’.

As the title suggests, it essentially states that quantum mechanics is incomplete in the Copenhagen interpretation, which states that two particles are capable of non-locally entangling with one another, and the true state of each particle remains unknown in an indeterminate superposition of probabilities. At least until a measurement is made on one of them, which only then reveals information about the other particle. The probability collapses into a definite state in which one particle seemingly instantaneously communicates information to the other faster than the speed of light. Only when a measurement is made on one can information be revealed about the other.

The EPR view was that there’s a more simple and determinist way to make sense of this seemingly contradictory and bizarre nature of quantum entanglement, which Einstein famously referred to as “spooky action at a distance”. He didn’t believe that the universe allowed for anything to be able to interact or influence anything outside the laws of relativity and locality, or that any communication or even correlation could happen faster than the speed of light, which entanglement seemingly violates. Einstein and others proposed that there were “hidden variables” that were deterministically at work accounting for the illusion of nonlocal interaction of particles, in which the paradigm of relativity and locality would remain intact.

It is curious that Isaac Newton’s private alchemy papers were hidden from the public for hundreds of years after he died in 1727, until they finally came to view at this same time in 1936. During the era of The Enlightenment, these papers were deemed “not fit to be printed” and were kept out of the public eye in order to promote Newton as a cold, calculating scientist whose approach was solely rooted in logic and reason. That these manuscripts suddenly appeared in the 20th century right alongside such an important scientific debate as quantum physics is possibly merely fortuitous, but it contains a synchronistic feeling to it, and this sense has led me to wonder something rather intriguing.

Is there a possible hidden or overlooked link between the alchemy papers and the unresolved paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics?

Maybe the sudden emergence of these arcane manuscripts in 1936 had a timing of some sort that nobody seemed to directly pay attention to; some sort of cosmic communication by Newton from the grave to the modern scientists, figuratively speaking.

Why alchemy? Isn’t that a form of superstition that science had simply yet to entirely throw off in Newton’s day?

This has always been an overly reductive, literalist view of alchemy. Alchemy has a famous maxim, “as above, so below”, which essentially states that everything in the universe is ultimately interconnected in a direct way; the macrocosm is linked to the microcosm and that nothing is ultimately separate from anything else in the entire universe. What happens in the cosmos happens in man, and man’s inner life is a reflection of the outer cosmos. The academical process was a form of allegorical metaphor pertaining to the transformations of the spirit, and the bubbling and boiling of chemicals in the alembic was reflected as an inner process of transmutation. As the inner gold is perfected, the alchemist becomes pure enough to perfect the outer laboratory work, and vice versa. If this is indeed true — this notion that everything is ultimately one with and not separate from anything else in the universe — then it could be important for our subsequent interpretation and understanding of quantum mechanics.

At least conceptually, paradoxes such as “spooky action at a distance” would suddenly make a lot more sense. If everything is interconnected in the entire cosmos, then certainly two particles can influence and interact with each other even if they are light years away from each other, which is exactly what entanglement allows. If everything is actually one whole, then non-locality would be allowed as opposed to only locality and relativity, which was what Einstein and the EPR were trying to argue.

But is there any evidence that actually points to Newton’s alchemy having anything at all to do with quantum mechanics? To that, consider his remarks in the General Scholium, which can be found at the very end of his Principia Mathematica (1687), the groundbreaking scientific and mathematical work on the laws of Gravitation:

“And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit, which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which Spirit, the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighbouring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propogated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explain’d in few words, nor have we at hand a sufficient number of experiments by which to determine and demonstrate the laws of action of this spirit accurately, as ought to be done.”

The General Scholium was added by Newton onto the second edition of the Principia as a final note of a rather speculative nature. He does not provide math and experiments for his topics of discussion, but merely asserts what he has a hunch to be true. He actually intended to make it much longer than it turned out to be, included with experimental results, but ended up leaving much of it out, probably due to its speculative, and at times alchemical, nature. Perhaps he felt that the public wasn’t ready to receive this message, so he sprinkled in some assertions instead.

It is also already known by a growing number of scholars that aspects of Newton’s alchemical ideas helped to frame his ideas and discoveries on Gravitation, and also his revelations on white light, thus directly influencing his Principia and Opticks (1704). For example, it is now well known that the very laboratory notebook that contains his full description and groundbreaking assertion that white light is a mixture of spectral colors is also filled with alchemical recipes, (gravity we will get to). So it comes as no surprise that he refers to this “electric spirit” in alchemical sources as well, such as this quote from his “De vita and morte vegetibili”, which was an unpublished manuscript and believed to be the formulations of the General Scholium. In it, he states that,

“All bodies have an electric force and that force is very strong in the surfaces of particles, but it’s not stirred far without friction or some other action.”

