Scientific Evidence for PSI?

This forum is for the discussion of psychokinesis and extrasensory perception.

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:05 am

Just sharing for now...have not had time to read the paper in detail.

Scientific evidence for psychic powers?

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Puppetburglar » Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:54 pm

It is certainly worth reading in its entirety. The porn excursion had me laughing out loud, and admiring its simple originality. For a paper that might stock the cabin, it comes across as rather informal, so to speak- no one should be intimidated by it. Note that, though parts this study point toward 'extroverts' as more prone to evidence psi, that should be taken no farther than the context and circumstances of this particular experiment and its settings- if anything has even been evidenced.. This is just the first of a bit of 'weirdness' that will start filtering out from numerous domains. In a bit of a hurry, so more comments to come.

But this-
The next step will be replication, and various (continuing) duplicities.
God is a comedian performing for an audience too afraid to laugh

Voltaire
User avatar
Puppetburglar
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:17 am

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby ryguy » Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:07 pm

Am I understanding correctly?

1. Students read a list of words
2. Provided a surprise pop quiz of those words to see how many they could remember
3. Computer randomly generated a few of those words and the students were asked to practice them.

Results showed that the words that were practiced after-the-fact happened to be the words that the student had previously done a better job recalling.

I would actually like to see the program that "randomly" chose the words. Some words lend themselves better to recall - so I'm really curious how the computer program chose the words.

Also, this comment from the author of that article was important:

So maybe Bem’s results represent type I errors. This is the conclusion of Psychology Today blogger Daniel R. Hawes. And indeed, the probability values in Bem’s experiments aren’t all that tiny (see his Table 7): several of them are between 1% and the critical 5% threshold. But—assuming Bem published all of his studies, and didn’t leave out the ones that didn’t show precognition —they’re consistent: the effects (though very small, about a 3% increase in “hits” over what’s expected by chance), are always in the same direction. Even though the “precognition effects” aren’t large, this consistency demands explanation.


Is a 3% over chance increase really something worth writing home about? I'd agree the consistency demands explanation, but only if it's consistent among several legitimate researchers. And if history in this field is any indication - it won't be.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Access Denied » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:15 am

From another thread…

Gary wrote:This latest story about peer reviewed research is also enlightening; obviously NSA has gone much deeper already:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... uture.html

The paper, due to appear in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology before the end of the year, is the culmination of eight years' work by Daryl Bem of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York...It describes a series of experiments involving more than 1000 student volunteers. In most of the tests, Bem took well-studied psychological phenomena and simply reversed the sequence, so that the event generally interpreted as the cause happened after the tested behaviour rather than before it.

Obviously. :roll:

A reply to Bem’s paper…

Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of Psi
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom, & Han van der Maas
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf

Does psi exist? In a recent article, Dr. Bem conducted nine studies with over a thousand participants in an attempt to demonstrate that future events retroactively affect people’s responses. Here we discuss several limitations of Bem’s experiments on psi; in particular, we show that the data analysis was partly exploratory, and that one-sided p-values may overstate the statistical evidence against the null hypothesis. We reanalyze Bem’s data using a default Bayesian t-test and show that the evidence for psi is weak to nonexistent. We argue that in order to convince a skeptical audience of a controversial claim, one needs to conduct strictly confirmatory studies and analyze the results with statistical tests that are conservative rather than liberal. We conclude that Bem’s p-values do not indicate evidence in favor of precognition; instead, they indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.

Also, a failure to replicate…

A Replication of the Procedures from Bem (2010, Study 8 ) and a Failure to Replicate the Same Results
Jeff Galak, Leif D. Nelson
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1699970

We replicated the procedure of Experiment 8 from Bem (2010), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate the result. The paper includes a description of our procedure and analysis as well as a brief discussion for some reasons why we obtained a different result than in the original paper.

Furthermore, I’m afraid this paper suffers from the same fundamental flaw as all other psi “research” in addition to questionable statistical methoods... it fails to propose a credible mechanism for alleged psi and simply handwaves it away with a vague appeal to some as yet undiscovered physics rendering the “theory” untestable. In this case Bem makes a vaugue appeal to quantum entanglement and handwaves it away with this...

