Authors : Sourav Singla; Mandeep Singh; Anirudh Bansal; Kartikey Sringari; Vinay Redhu; Sameer Yadav; Navya Malhotra

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/d6839uf

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26Oct1347

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Background: Human beings influence one another's emotional, cognitive, and physiological states. Social neuroscience has documented inter-brain coupling during interaction, while research on anomalous perception has investigated whether information can be identified without recognised conventional sensory access. These findings do not establish a shared human consciousness or direct communication between isolated brains.  Purpose of the Project: The Global Inter-Brain State Hypothesis (GISH) proposes that human beings form an interconnected social and biological network in which brain and bodily states can become correlated through established mechanisms. It further asks whether a reproducible, information-specific effect could persist when known sensory and behavioural pathways are rigorously excluded.  Proposed Mechanism GISH distinguishes established interpersonal coupling from a hypothetical non-sensory information transfer effect. Mainly electromagnetic fields are considered a measurable physical phenomenon and a candidate mechanism for investigation, but we proposed that electromagnetic brain-to-brain information transfer may be demonstrable. Similarly, quantum mechanics provides the fundamental framework for physical processes but we try to propose how itself, it establish a communication channel between brains. The concept of an aura is treated as an exploratory term for a proposed measurable physical signature rather than a proven independent energy field. Methods Proposed: International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26oct1347 A preregistered, double-blind, randomised sender–receiver experiment could test the primary hypothesis using objective target identification, validated sensory isolation, environmental monitoring, prespecified statistical analyses, and independent replication. Mechanism-specific investigations should follow only if an information-specific effect is reproducibly demonstrated.  Conclusion: GISH is a provisional, falsifiable research hypothesis rather than an established scientific theory. Its scientific value depends on distinguishing known interpersonal coupling from unexplained effects and requiring reproducible evidence before accepting a novel communication mechanism.  Significance of the Research Project: The review therefore supports a distinction between established interpersonal coupling and the hypothetical possibility of information transfer without recognised sensory communication. It identifies a need for preregistered, adequately powered experiments with rigorous sensory isolation, objective target identification, prespecified statistical analyses, and independent replication.

Keywords : Anomalous Perception; Aura; Global Inter-Brain State Hypothesis; Hypothesis Paper; Inter-Brain Coupling; Electromagnetic Fields; Quantum Information; Sensory Isolation.

References :

1. Hakim U, De Felice S, Pinti P, Zhang X, Noah JA, Ono Y, et al. Quantification of inter-brain coupling: a review of current methods used in haemodynamic and electrophysiological hyperscanning studies.   Neuroimage. 2023;280:120354. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120354.
2. Bem DJ, Honorton C. Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(1):4-18. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4.
3. Milton J, Wiseman R. Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(4):387-391. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.387.
4. Tressoldi PE, Storm L. Stage 2 registered report: anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition—a metaanalysis of more than 40 years investigation. F1000Res. 2021 [version 4 published 2024];10:234. doi:10.12688/f1000research.51746.4.
5. Pehek JO, Kyler HJ, Faust DL. Image modulation in corona discharge photography. Science.  1976;194(4262):263270. doi:10.1126/science.968480.
6. Rubik B. The biofield hypothesis: its biophysical basis and role in medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2002;8(6):703-717. doi:10.1089/10755530260511711.
7. Cerf NJ, Gisin N, Massar S, Popescu S. Simulating maximal quantum entanglement without communication. Phys Rev Lett. 2005;94(22):220403. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.220403.
8. Agnati LF, Guidolin D, Maura G, Marcoli M. Functional roles of three cues that provide nonsynaptic modes of communication in the brain: electromagnetic field, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. J Neurophysiol. 2018;119(1):356368. doi:10.1152/jn.00413.2017.
9. Hosseini E. Brain-to-brain communication: the possible role of brain electromagnetic fields (as a potential hypothesis). Heliyon. 2021;7(3):e06363. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06363.
10. Hunt T, Jones M. Fields or firings? Comparing the spike code and the electromagnetic field hypothesis. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1029715. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1029715.