Bad science: A poster of the film

It is one of the unlikeliest hits in cinematic history: a documentary exploring the weird world of quantum physics that confounded its subject matter to spend three months as one of America’s 25 highest grossing films.

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is poised to overtake Super Size Me as the most successful non-fiction film not made by Michael Moore. Fans of its New Age message linking science and spirituality include Madonna and Drew Barrymore. It also has been ridiculed by physicists and psychiatrists, who say that it hijacks science to promote dubious and even dangerous misconceptions about the nature of the Universe. Simon Singh, the physicist, science broadcaster and author of Big Bang, said that he despised the film for twisting science to suit an agenda. “It claims to be about quantum physics, but it makes gross distortions that would make any self-respecting scientist squirm,” he said.

Prof. Raj Persaud, a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital in London, said that he was alarmed at one of its central suggestions: that positive thinking can replace medical treatment for disease. “That is a very dangerous message,” he said.

The film tells the story of Amanda, a deaf photographer played by Marlee Matlin, an Oscar-winning actress, who is depressed after a marital break-up. She gradually overcomes her anxiety through a series of bizarre encounters that prompt her to question her ideas about reality. Her spiritual journey, which ends with Amanda throwing away her medication in favour of positive thinking and drawing love hearts on her body with mascara, is interspersed with a commentary from serious-sounding academics and mystics.

These experts explain some of the odd ideas of quantum mechanics ? such as particles existing in two places at once ? and claim that these show perceptions of the physical world to be subjective and provide a scientific underpinning for personal spirituality.

In one sequence, Amanda views photographs of water crystals allegedly altered by messages taped to their bottles. Phrases such as “thank you” and “love” produce beautiful patterns, but “You make me sick, I want to kill you” generates an evil-looking mess. A bystander then supplies the film’s key message: “If thoughts can do this to water, what can thoughts do to us?”

Only at the end of the film are the identities of the talking heads revealed. One is John Hagelin, a perennial presidential candidate from the Natural Law Party. Another is J.Z. Knight, who claims to be channelling a mystic known as Ramtha, who died 35,000 years ago in Atlantis.

The most authoritative physicist in the film, Prof. David Albert, of Columbia University, has since distanced himself from it, saying that he spent five hours explaining to the filmmakers why their ideas were wrong. British scientists who watched a screening said that What the Bleep Do We Know!? is misleading and potentially damaging.

Several passages ? such as the altered water ? provoked them to laugh at its implausibility. Professor Persaud said: “It’s an attempt to hijack science. Its obvious flaw is a complete absence of data. I am particularly concerned about the scene when the lead character throws away her medicine. This New-Age idea ? that you can throw away your medication and think yourself better ? is a very dangerous message.”

Paul Stephenson, a physicist from the University of Surrey, said: “The film is quite a lot of fun, but it is a mix of believable and unbelievable science and it would be easy for someone to pick up the wrong ideas.”

Tim Evans, a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London, said: “This film is dangerous because it exploits people’s genuine desire to understand the big questions, then gives the answers the veneer of science.”

Jim Al-Khalili, a physicist at the University of Surrey, said: “It will get people thinking about quantum mechanics, and then they’ll find out that a lot of this is a load of rubbish.”