>>You might say that those people have negative ESP, because many >>unbelievers actually have negative results that are FAR less than >>chance, indicating that there is the possibility that their minds can >>successfully avoid teh correct answer.
This is very interesting.... By your wording in the above statement I have a few questions.
Are these negative results that are "FAR less than chance", greater in number or magnitude than the positive results? If this indicates, as you say, that they are successfully avoiding the correct answer, then possibly they are lying?. This might be taken a bit further than this... This could mean that the skeptics are really "psychic", and don't want anyone to know. Or maybe their minds are not letting them know that they are "psychic". Very interesting...
Were the people that got the extremely negative results known or determined to be skeptics before or after the results were tallied?
rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes: > And that is what I said - negative results are significant!
> Do you have any references by more than one investigator?
> YES!
Names, please?
> >By ANY investigator?
> YES!
I said, 'Names, PLEASE?'
> >Can you describe reproduceable experiments?
> YES!
Okay, one last time: "NAMES, PLEASE?!?"
> Steve
> -- > Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
That one doesn't count.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding re...@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
sdb%hotmo...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes: >In article <1991Aug16.115459.2...@verifone.com> ed...@verifone.com >writes: > In any case, more scientific research, and more _careful and > thoughtful_ scientific research is needed. >So the `care' in the scientific research is the need to eliminate >doubters from the loop? Probably a good idea to eliminate any serious >criticisms of experimental protocols too, since such criticisms `have >been shown to interfere' with PSI?
Well put. In fact, psi researchers should prevent skeptics from reading their papers, as this has been shown to produce flaws in their expermental method. Paranormal means will not suffice, as these don't work on skeptics (Next time Randi is on TV, invite a skeptic over and your spoons will stay unbent). Do you think we could shut down faith healers if we all watch their TV shows and doubt hard enough? Or does the lack of effect from the presence of skeptics in the audience demonstrate that it is not a paranormal effect that is being observed?
I'll leave you with this signature -- /|/-\/-\ The entire world Jerusalem |__/__/_/ is a very strange carrot |warren@ But the farmer / worlds.COM is not worried at all.
In article <91229.100216DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
> Ed L'Esperance says:
>>We need to get beyond proving that PSI exists, and start trying to >>uncover the mechanisms behind it. If, as some psychics claim, that the >>presence of doubters inhibits their ability (not an unreasonable claim >>if the nature of PSI is transmission of unconscious thoughts via _any_ >>means) then we need to eliminate doubters from the experimental process.
> A typical Ed L statement. The only skeptics that the psychics object to are > those (like Randi) who expose their frauds. They are perfectly willing > to perform their tricks in front of an audience, so why can't they detect > the presence of doubters by the failure of their methods? It seems, Mr Ed, > that it is the *KNOWLDEGE* of the presence of the doubters that makes the > tricks fail, not their presence itself. This routinely happens to Uri > Geller, isn't that interesting?
Gee, Dr. J. Seems to me that you are assuming that _all_ psychics are frauds. By extrapolation, then, I suppose I can assume that _all_ scientists employed at Stanford are crooks? Whether or not it is true in your case, it is faulty logic.
Fact is, until we discover the nature of what causes PSI phenomenon (and I admit it may be to purely mundane reasons, but I don't believe it), we should explore every avenue, leave no stone unturned. Seems like you are a bit too eager to ignore a bunch. This is science?
Your statement about the knowledge of the presence of doubters inhibiting PSI may be true, or it may be the presence. We don't know until we find some way to test for it. "Scientists" such as yourself seem too eager to jump to unfounded conclusions -- I smell a rat, and it's coming from your direction.
-- *************************************************************************** * Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. * * Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" * * Disclaimer: Opinions Copyright 1991 Ed L'Esperance. HANDS OFF! * * Opinion #1: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" * * #2: "What do you mean 'just opinions?' -- that's all anyone has!" * * #3: "'It's not my fault!'" (Quoted from Han Solo, Star Wars I, 1977) * ***************************************************************************
In article <1991Aug19.154015.17...@ncsu.edu>, h...@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
> In article <91230.180549DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >> ... >>I have not seen any statements for six monthsthat I've been >>participating in this greoup that "we _shouldn't research PSI." >>Nevertheless, Ed L brings up this point in about half of his posts. >>Does he have a need to feel persecuted? > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Apparently so.
