Text Size


In my opinion entanglement signal nonlocality violating orthodox quantum theory is required for a full understanding of these issues.

Fred Alan Wolf concludes:

"Let me add a few more comments of my own here. I believe that until the ontology/epistemology issue is resolved we still have the “measurement problem” that stimulated such considerations as given by PBR, Bell, Bohm, and many others. We also still have the nonlocality issue to deal with. Perhaps PBR can resolve this issue. Ontologically speaking, what does it mean to have nonlocal influences? What does it mean to have an observer effect? Does the PBR solution resolve these problems?

Consider the effect of observation. Does a human being alter the quantum wave function simply by making an observation? If the quantum wave function is ontic then we have a real observer effect—observation (including nonlocal) indeed alters the quantum wave function and therefore reality. That would mean that mind and matter are truly entangled and such a finding could lead to breaking discoveries in the study of consciousness. On the other hand, if the quantum wave function is epistemic, observation is simply the usage of the Bayesian approach to probabilities wherein new information simply changes what we know, but leaves reality unscathed—at least what we mean by ontic reality. I hope that PBR and others continue this line of research. The next frontier may indeed not be space but will be the mind.” - end of quote

As a dyed-in-the-wool Groucho Marxist Bohmian - I assume psi is real/ontic i.e. quantum potential Q etc.

The experiments of Radin, Bem, Schmidt, PEAR show the reality of PK in my opinion.

On May 26, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

Thanks Nick. I don't think we're at the Reno Minimum yet. I am pretty sure that the absolute effect is less than 1%, but as I said I haven't calculated it yet to know for sure.

best wishes,

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM, nick herbert <Quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Would like to add to this note concerning the absolute value of the PK effect
(not the z-value: signal to noise but the actual magnitude comparable to values cited for the three
small but important physics effects.)

In my book "Elemental Mind" I define what I call the "Reno Minimum", which is the smallest
absolute PK effect you would have to manifest to win at the best odds in Reno or Vegas.

According to my calculations (Elemental Mind p 196) the Reno Minimum is 2%. If your absolute PK power
is positive but less than 2% you will still lose--although more slowly than the less gifted players.

Dean has commented that the absolute effect size of the Dean Device is less than 1% but I haven;t seen his  calculation.

Also it seems that the online version of the Dean Device is achieving positive results. Perhaps Dean's wider dissemination  of this task will lead to the discovery of unsuspected talents--folks that can move distant matter with their minds almost as easily as
we move our fingers with our minds.

Nick Herbert


Congratulations to you and your team on completing your mental effect on two-slit diffraction experiment (which I will henceforth refer to as the "Dean Device"--not to be confused with the "Dean Drive"). And also congrats on getting in published in a physics journal (Physics Essays). I hope it will elicit many comments from readers. I certainly have a few.

I found it interesting that in some experiments that there was a systematic "lag effect" which is further evidence of a real effect. In experiments of this sort any systematic behavior you can discover is pure gold.

I have always had a problem with the question: "How strong are psychic effects?" The general answer is that they are "weak" and hard to reproduce but statistically
significant. I have always liked your analogy with batting averages and wish you would take that analogy further using the same kind of statistical analysis (z and p scores as you--and many others--use for psychological studies.

I am especially interested in how to express the magnitude of these
effects whether in baseball, physics or psychology. Seems to me the z score is just the ratio of signal to noise and fails to express the absolute intensity of the signal.
If I look at the paper closely I find that you say that the natural fluctuations in R are about 0.5 % or 5 parts per thousand. So I imagine that a z score of 2 corresponds
to twice the natural variation = 1% effect. Is this correct?

How big an effect is the difference between a champion hitter and an average hitter? How many extra home runs will an expert hit per season?

I also note with surprise that the average psychological experiment has an overall effect size of 0.21. Astonishing!!!!

For your information I include three effects from physics which are small but very significant. I am comparing these to the absolute effect size of your experiment which I estimate to be about 1% = 0.01.

First is the Cronin and Fitch experiment on K mesons which showed CP non-invariance--1 particle out of 500 decayed in a CP-forbidden way = an absolute effect size of 0.002.

Second is the celebrated Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) which is completely isotropic (featureless) to 1 part in 10,000. All those pretty pictures
we see everywhere now represent an average effect size of < 0.0001.

Third is the Lamb Shift in Hydrogen. Dirac's relativistic wave equation predicts that
the two n = 2 states for Hydrogen should have EXACTLY the same energy ( = -10.2 electron volts). However Willis Lamb measured a small difference (= 4.3 x 10^-6 electron volts)--the so-called Lamb shift--an absolute effect size of about 0.0000004. This shift is due to "vacuum fluctuations" and its theoretical explanation is one of the most spectacularly accurate calculations in quantum physics.

Now if only we had some NICE THEORY to explain the 1% effects produced by the Dean Device.

Again. Congratulations, Dean.

But while I have your attention I'd like to share one of my half-baked proposals--as an armchair parapsychologist. I'm sure you get plenty of these from people who have no idea of how difficult it is to actually do these experiments.

My proposal is to use parapsychology experiments as Zombie Detectors. A Zombie (in David Chalmers's sense) acts exactly like a human but possesses no internal experience. If it takes minds to do psi then every parapsychology experiment is a potential zombie detector. No zombie possesses psi.

My proposal involves setting up a data base of "fake people" with names, genders, ages, professions, etc and including them in your psi experiments. Everything would be exactly the same as for real people--you could even conceal their identities with tags such as "Subject #34" but the zombies would never show up--
the experiment would run in an empty room--zombies are in effect a special kind of control group but a control group that's mixed into the experiment along with real people.

Now one big challenge for the psi experimenter--can he/she detect which subjects are zombies and which subjects possess minds?

Or after the fact, will the zombies really act like a good control group? Or will they as a group show evidence of psi? Or worse yet, will some of the zombies perform as well as experienced meditators?

O well. Back to my armchair.

Triple congratulations, buddy.

much love

On May 27, 2012, at 10:44 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

bcc - list

Begin forwarded message:

From: "fred alan wolf" <fawolf@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: [ExoticPhysics] DARPA-NASA Low power warp drive issues.
Date: May 27, 2012 10:27:11 AM PDT
To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

          I like this paper of yours—lots of good ideas to pursue.  Can you please send out to your mailing lists this latest version of the paper I sent you?
Best Wishes,
Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.  aka Dr. Quantum ®
Have Brains / Will Travel
San Francisco
web page: http://www.fredalanwolf.com
Blog page: http://fredalanwolf.blogspot.com/
Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/fawolf
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/doctor_quantum

<Is the quantum wave function real.pdf>