He then goes on to say,

“Through the electric force, the particles of bodies unite and cohere in different ways. And the smaller particles act more strongly and cohere more closely.”

What exactly was this “certain most subtle Spirit” that Newton was referring to that was “electric”, and which he implied could be manipulated or “stirred” with “friction or some other action”?

The ancient alchemists believed there were 4 elements, and in addition to that there was an invisible universal cosmic material that they called the Aether. It was regarded as the “prima materia” or prime raw essential matter of the cosmos. It was regarded as the 5th element that filled outer space and was the Quintessence that could be harnessed to create the Philosopher’s Stone; hence “as above, so below”. The concept of an Aether goes into the depths of antiquity and mixes history with mythology. These elements were rather more conceptual than elements in our modern understanding.

Solomon once defined it as:

“Fifth being of a mixed thing … Like a very subtle soul drawn from its body and from the superfluity of the four elements by a very subtle and very perfect distillation, and by that means it is spiritualized, that is, it becomes very spiritual, very subtle , very pure, as incorruptible, astral and celestial …”

In the tenth century, Hugo de Santalla in his “De secretis naturae” called it the,

“existence of a primordial element in the form of heat or igneous spirit, of subtle material consistency, which would be present throughout the universe, providing it with movement, communicating its parts, and that it would be able to both form and decompose any natural substance.”

It wasn’t just a spiritual or esoteric idea either. Scientists also embraced various concepts of an Aether, but with the Michelson-Morley Experiment in 1887, the Aether seemed a pure phantasm and was dropped altogether. It couldn’t be measured or found, so scientists were interested in it to the extent that it framed other understandings of the workings of nature, but they ultimately abandoned it.

It’s important to note that while many scientists, even Albert Einstein, contemplated an Aether, it originated in alchemical philosophy. So maybe this “electric Spirit” that Newton was speculating about is linked to what the ancient alchemists were talking about.

Consider the thought experiment presented in a previous article I wrote, wherein I speculate on something that I have called Volity Theory. I call it this because I believe it is a force which is volatile and yet volitional. I declare that dice rolling is a way to demonstrate the existence of the “Aether” via Volity, which is an occult force that might be harnessed through a sort of “mental gravity” imposed onto the subtle electric spirit that Newton was referring to, which “lays hid in all gross bodies”, thus warping the field of probability. I have seen my dice rolling as an alchemical process because it relates exactly to the experimenter playing a direct role in the experiment. Rolling (nonbiased) dice is a perfect way to take the quantum paradoxes of probability and zoom it out into the everyday macro world of classical physics.

Perhaps this is analogous to that complimentary force to Gravity that Newton was seeking. And we know that he was seeking or perhaps already privately felt that he had found this sort of sister force to Gravity in regards to the subatomic world due to more scraps of unpublished material of his. The following is a quote from his unpublished Book IV of Opticks, which was intended to be a uniting theory of the Principia and the first three books of Opticks:

“As all the great motions in the world depend upon a certain kind of force (which in this earth we call gravity) whereby great bodies attract one another at great distances: so all the little motions this world depend upon certain kinds of forces whereby minute bodies attract or dispell one another at little distances…the truth of this Hypothesis I assert not, because I cannot prove it, but I think it very probable because a great part of the phaenomena of nature do easily flow from it which seem otherways inexplicable: such as are chymical solutions, precipitations, philtrations, volatizations, fixations, rarefactions, condensations, unions, separations, fermentations, the cohesion, texture, fluidity and porosity of bodies, the rarity and elasticity of air, the reflexions and refraction of light, the rarity of air in glass pipes and ascention of water therein, the permissibility of some bodies and impermissibility of others, the conception and lastingness of heat, the emission and extinction of light, the generation and destruction of air, the nature of fire and flame, the springinesse or elasticity of hard bodies.”

In his Conclusio, another aspect left unpublished from the ‘Principia’, he says,

“How the great bodies of the Earth, Sun, Moon and planets gravitate towards one another, what are the laws and quantities of their gravitating forces at all distances from them and how all the motions of those bodies are regulated by their gravities I showed in my ‘Mathematical Principles of Philosophy’ to the satisfaction of my readers. And if Nature be most simple and fully consonant to herself she observes the same method in regulating the motions of smaller bodies (including the corpuscles of light) which she does in regulating those of the greater.”