> --henry schaffer n c state univ > :-)
Oh yes, whip me, beat me. Just don't infer things that aren't true by taking me out of context like this self-proclaimed doctor does....
And in any case, if ignoring and rejecting the possibility of PSI is not anti-psi-research, than it is pro-psi-research?
I should know better than to even listen to people who call themselves reverends or doctors on a computer network -- I suspect that they only do so because it is something they are denied in real life. Get real.
-- *************************************************************************** * Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. * * Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" * * Disclaimer: Opinions Copyright 1991 Ed L'Esperance. HANDS OFF! * * Opinion #1: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" * ***************************************************************************
>DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >>>I have not seen any statements for six monthsthat I've been >>>participating in this greoup that "we _shouldn't research PSI." >>>Nevertheless, Ed L brings up this point in about half of his posts. >>>Does he have a need to feel persecuted? >Oh yes, whip me, beat me. >Just don't infer things that aren't true by taking me out of context like >this self-proclaimed doctor does....
In article <1991Aug21.121548.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com says:
>DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >>> ... >>>I have not seen any statements for six months that I've been >>>participating in this greoup that "we _shouldn't research PSI." >>>Nevertheless, Ed L brings up this point in about half of his posts. >>>Does he have a need to feel persecuted?
>Oh yes, whip me, beat me. >Just don't infer things that aren't true by taking me out of context like >this self-proclaimed doctor does....
I challenge you to show me how I am taking you out of context. Unfortunately, I'm not.
By the way, it has been about four months now since several of us requested information from you about your claimed persecution (by the Bay Area Skeptics) of someone who wanted to teach about the paranormal at the U of Hawaii. Are you planning to respond? Or is this just another one or your "you skeptics are persecuting us" smokescreens?
In article <1991Aug21.164411.26...@pmafire.inel.gov>, rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes...
Steve Reiser ... I've been reading your entries for awhile now and I have to tell you that you are absolutely correct in everything you are saying.
You know. --- Mary Stanley (INTERNET,UUCP) stan...@verga.enet.dec.com (UUCP) ...!decwrl!verga.enet!stanley (INTERNET) stanley%verga.e...@decwrl.dec.com ---
I'm not going to dig up all my references of research, but will suggest the "Handbook of Parapsychology" as a starting place. Then use the bibliographies in there and it will lead you in hundreds of directions to all sorts of research, names, dates, etc.
Steve
-- Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
Kit Pedler, a Ph.D. physicist in the California bay area, had a weekly program for the past year called "Mind Over Matter". The entire series was focused on a scientific approach to the paranormal. The final program lastnight discussed recent experiments in which it was found that if you take two particles (didn't say what - electron?, proton?) and project them from a particle gun with a particle spin on each and then pass one through a magnteic field to reverse it's spin, the other particle going in the opposite direction, without any outside field simultaneously changes direction of it's spin. The implication is that somehow particles separated by a large space from each other still communicate with each other. This experiment has been repeated eight times, with six verifying the results, causing physicists to have to do some serious rethinking about the whole basis of physics and our understanding of matter and energy.
It appears that two objects separate from each other in space can communicate faster than the speed of light without any direct transfer of energy between the two.
Are particles psychic?
Steve
-- Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
In article <1991Aug22.155319.23...@pmafire.inel.gov> rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes:
>The final >program lastnight discussed recent experiments in which it was found >that if you take two particles (didn't say what - electron?, proton?) >and project them from a particle gun with a particle spin on each and >then pass one through a magnteic field to reverse it's spin, the other >particle going in the opposite direction, without any outside field >simultaneously changes direction of it's spin. The implication is that >somehow particles separated by a large space from each other still >communicate with each other. This experiment has been repeated eight >times, with six verifying the results, causing physicists to have to do >some serious rethinking about the whole basis of physics and our >understanding of matter and energy.
