Evaluation of Mike Adams’ Xylitol Crystal Experiment and Claims of Morphic Resonance, By Professor X

 In a recent article dated May 28, 2025, Mike Adams describes an experiment involving melted xylitol applied to an M.2 NVMe SSD module, claiming that the resulting crystal formations provide evidence for Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance. This theory posits that there exists a field of information that influences the behaviour and structure of physical systems, allowing patterns to be transmitted across time and space without direct physical or chemical causation. Adams suggests that xylitol crystals, when solidifying in contact with electronic components, exhibit altered patterns that mimic the geometry of the components and display "noise" or disruptions, which he attributes to morphic fields emanating from the electronics. This blog piece evaluation critically examines the experiment's methodology, claims, and scientific validity, particularly in relation to morphic resonance.

Adams melted xylitol, a sugar alcohol, and applied it to an SSD module, ensuring direct contact with the circuitry and interface pins. As the xylitol cooled and crystallised at room temperature, he observed the resulting structures under a microscope. He reports three key observations: (1) the typical symmetrical, flower-petal-like patterns of xylitol crystals were disrupted; (2) crystals near the circuitry showed chaotic "noise" that diminished with distance; and (3) some crystals appeared to mimic the geometric shapes of the electronic components, forming square-like structures or protruding forms resembling circuitry elements. Adams interprets these findings as evidence that the electronics' "morphic fields" influence the crystallisation process, even without power applied to the components. He further speculates that this phenomenon could have implications for biological systems, such as the impact of implanted electronics on human tissue formation.

The experiment, as described, lacks several critical elements of rigorous scientific methodology, which undermines the reliability and reproducibility of the findings:

1.Sample Size and Replication: Adams notes that the observations were based on a single slide, acknowledging the need for replication. Without multiple trials, the results could be due to chance, contamination, or uncontrolled variables. A single slide does not provide a robust dataset to draw conclusions about a phenomenon as complex as morphic resonance.

2.Control Groups: The experiment lacks a control group, such as xylitol crystallised under identical conditions but without contact with electronics. Comparing crystallisation patterns on the SSD to those on a neutral surface (e.g., glass) would help isolate whether the observed effects are due to the electronics or other factors, such as surface texture or chemical interactions.

3.Environmental Controls: The experiment does not account for environmental variables, such as temperature, humidity, or vibrations, which can significantly influence crystallization. For example, uneven cooling rates or microscopic vibrations from the environment could cause the observed "noise" or pattern disruptions.

4.Microscopy and Imaging: While Adams provides vivid descriptions and images, there is no information on the microscopy techniques used (e.g., magnification levels, lighting conditions, or whether images were digitally enhanced). This makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the visual evidence. Additionally, the subjective interpretation of crystal shapes as "mimicking" electronic components or resembling "ghostly faces" risks confirmation bias, as no quantitative analysis of the shapes is provided.

5.Claim of Historical Change in Xylitol Behaviour: Adams asserts that xylitol "learned" to crystallise at room temperature in 1941, implying a global shift in its behaviour consistent with morphic resonance. This claim lacks supporting evidence, such as historical scientific records or peer-reviewed studies documenting such a change. Xylitol's crystallisation behaviour is well understood to depend on temperature, purity, and cooling conditions, not a sudden global shift in 1941.

Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance hypothesis is controversial and lacks mainstream scientific acceptance due to its reliance on non-physical "information fields" that are difficult to test empirically. Adams' experiment aims to support this hypothesis by suggesting that the SSD's electronic components influenced xylitol crystallisation through morphic fields, even without power. However, several alternative explanations are more plausible:

1.Surface Interactions: The observed crystal patterns could result from physical and chemical interactions between the xylitol and the SSD's surface. Electronic components have varied textures, coatings, and materials (e.g., metals, polymers) that can influence nucleation and crystal growth. For example, the "square-like" structures may reflect the influence of flat, angular surfaces on the SSD, which guide crystal formation through physical constraints rather than morphic fields.

2.Thermal and Chemical Effects: The SSD's materials may have different thermal conductivities or chemical properties that affect how xylitol cools and crystallises. Localised temperature gradients or trace contaminants from the circuitry could cause the observed "noise" or disruptions in crystal patterns, without requiring a non-physical explanation.

3.Subjective Interpretation: The claim that crystals mimic electronic components or exhibit "noise" emanating from an "aura" is highly subjective. Human brains are prone to pareidolia, the tendency to see familiar patterns (e.g., faces or circuitry-like shapes) in random or ambiguous images. Without quantitative metrics, such as statistical analysis of crystal shapes or comparison to a baseline, these observations remain anecdotal.

4.Lack of Power in Electronics: Adams emphasises that the SSD was not powered, suggesting that the effect is due to the mere presence of the components. However, this undermines the morphic resonance claim, as the hypothesis typically involves dynamic systems (e.g., living organisms or active processes) rather than static objects. If the effect is purely due to the physical presence of the electronics, material interactions are a more straightforward explanation.

Crystallisation is a well-understood physical process governed by thermodynamics, molecular interactions, and environmental conditions. Xylitol, like other sugar alcohols, forms crystals based on its molecular structure and external factors, such as temperature, surface properties, and impurities. The observed disruptions in crystal patterns are more likely due to these factors than a hypothetical morphic field. For example, studies on crystal growth often show that substrates with specific textures or chemical properties can template crystal formation, leading to patterns that reflect the substrate's geometry. This is a standard phenomenon in materials science and does not require invoking non-physical fields.

Mike Adams' experiment is an interesting anecdotal observation but falls short of providing credible evidence for morphic resonance. The lack of replication, controls, and quantitative analysis, combined with subjective interpretations of the microscopy images, limits the experiment's scientific validity. Alternative explanations, such as surface interactions, thermal gradients, or chemical influences, are more consistent with established scientific principles and better account for the observed crystal patterns. While the images are visually striking, they do not demonstrate a non-physical influence like morphic resonance. To strengthen the claims, Adams would need to conduct repeated trials with proper controls, quantify the crystal patterns, and rule out conventional explanations. Until such evidence is provided, the experiment remains an intriguing but unconvincing anecdote in the context of Sheldrake's controversial hypothesis.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-05-28-microscopy-photos-crystals-mimicry-electronics.html