Unfortunately, even if quantum-based theories eventually mature from metaphor to genuine models of psi, they are still unlikely to provide intuitively satisfying mechanisms for psi because quantum theory fails to provide intuitively satisfying mechanisms for physical reality itself.

While completely ignoring one of the most fundamental tenets of QM that doesn't permit "spooky" stuff…

No-communication theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

In quantum information theory, a no-communication theorem is a result which gives conditions under which instantaneous transfer of information between two observers is impossible. These results can be applied to understand the so-called paradoxes in quantum mechanics such as the EPR paradox or violations of local realism obtained in tests of Bell's theorem. In these experiments, the no-communication theorem shows that failure of local realism does not lead to what could be referred to as "spooky communication at a distance" (in analogy with Einstein's labeling of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance").

In other words, that realism is ruled out (see the “measurement problem”) doesn’t mean locality (see “causality” and “determinism”) is ruled out… it just means we don’t have the means to “see” (measure or “observe”) what is going on below the Planck scale… not that it matters in the macroscopic world we live in anyway.

Back to the drawing board…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Gary » Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:38 am

AD, locality is preserved in the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics, reference this paper:

Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology

Frank J. Tipler
(Submitted on 16 Aug 2010)
I show that observations of quantum nonlocality can be interpreted as purely local phenomena, provided one assumes that the cosmos is a multiverse. Conversely, the observation of quantum nonlocality can be interpreted as observation evidence for a multiverse cosmology, just as observation of the setting of the Sun can be interpreted as evidence for the Earth's rotation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2764v1

And David Deutsch has shown that many worlds is consistent with time machines (information transferred between past and future worlds):

Information Flow in Entangled Quantum Systems

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9906007v2

David Deutsch, Patrick Hayden
(Submitted on 1 Jun 1999 (v1), last revised 4 Jun 1999 (this version, v2))
All information in quantum systems is, notwithstanding Bell's theorem, localised. Measuring or otherwise interacting with a quantum system S has no effect on distant systems from which S is dynamically isolated, even if they are entangled with S. Using the Heisenberg picture to analyse quantum information processing makes this locality explicit, and reveals that under some circumstances (in particular, in Einstein-Podolski-Rosen experiments and in quantum teleportation) quantum information is transmitted through 'classical' (i.e. decoherent) information channels.

And this:

http://www.hpc.unm.edu/~alsing/Courses/ ... curves.pdf

The physics near closed timelike lines is dominated by macroscopic quantum effects and has many novel features. The correspondence principle is violated. Pure states evolve into mixed states. The dynamical evolution is not unitary nor is it even the restriction to a subsystem of unitary evolution in a larger system It is possible to “clone” quantum systems and to measure the state of aquantum system. The subjective probabilities of events can be different for different observers, even if all observers continue to exist throughout. “Asymmetric separation” between two observers is possible, whereby A may be separated from B even though B is not separated from A. Qualitatively new forms of computation are possible, and it is likely that there are improvements in the efficiency of existing forms.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Access Denied » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:40 am

Gary, those papers have nothing to do with alleged psi and as usual, it appears you have a very naïve “understanding” of QM in general. To be sure, I’ve prepared this little quiz for you…

Quantum Quackery Quiz

Image

1. Briefly describe how entangled particles are prepared in the laboratory.

2. What conditions must be maintained in the laboratory in order to preserve the quantum coherence between two or more entangled particles?

3. How are such entangled particles physically separated from each other while maintaining coherence in order to perform quantum teleportation experiments between, for example, a pair of entangled particles, one that remains located in your laboratory and the other relocated to mine?

4. Briefly describe how entangled particles are created in the brain.

5. What conditions must be maintained in the brain in order to preserve the quantum coherence between two or more entangled particles?

6. How are such entangled particles physically separated from each other while maintaining coherence in order for quantum teleportation to occur between, for example, a pair of entangled particles, one that remains located in your brain and the other relocated to mine?

6a. Alternatively, explain how a particle located in the brain of an alleged “remote viewer” can be entangled with a particle located on say the Moon.

7. How many entangled particles are necessary to create a “signal” of sufficient strength to affect a single neuron in the brain and how would these particles accomplish this?

8. Can entangled particles be used to transmit information superluminally (instantly or faster than light) or any other way?

These are direct questions.

Thank you,

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Gary » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:21 pm

AD, you are stuck in the 'old school' thinking re: EPR and Psi.

