Potential Power of the Pyramidal Structure IV: Discovery of Entanglement Due to Pyramid Effects (Takagi et al. 2021)

Key Findings

• Control biosensors C1 and C2 (physically at calibration point 8m from PS, but paired with apex experimental samples E1/E2) showed significant seasonal gas concentration variation: C1 winter vs. summer p=3.3×10⁻³; C2 winter vs. summer p=6.0×10⁻⁴; C2 winter vs. spring p=3.8×10⁻³.
• Control biosensors C3 and C4 (at the same 8m calibration point, but paired with calibration samples E3/E4) showed NO significant seasonal variation — confirming the anomaly in C1/C2 is not a general environmental effect.
• The authors interpret the C1/C2 anomaly as 'entanglement': the potential power of the PS affected E1/E2 at the apex, which then propagated an effect to their paired controls C1/C2 across 8m through a non-local connection between biosensors cut in the same orientation.
• Retroactive implication: prior psi index values included both the direct pyramid effect on E1/E2 AND the entanglement effect on C1/C2, meaning the psi index was partially cancelling out the two effects.
• n = 468 (same dataset as Papers I–III).

The fourth paper in the IRI “Potential Power of the Pyramidal Structure” series revisits the same n=468 cucumber biosensor dataset using raw gas concentration analysis rather than the psi index ratio. This reveals an anomaly invisible to the psi index: the control biosensors C1 and C2 (at the 8m calibration point, paired by cut direction with apex samples E1/E2) show significant seasonal variation (C2 winter vs. summer: p=6.0×10⁻⁴), while C3 and C4 (at the same physical location but paired with calibration samples) show no such variation.

The authors interpret this as “entanglement” — the potential power of the PS affected the experimental biosensors E1/E2 at the apex, which then exerted an effect on their paired controls C1/C2 at 8m distance. The crucial evidence: C1/C2 and C3/C4 are physically identical in location; the only distinction is their pairing relationship with the apex samples. The authors explicitly rule out the PS field extending to 8m as an explanation, because C3/C4 are unaffected.

This finding also retroactively complicates all prior psi index results: since the psi index subtracts calibration samples (which include C1/C2 behavior) from the apex measurements, the index was inadvertently partially subtracting out the entanglement effect along with pure environmental noise.

Confidence is lower than prior papers (0.25) because: this is the fourth analysis of the same dataset (increasing multiple-testing risk), the mechanism is the least physically grounded of all claims in the series, and the specific pattern that defines “entanglement” (C1/C2 seasonal variation vs. C3/C4 stability) has an alternative explanation in batch effects from cucumber selection for paired cuts. The statistical observations are real, but the interpretation is highly speculative even within the IRI framework.

Agricultural relevance remains indirect: as with Papers II and III, this study detects a physical anomaly at the pyramid apex using plant tissue biosensors, supporting the plausibility of pyramid-mediated biological field effects, but no growth or germination outcomes are measured.

Source: Takagi O, Sakamoto M, Kawano K, Yamamoto M. Natural Science 13(7) (2021), pp. 258–272. DOI: 10.4236/ns.2021.137022.