This is not sufficiently garbled to be unrecognizable. This is called the Einstein-Podorski-Rosen paradox, and comes up with some regularity in sci.physics. It was brought up as a thought experiment to try to disprove quantum mechanics, by showing that QM predicts something like what is described above, and that seems like nonsense. Now, what the experiment really confirms (and yes, this has been done experimentally and confirmed): two particles are emitted from a single QM event and leave in a so-called "entangled state". The particles are simultaneously in a linear combination of many states until a measurement is made, at which time they choose one of those states. The problem is, conservation laws impose the requirement that if the polarization of one particle turns out to be 'A', then the polarization of the other particle must also be 'A' (simplifying somewhat, but that's the idea). When you measure particle 1 to be 'A', measurements of particle 2 will always read 'A' also, even though any given run has an equal probability of coming up 'A' or 'B'. HOWEVER, there is no experimental way, and no way described in current theory, for this mechanism to be used to transmit useful information. Specifically, the mention of magnetic fields flipping or not flipping the particles is wrong. One can't do anything to the particles, just measure them. If you like, it's as if you had two magic coins, which when flipped together always came up showing the same face. If I had one, and you had one on Mars, there would be no way for me to send you a message since I cannot influence the outcome of the coin flip (if I do, the coins become disentangled, so the magic dies). This ghostly action at a distance is still annoying to physicists, but it doesn't result in causality violation.
>Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
-- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | If ignorance is bliss neuf...@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra | why aren't there more cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com | happy people? "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
In article <1991Aug22.155319.23...@pmafire.inel.gov> rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes:
] ]Kit Pedler, a Ph.D. physicist in the California bay area, had a weekly ]program for the past year called "Mind Over Matter". The entire series ]was focused on a scientific approach to the paranormal. The final ]program lastnight discussed recent experiments in which it was found ]that if you take two particles (didn't say what - electron?, proton?) ]and project them from a particle gun with a particle spin on each and ]then pass one through a magnteic field to reverse it's spin, the other ]particle going in the opposite direction, without any outside field ]simultaneously changes direction of it's spin. The implication is that ]somehow particles separated by a large space from each other still ]communicate with each other. This experiment has been repeated eight ]times, with six verifying the results, causing physicists to have to do ]some serious rethinking about the whole basis of physics and our ]understanding of matter and energy. ] ]It appears that two objects separate from each other in space can ]communicate faster than the speed of light without any direct transfer ]of energy between the two. ] ]Are particles psychic? ] What you are describing is the EPR experiment, though I think that you are telling it wrong. If one irradiates a particle to induce a spin flip, there is no conservation law. I think you are referring to collapse... It is a QM phenomenon, but has zilcho to do with psychic. -Ekr -- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Eric Rescorla resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu "No his mind is not for rent;to any God or government"-Peart/Dubois
In article <1991Aug22.155319.23...@pmafire.inel.gov>, rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes...
>Are particles psychic?
Well, ... I have a theory about that actually. I think that everything is connected at the particle level of reality and (in my humble opinion) thats how psi works.
--- Mary Stanley (INTERNET,UUCP) stan...@verga.enet.dec.com (UUCP) ...!decwrl!verga.enet!stanley (INTERNET) stanley%verga.e...@decwrl.dec.com ---
This is the ERP - problem raised by Einstein (and the two others, I guess) a long time ago. The first experiement was done by Aspect ~5 yers ago.
>it was found >that if you take two particles (didn't say what - electron?, proton?) >and project them from a particle gun with a particle spin on each and >then pass one through a magnteic field to reverse it's spin, the other
It don't reverse the spin. It just collapses into one of the two states. Spin is preserved, therefore you know the spin of both when you know the spin of one of them.
>particle going in the opposite direction, without any outside field >simultaneously changes direction of it's spin. The implication is that >somehow particles separated by a large space from each other still >communicate with each other. This experiment has been repeated eight >times, with six verifying the results, causing physicists to have to do >some serious rethinking about the whole basis of physics and our >understanding of matter and energy.
Niels Bohr gave an answer to this problem. And it follows the laws of quantum mechanics. So it shouldn't require a lot of rethinking.
>It appears that two objects separate from each other in space can >communicate faster than the speed of light without any direct transfer >of energy between the two.
