In article <4...@nosc.NOSC.MIL> wolfg...@rigel.nosc.mil (Lewis E. Wolfgang) writes:
        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?

-Dave-
Utidjian at your service...

Names, please?

I said, 'Names, PLEASE?'

Okay, one last time: "NAMES, PLEASE?!?"

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
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

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:

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:

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?" *
***************************************************************************

In article <1991Aug21.121548.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com says:

In article <1991Aug21.121548.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com says:

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?

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)

   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.

--
 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" |

]
]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

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 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.

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.

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

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 ?

--Philippe

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."

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."

In article <truesdel.682889547@sun418> trues...@sun418.nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) writes:

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)

DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:

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."

In article <truesdel.682889547@sun418> trues...@sun418.nas.nasa.gov (David A. Truesdell) writes:
]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:

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.

Is this series ever shown in the San Francisco Bay Area? if so, when
and what channel?  thanks.

Ben Bongalon
Intel Corporation
Santa Clara, CA

    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

                96.37% of all statistics are made up.

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

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
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""