Here also is an undoubtedly Alchemical reference, also from the Conclusio:

“Hitherto I have explained the System of this visible world, as far as concerns the greater motions which can easily be detected. Whatever reasoning holds for greater motions, should hold for lesser ones as well. The former depend upon the greater attractive forces of larger bodies, and I suspect that the latter depend upon the lesser forces, as yet unobserved, of insensible particles. For, from the forces of gravity, of magnetism and of electricity it is manifest that there are various kinds of natural forces, and that there may be still more kinds is not to be rashly denied. It is very well known that greater bodies act mutually upon each other by those forces, and I do not clearly see why lesser ones should not act on one another by similar forces. There are however innumerable other local motions which on account of the minuteness of the moving particles cannot be detected, such as the motions of the particles of hot bodies, in growing bodies, in the organs of sensation and so forth.”

Finally, here he seems to be talking about something akin to “spooky action at a distance” in Query 31, from the Opticks:

“Have not the small particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they act at a distance, not only upon the rays of light for reflecting, refracting, and inflecting them, but also upon one another for producing a great part of the phaenomena of Nature? For it’s well known, that bodies act one upon another by the attractions of gravity, magnetism, and electricity; and these instances show the tenor and course of Nature, and make it not improbable but that there may be more attractive powers than these. For Nature is very consonant and conformable to herself. How these attractions may be perform’d, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be perform’d by impulse, or by some other means unknown to me. I use that word here to signify only in general any force by which bodies tend towards one another, whatsoever be the cause. For we must learn from the phaenomena of Nature what bodies attract one another, and what are the laws and properties of the attraction, before we enquire the cause by which the attraction is perform’d. The attractions of Gravity, Magnetism, and Electricity, reach to very sensible distances, and so have been observed by vulgar eyes, and there may be others which reach to so small distances as hitherto escape observation; and perhaps electrical attraction may reach such small distances, even without being excited by friction.”

One more quote from Newton drives the point home, this time from “Quaestio 24 and 25 from Opticks:

“May not the forces by which the small particles of bodies cohere and act upon one another at small distances…be electric? For the particles of all bodies may abound with an electric spirit…And if there be such an universal electric spirit in body, certainly it must very much influence the motions and actions of the particles of the bodies amongst one another, so that without considering it, philosophers will never be able to give an account of the phaenomena arising from those motions and actions. And so far as these phaenomena may be performed by the spirit which causes electric attraction it is unphilosophical to look for any other cause.”

So it seems that Newton did indeed believe in an Aether, or invisible cosmic “spirit” which attracted bodies to each other, and which “lays hid in all gross bodies”. Gravity he saw as a force which acts at a distance on a large scale, and he figured there must be something that acts at a distance on a very small scale.

Alchemy makes the entire concept of “interpretation” somewhat mysterious as well. Is there only one correct interpretation to life at all? Maybe it’s possible that interpretation itself alters the reality around us. Contrary to modern science, alchemists believed wholeheartedly that the experimenter played a direct role in the experiments that were being carried out, as opposed to the chemist who sees the chemical experiments as objectively separate from him.

John von Neumann had an interesting interpretation about quantum physics. He postulated that consciousness is what collapses the wave-particle duality in a quantum probability event during experiments such as the double slit experiment. This is taking the observational effect to its most literal interpretation. I like to elaborate that if consciousness is playing a role in any way with the collapsing of the probability of a quantum state, then maybe it can will and harness this subtle electrical field to do specific things on a larger scale. (Volity).

In conclusion, I find the timing synchronistic that such a debate on subatomic particles arose the same time that it was revealed to the world that Newton was an alchemist, and I have attempted to show how both his published and unpublished work are full of alchemical ideas which attempt to bridge the macro universe with the micro universe, (“Universe” does mean “One”, afterall). This timing seems to have been overlooked as of having any significance. I haven’t been able to come across any information or even speculation on the significance of it.

And that’s what this is, ultimately; just speculation. It seems to me that Newton was at battle with himself; that he did not want to go heavy into this “electric spirit” direction since it was only a hunch of his but he also felt certain enough about it to include notions of it as part of his Principia and Opticks, alluding to further research in the future. It seems that he felt that there were other unknown forces at work in the Cosmos besides only Gravity. Newton was looking for a complimentary force to Gravity to further research.

A more thorough explanation of Volity will come. I realize that these assertions are bold. In the Spirit of the founders of the Royal Society, including Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle, I take the motto “In the Words of None” to heart, meaning that I will let experimental results be my guide to truth that takes precedence over any scientific authority.

Dice rolling I consider my first probabilistic experimentum crucis, or “crucial experiment” that points to a particular, hidden truth of Nature.