I don't think "communicate" is the right word. There is no way you can use this effect to communicate faster than the speed of light. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen | Institute of Datalogy, | Long before Europe University of Copenhagen | became the focus of world attension, E-mail: elga...@freja.diku.dk | it was a focus for The Economist
In article <1991Aug21.121548.2...@verifone.com> ed...@verifone.com writes: >I should know better than to even listen to people who call themselves >reverends or doctors on a computer network -- I suspect that they only do so >because it is something they are denied in real life. Get real.
The worst thing in these netnews discussions is lack of humor.
Wait, wait, wait ... Maybe the guy has humor after all. Tell me, Ed, have you really been denied being an anthropologist, writer, editor and, most of all, "an etc", in real life ?
rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes: >Kit Pedler, a Ph.D. physicist in the California bay area, had a weekly >program for the past year called "Mind Over Matter". The entire series >was focused on a scientific approach to the paranormal. The final >program lastnight discussed recent experiments in which it was found >that if you take two particles (didn't say what - electron?, proton?) >and project them from a particle gun with a particle spin on each and >then pass one through a magnteic field to reverse it's spin, the other >particle going in the opposite direction, without any outside field >simultaneously changes direction of it's spin. The implication is that >somehow particles separated by a large space from each other still >communicate with each other. This experiment has been repeated eight >times, with six verifying the results, causing physicists to have to do >some serious rethinking about the whole basis of physics and our >understanding of matter and energy. >It appears that two objects separate from each other in space can >communicate faster than the speed of light without any direct transfer >of energy between the two. >Are particles psychic?
This sounds like the EPR paradox written up by some ignorant media droid.
Anyone know of any papers on this experiment? A lot a critical details seem to be missing from Steve's description. -- T.T.F.N., Dave Truesdell (trues...@nas.nasa.gov) Computer Scientist/Software Packrat "Many alligators will be slain, but the swamp will remain."
stan...@verga.enet.dec.com writes: >In article <1991Aug22.155319.23...@pmafire.inel.gov>, rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes... >>Are particles psychic? >Well, ... I have a theory about that actually. I think that everything is >connected at the particle level of reality and (in my humble opinion) thats >how psi works.
If you have a "theory", you must have some observations from which it arose. What are they? Oh, and by the way, why do you think psi works? -- T.T.F.N., Dave Truesdell (trues...@nas.nasa.gov) Computer Scientist/Software Packrat "Many alligators will be slain, but the swamp will remain."
>>Kit Pedler, a Ph.D. physicist in the California bay area, had a weekly >>program for the past year called "Mind Over Matter". The entire series >>was focused on a scientific approach to the paranormal. The final >>program lastnight discussed recent experiments in which it was found >>that if you take two particles (didn't say what - electron?, proton?) >>and project them from a particle gun with a particle spin on each and >>then pass one through a magnteic field to reverse it's spin, the other >>particle going in the opposite direction, without any outside field >>simultaneously changes direction of it's spin. The implication is that >>somehow particles separated by a large space from each other still >>communicate with each other. This experiment has been repeated eight >>times, with six verifying the results. >Anyone know of any papers on this experiment? A lot a critical details seem >to be missing from Steve's description.
The test had particles ejected in opposite direction, spin measured. Then one particle has spin flipped by magnetic field and spin also flips in particle going the opposite direction simultaneously. That is what was related on the program.
Via e-mail:
I'm told that this is also discussed in "Reality for Physicists" by D'Espignat, a French physicist/philosopher.
Also, there is supposed to be an article in a Scientific American issue from the past few years discussing this. Issue not remembered currently.
Steve
-- Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
>In response to your request for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen references, I list >some. They may be too technical for your needs. Scientific American and >Discover (RIP) occasionally have articles on the topic, although I haven't >seen any for 2-3 years. Also look at the American Journal of Physics.
Thanks, but I already read quite a bit about EPR. I was asking for references to the "experiment" that Steve Reiser was referring to, which seems to violate the results of other EPR experiments I have read about. In short EPR can not be used to transmit information FTL, the experiment Steve refers to would seem to indicate that you can.
