I realise that there may be limited interest in quantum mechanics on PR, but I find myself forced to reappraise Esther Crawley’s contribution to science and have to share it somewhere, so here goes: According to EC in her New Scientist article: So Crawley now accepts that the initial illness is “caused by the bug”, or “triggered by something, usually an infection”. So a biological cause, which leads to metabolic, and hormonal changes. So far so good. What baffled me was this sentence: In particular: The point that was confusing me was, how does she know when the initial illness has passed? ie How does she identify the point at which the metabolic and hormonal changes cease to be caused by the original infection/bug/trigger, and start to be perpetuated by the patient’s beliefs and treatable by behavioural therapy? This is important because CBT can only work if the cause of the symptoms is behavioural, to give CBT to a sufferer whose symptoms are still being caused by the initial infectious trigger would be cruel and harmful. Likewise, to give biomedical treatment to a sufferer whose symptoms are now being perpetuated by behavioural factors would be ineffective and counter-productive, because it would simply reinforce and legitimise their false illness beliefs. Identifying the point at which symptoms stop being caused by the initial trigger and start being caused by the false belief that one is still ill is therefore crucial, but unfortunately does not seem to have been mentioned in any CFS studies, biomedical or behavioural, to date. I believe that it is EC’s unique ability to identify this point that is her most important contribution to the field of ME/CFS research. Unfortunately for some reason she has so far undersold this aspect of her work, which is a pity because I think it could lead to a breakthrough that the world of physics has been waiting for. Bear with me. I propose the following thought experiment, similar to Schrödinger’s Cat, in which an ME sufferer is placed in a box. Whilst in the box, the ME sufferer is in a super-position of having both biologically caused and behaviourally perpetuated ME symptoms. At some point, the lid of the box is opened by EC, who observes the sufferer. Due to her act of observation, the sufferer collapses into a state of behaviourally perpetuated ME. Now let us imagine that there are two boxes, both containing an ME sufferer in the super-position of having both biologically caused and behaviourally perpetuated ME symptoms. The lid is taken off the first box and the sufferer observed, who collapses into a state of behaviourally perpetuated ME. The lid is then taken off the second box, and when the second suffer is observed by EC we would expect, according to the rules of quantum entanglement, that they would collapse into a state of biologically caused ME symptoms. However, no matter how many times we repeat the experiment, upon observation by EC, both sufferers collapse into a state of behaviourally perpetuated ME, with both sufferers being spun the same way upon observation. So we can conclude that if the rules of quantum entanglement do not apply, the only other possible explanation is the many worlds theory, where upon observation by EC each patient goes into two parallel universes, in one of which their ME symptoms are behaviourally perpetuated, and in the other, biologically caused. Quite why EC should always end up in the parallel universe with the behaviourally perpetuated ME sufferer and never in the universe with the sufferer of the biologically caused illness is a problem yet to be solved. Theoretically she should be able to inhabit both versions of the “real world”. I suspect there may be an element of free will involved, but that’s a whole other area of research for a later date, along with the the funding black hole paradox and the big tent hypothesis. But in the meantime, should we start a petition demanding that Esther Crawley be awarded the nobel physics prize for her work leading to the disproof of quantum entanglement and proof of the many worlds / parallel universe theory?