Biodynamic viticulture and natural science are seen as irreconcilable opposites. Or are they? Alexander Lupersböck spoke to physics professor Herbert Pietschmann about a reality of wine that cannot be scientifically proven.
Herbert Pietschmann
Biodynamic agriculture, and with it viticulture, was founded 100 years ago using this method. It is also about "dynamisation" to stimulate soil life and "cosmic forces". You could translate this as the transfer of energy. While hardly anyone denies the effects of the gravitational forces of the moon on the earth's body, tides and living beings, many scientists do not recognise the effectiveness of biodynamics as it simply cannot be proven with the available methods. Biodynamic viticulture is therefore often labelled as esoteric.
However, new discoveries prove that matter and energy can be entangled over any distance. Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022 for proving quantum teleportation. I spoke to Herbert Pietschmann, Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics at the University of Vienna, about this and its potential impact on biodynamic viticulture. His main fields of work were quantum mechanics and subatomic particles. He conducted research at the CERN nuclear research centre, among other places.
Pietschmann is an exception on the scientific scene, as he explicitly does not rule out the effectiveness of biodynamic methods. He even spoke at a conference of Demeter winegrowers a few years ago. His main message: scientific approaches exclude a large part of the reality we experience.
Professor Pietschmann, you said in this lecture that those who ridicule biodynamics are victims of their way of thinking: Anything we couldn't measure would be denied. Is that still true today?
Herbert Pietschmann: Yes, we are victims of our way of thinking, which is still very much orientated towards Aristotle. He did terrible things. He said, for example: Where there is one body, there can be no other. That's why we still learn the old atomic model at school today, where electrons orbit around the nucleus in precise orbits and don't touch it. However, we know from atomic physics that this is wrong. Aristotle also said that if a body is first at point A and then at point B, there must be an orbit in between that connects these two points. But every simple radioactive alpha decay contradicts this, because there is no orbit, but the tunnelling effect. Because modern physics offers so many apparent contradictions, many schools would rather teach something wrong than nothing at all. As a result, people's understanding is still moulded in this direction.
What exactly are these contradictions?
Herbert Pietschmann: Until the beginning of the 20th century, physics was based on maths. This meant that all measurement results could be verified. In quantum physics, which emerged around 1926, this is no longer possible. This is because maths is free of contradictions. In quantum physics, however, there are apparent contradictions because it observes matter both discretely and continuously. This means that matter and energy must be interpreted mathematically simultaneously as statistics for particles and as a density function for waves. These are two different things. This led to a total upheaval in physics, which is still not fully understood today.
Horn silica and horn manure are rhythmically stirred in water.
respekt-biodyn, by Andreas HoferCan we deduce from the new findings that energy transfers from people to other things or people are possible? An example: You think: I should call this person again, and at that moment the phone rings and the person is on the line. As if thoughts, i.e. electromagnetic waves, were being transmitted.
Herbert Pietschmann: It's impossible to visualise something like that. Even the concept of energy in mathematics is limited to that which can be described. The law of conservation of energy - one of the most important scientific laws of all - is based on the fact that time always passes evenly. However, this is not the case in our reality.
In the theory of relativity, it passes at different speeds.
Herbert Pietschmann: That's something else, and it could be captured mathematically. But that's not what we humans experience. You know the situation: when you are bored, time passes slowly, when you experience something exciting, thrilling, it passes much faster. In physics, however, time passes evenly and always at the same speed. Because only then is energy preserved. I can only deduce from the uniformity of time that energy is a constant. In reality, however, it is not.
Is our subjective perception so decisive?
Herbert Pietschmann: Our reality consists of subjective experiences. And the reality we experience sometimes differs from the reality that can be represented scientifically. When colleagues talk about reality and don't say which one they mean - philosophical or scientific - it's imprecise. This is why philosophical reality is often derided.
Can the mode of action of biodynamics in agriculture be proven scientifically - or only its effects and results?
Herbert Pietschmann: Rudolf Steiner tried to apply the proof techniques of the natural sciences in an area where they cannot be proven, but can only be measured by experience. This brings us to spiritual science.
Certain parameters such as grape weight, sugar content and the number of earthworms in the soil can be measured and scientifically proven.
Herbert Pietschmann: Yes, but whether the grapes and wines taste better because the winegrower has stroked his plants more is not something you can justify scientifically. You have to say: that's my feeling.
As a physicist, you have no problem saying that it's a matter of perception?
Herbert Pietschmann: I'm a doctor of philosophy, because physics was part of the Faculty of Philosophy back then. That had a great influence on me. So yes, I have no problem with it.
The horn manure preparation 500 in particular is ridiculed by sceptics.
respekt-biodyn, by PittnauerHow do you see the areas of "strengthening with natural forces" or "closed cycles"?
Herbert Pietschmann: You don't have to justify them scientifically. If the wine is good, it has worked. We think too linearly, but nature is not linear. For example, radioactivity is bad for humans. However, in certain small doses it can do good, otherwise patients would not be sent to radon tunnels. In small doses, as used in biodynamics, some things can have a very positive effect.
Ever finer measuring techniques allow us to gain more and more insights. Is it possible that at some point it will be possible to prove the effect of dynamisation or homeopathy?
Herbert Pietschmann: That is a possibility. However, I think it is more likely that there are things that cannot be proven using scientific methods, because scientific approaches exclude a large part of the reality we experience.
So from your point of view as a scientist with an open mind, there is nothing to stop you from saying that biodynamics works.
Herbert Pietschmann: It depresses me that we Europeans are manoeuvring ourselves into a dead end with our either-or thinking and are thus putting ourselves at a disadvantage. So far, this has brought us advantages because scientific approaches have brought us further. However, we should always realise that the natural sciences only represent a part, a section of reality. That is essential. Denying or ridiculing the rest only shows the smallness of our own minds.