"To represent this ability, a mathematical operation called postcorrection is introduced, which corrects the present state to guarantee certain characteristics of the future state. Evolution of living matter is thus determined by goals (first of all by the goal of survival) as well as by causes. The resulting theory, in a way symmetrical in time direction, follows from a sort of antropic principle."

I suggest you read the three papers on-line from Michael Mensky, the Russian physicist and associate of Russian time machine theorist Igor Novikov. We don't need EPR at all! And in any case, EPR would be useless without some form of time machine solution for the classical channel. Jack Sarfatti has addressed this in his 'post-quantum' requirement but he prefers the Bohmian-Valentini pilot wave superluminal communication (SLC) condition outside of quantum equilibrium. Shan in Beijing uses another somewhat related approach involving SLC in an objective wave function collapse model (not the same model used by Penrose reduction). Shan reworked quantum theory using point set theory (it's in his first book, in Chinese).

(I also have Paul Werbos at the National Science Foundation off record comments on why he says backwards time exists.)

Here are the links to Mensky:

Quantum features of consciousness, computers and brain

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.4300v1

Michael B. Mensky
(Submitted on 22 Oct 2009)
Many people believe that mysterious phenomenon of consciousness may be connected with quantum features of our world. The present author proposed so-called Extended Everett's Concept (EEC) that allowed to explain consciousness and super-consciousness (intuitive knowledge). Brain, according to EEC, is an interface between consciousness and super-consciousness on the one part and body on the other part. Relations between all these components of the human cognitive system are analyzed in the framework of EEC. It is concluded that technical devices improving usage of super-consciousness (intuition) may exist.

Comments: LATEX, 6 pages; the paper is reported at The 9th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Computer Science (ACS'09), Genova, Italy, October 17-19, 2009

Postcorrection and mathematical model of life in Extended Everett's Concept

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3609v1

Michael B. Mensky
(Submitted on 21 Dec 2007)
Extended Everett's Concept (EEC) recently developed by the author to explain the phenomenon of consciousness is considered. A mathematical model is proposed for the principal feature of consciousness assumed in EEC, namely its ability (in the state of sleep, trance or meditation, when the explicit consciousness is disabled) to obtain information from all alternative classical realities (Everett's worlds) and select the favorable realities. To represent this ability, a mathematical operation called postcorrection is introduced, which corrects the present state to guarantee certain characteristics of the future state. Evolution of living matter is thus determined by goals (first of all by the goal of survival) as well as by causes. The resulting theory, in a way symmetrical in time direction, follows from a sort of antropic principle. Possible criteria for postcorrection and corresponding phenomena in the sphere of life are classified. Both individual and collective criteria of survival are considered as well as the criteria providing certain quality of life and those which are irrelevant to the life quality. The phenomena of free will and direct sighting of truth (e.g. scientific insight) are explained in these terms. The problem of artificial intellect and the role of brain look differently in the framework of this theory. Automats may perform intellectual operations, but not postcorrection, therefore artificial intellect but not an artificial life can be created. The brain serves as an interface between the body and consciousness, but the most profound level of consciousness is not a function of brain.

Comments: Comments: 24 pages, 1 figure, LaTeX, Journal URL: this http URL
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: NeuroQuantology Vol 5, No 4, 363-376 (2007)

Reality in quantum mechanics, Extended Everett Concept, and consciousness

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608309v1

Michael B. Mensky (P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia)
(Submitted on 31 Aug 2006)
Conceptual problems in quantum mechanics result from the specific quantum concept of reality and require, for their solution, including the observer's consciousness into quantum theory of measurements. Most naturally this is achieved in the framework of Everett's "many-worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics. According to this interpretation, various classical alternatives are perceived by consciousness separately from each other. In the Extended Everett Concept (EEC) proposed by the present author, the separation of the alternatives is identified with the phenomenon of consciousness. This explains classical character of the alternatives and unusual manifestations of consciousness arising "at the edge of consciousness" (i.e. in sleep or trance) when its access to "other alternative classical realities" (other Everett's worlds) becomes feasible. Because of reversibility of quantum evolution in EEC, all time moments in the quantum world are equivalent while the impression of flow of time appears only in consciousness. If it is assumed that consciousness may influence onto probabilities of alternatives (which is consistent in case of infinitely many Everett's worlds), EEC explains free will, "probabilistic miracles" (observing low-probability events) and decreasing entropy in the sphere of life.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Access Denied » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:58 pm

Gary wrote:We don't need EPR at all! And in any case, EPR would be useless without some form of time machine solution for the classical channel.