So far the only references that have appeared have been to a book by a french "physicist/philosopher" (I wonder if "physicist" earned or simply claimed) and a conveniently vague ("Last several years") reference to an article in Sci Am.
-- T.T.F.N., Dave Truesdell (trues...@nas.nasa.gov) Computer Scientist/Software Packrat "Many alligators will be slain, but the swamp will remain."
]This sounds like the EPR paradox written up by some ignorant media droid. ] ]Anyone know of any papers on this experiment? A lot a critical details seem ]to be missing from Steve's description. Aspect did it, though it is much different from Steve's description. It DOES work, but the party line is that it cannot be used to transmit information. I haven't verified it personally. -Ekr -- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ Eric Rescorla resco...@slack.med.upenn.edu "No his mind is not for rent;to any God or government"-Peart/Dubois
trues...@sun418.nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) says:
> If you have a "theory", you must have some observations from which it arose. > What are they?
Most people unfortunately don't understand the scientific definition of "theory." They use it more or less interchangeably with the word "speculation."
In response to your request for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen references, I list some. They may be too technical for your needs. Scientific American and Discover (RIP) occasionally have articles on the topic, although I haven't seen any for 2-3 years. Also look at the American Journal of Physics.
Books: "Speakable and Unspeakable in QM," J.S. Bell. "QM and Local Realism: the EPR Paradox," F. Selleri, ed. "Symposium on the Found. of Mod. Phys.: 50 Years of the EPR Paradox," P. Lahti, ed.
Journal article: Special issue of "Foundations of Physics," honoring J.S. Bell in 1990.
>Kit Pedler, a Ph.D. physicist in the California bay area, had a weekly >program for the past year called "Mind Over Matter". The entire series >was focused on a scientific approach to the paranormal. The final
Is this series ever shown in the San Francisco Bay Area? if so, when and what channel? thanks.
In article <1991Aug21.091600.2...@verifone.com> ed...@verifone.com writes: >Fact is, until we discover the nature of what causes PSI phenomenon (and >I admit it may be to purely mundane reasons, but I don't believe it), >we should explore every avenue, leave no stone unturned.
Tell ya what - you show me a "PSI phenomenon", and I'll explain it. So far, though, nobody's ever been able to show me one.
-- _ Kevin D. Quitt srhqla!venus!kdq kdq%ve...@sr.com 3D systems, inc. 26081 Avenue Hall Valencia, CA 91355 VOICE (805) 295-5600 x430 FAX (805) 257-1200
>Thanks, but I already read quite a bit about EPR. I was asking for references >to the "experiment" that Steve Reiser was referring to, which seems to violate >the results of other EPR experiments I have read about. In short EPR can not >be used to transmit information FTL, the experiment Steve refers to would seem >to indicate that you can.
>So far the only references that have appeared have been to a book by a >french "physicist/philosopher" (I wonder if "physicist" earned or simply >claimed) and a conveniently vague ("Last several years") reference to an article >in Sci Am.
Dunno--but can't we be a little less snide with one another?
Bernard D'espignat, _Reality for the Physicist_, Cambridge U Press, 1985/89(translation) ISBN 0-521-33846-8
As to his credentials as a PHYSICIST, his editor writes, "Bernard D'espignat, former Director of the Laboratoire de Physique Theorique et Particules Elementaires at the University of Paris..."
His PHILOSOPHICAL insights are more debatable: Bell's inequality, and all like that, for grown-ups. -- Michael Feld <f...@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Dept. of Philosophy, University of Manitoba Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8 Canada
> I'm not going to dig up all my references of research, but will suggest > the "Handbook of Parapsychology" as a starting place. Then use the > bibliographies in there and it will lead you in hundreds of directions > to all sorts of research, names, dates, etc.
> Steve
> -- > Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
Please notice that he doesn't say a word about _his_ reading and of the skeptical literature.
Just to make one point very quickly: Steve said he believed in precognition, telepathy, and pretty much of the rest. But he cited Robert Jahn's work, results of which are extremely marginal to begin with. On THIS basis, he's willing to accept the whole of parapsychological claims?
Talk about an open mind-- one could get beestings on the corpus callosum.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding re...@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""