Answer the questions Gary. There can be no discussion of the relevance of QM to alleged psychic functioning in the human brain without doing so first.

For anyone who might be wondering what I’m talking about…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

The EPR paradox draws on a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, known as quantum entanglement, to show that measurements performed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can apparently have an instantaneous influence on one another.

This effect is now known as "nonlocal behavior" (or colloquially as "quantum weirdness" or "spooky action at a distance").

Gary says we don’t need EPR at all but without the EPR pardox there is no basis for “spooky action at a distance” (or colloquially “psychic functioning”) in physics at all.

Furthermore, due to the second law of thermodynamics, we see no time symmetry in nature at the macroscopic level (like the human brain) thus ruling out time reversal phenomena and rendering Mensky a crackpot…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Gary » Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:06 pm

AD, you don't understand: the model we favor is similar to Mensky's: EPR is insignificant and there is no physical teleportation involved, whatsoever.

In many worlds, EPR is always local. In the Mensky model, consciousness is explained as an emergent property of the multiverse; indeed, in our estimation consciousness does not occupy any one single world in the many worlds. Shan has suggested a similar idea by proposing the idea of 'discontinuous motion' but he adds an objective wave function collapse.

Mensky suggests that consciousness is the partitioning of the many worlds from each other; as we loose consciousness, the separation of the worlds weakens, and information from other worlds becomes accessible. The objectively measurable result is similar to time machine theory: the inexplicable appearance of information from 'nowhere' (or 'no-when').
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Access Denied » Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:33 am

Epic fail Gary.

You can't pretend to “explain” alleged psi with the “many worlds” interpretation or any other form of quantum quackery if you can’t establish that quantum mechanics play any role in consciousness in the first place…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale, at which they could be useful for neural processing. Michael Price, for example, says that quantum effects rarely or never affect human decisions and that classical physics determines the behaviour of neurons.

In quantum terms each neuron is an essentially classical object. Consequently quantum noise in the brain is at such a low level that it probably doesn't often alter, except very rarely, the critical mechanistic behaviour of sufficient neurons to cause a decision to be different than we might otherwise expect...
—Michael Clive Price [1]

Price's position does not necessarily imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness, but that quantum effects including superposition and entanglement are insignificant. His position might be felt to be undermined by focusing only on the macroscopic scale of a neuron, rather than the much smaller structures that most of the theories discussed above relate to.

An arguably more formidable opponent of quantum mind theories is the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function, "This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way".[43][44]

Proponents of quantum consciousness theories have sought to defend them against Tegmark's criticism.

[snip microtubule speculation]

So far, however, there has been no experimental confirmation of the ability of the features mentioned above to protect against decoherence.

Papers that Gary and fellow quantum quackers will ignore…

Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible
Phys. Rev. E 80, 021912 (2009) [6 pages]
http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v80/i2/e021912

Penrose and Hameroff have argued that the conventional models of a brain function based on neural networks alone cannot account for human consciousness, claiming that quantum-computation elements are also required. Specifically, in their Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model [R. Penrose and S. R. Hameroff, J. Conscious. Stud. 2, 99 (1995)], it is postulated that microtubules act as quantum processing units, with individual tubulin dimers forming the computational elements. This model requires that the tubulin is able to switch between alternative conformational states in a coherent manner, and that this process be rapid on the physiological time scale. Here, the biological feasibility of the Orch OR proposal is examined in light of recent experimental studies on microtubule assembly and dynamics. It is shown that the tubulins do not possess essential properties required for the Orch OR proposal, as originally proposed, to hold. Further, we consider also recent progress in the understanding of the long-lived coherent motions in biological systems, a feature critical to Orch OR, and show that no reformation of the proposal based on known physical paradigms could lead to quantum computing within microtubules. Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.

Is the Brain a Quantum Computer?
Cognitive Science 30 (2006) 593–603
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/quantum.pdf

We argue that computation via quantum mechanical processes is irrelevant to explaining how brains produce thought, contrary to the ongoing speculations of many theorists. First, quantum effects do not have the temporal properties required for neural information processing. Second, there are substantial physical obstacles to any organic instantiation of quantum computation. Third, there is no psychological evidence that such mental phenomena as consciousness and mathematical thinking require explanation via quantum theory.We conclude that understanding brain function is unlikely to require quantum computation or similar mechanisms.

By putting the cart before the horse Gary commits the all too common logical fallacy of petitio principii

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Not only has alleged psi not been proven thus requiring a physical explanation, the physical “explanations” proposed are based on a fundamentally untenable assumption about how the brain works.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Gary » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:44 pm

AD, your logic is inescapable (and wrong, IMHO :-)

It's not about brain dynamics at all! At least not in the Mensky model. But you need to accept the many worlds prediction of quantum theory before you will be able to consider how this might be so.

It has nothing to do with the observable physics in any single world and cannot be detected using physical instruments (it is in this sense a purely metaphysical explanation for anomalous information).

Btw Hameroff updated the Orch-OR model; see http://www.starpod.org/SPECIAL/1005261.htm

All standard model quantum physics is in quantum thermal equilibrium, btw (Valentini, Perimeter Institute). If one allows for quantum non-thermal equilibrium then the quantum will allow superluminal signals; Valentini, who is a serious scientist and not a paranormalist by any means, has suggested looking into the cosmos for trace signals of early non-equilibrium quantum superluminal connections. This is all in the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave version of quantum physics.

I currently prefer the David Deutsch / Max Tegmark many worlds; it is the obvious prediction of quantum theory taken at face value, without invoking consciousness to collapse a wave function etc. and is purely local, solving the EPR paradox.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Gary » Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:22 am

By the way AD, Reality Uncovered's own Ryan Dube, at his Top Secret Writers website, is promoting the quantum communication idea here:

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2010/10 ... unication/

Hmmmm... ;-)
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Access Denied » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:02 am

And…

You’re worried about the competition? :lol:
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Gary » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:08 pm

Competition? Nope. Because quantum theory CANNOT explain 'psi' without being modified; this has been known for at least thirty years. Ryan needs to fact check his site prior to publication :-)

On the other hand...

Towards violation of Born's rule: description of a simple experiment

Andrei Khrennikov

(Submitted on 27 Jul 2010 (v1), last revised 2 Aug 2010 (this version, v2))

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4677v2

Recently a new model with hidden variables of the wave type was elaborated, so called prequantum classical statistical field theory (PCSFT). Roughly speaking PCSFT is a classical signal theory applied to a special class of signals -- "quantum systems". PCSFT reproduces successfully all probabilistic predictions of QM, including correlations for entangled systems. This model peacefully coexists with all known no-go theorems, including Bell's theorem. In our approach QM is an approximate model. All probabilistic predictions of QM are only (quite good) approximations of "real physical averages". The latter are averages with respect to fluctuations of prequantum fields. In particular, Born's rule is only an approximate rule. More precise experiments should demonstrate its violation. We present a simple experiment which has to produce statistical data violating Born's rule. Since the PCSFT-presentation of this experiment may be difficult for experimenters, we reformulate consequences of PCSFT in terms of the conventional wave function. In general, deviation from Born's rule is rather small. We found an experiment amplifying this deviation. We start with a toy example in section 2. Then we present a more realistic example based on Gaussian states with very small dispersion, see section 3.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Scientific Evidence for PSI?

Postby Access Denied » Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:19 pm

Gary wrote:AD, your logic is inescapable (and wrong, IMHO :-)

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion but unfortunately you have painted yourself into a corner with respect to the paranormal in your rush to embrace the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics (QM) which in reality, prevents it and nonlocal influences in general.

From Prices’s Everett Interpretation FAQ

Is physics linear?
Could we ever communicate with the other worlds?
Why do I only ever experience one world?
Why am I not aware of the world (and myself) splitting?

http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#linear

According to our present knowledge of physics whilst it is possible to detect the presence of other nearby worlds, through the existence of interference effects, it is impossible travel to or communicate with them. Mathematically this corresponds to an empirically verified property of all quantum theories called linearity. Linearity implies that the worlds can interfere with each other with respect to a external, unsplit, observer or system but the interfering worlds can't influence each other in the sense that an experimenter in one of the worlds can arrange to communicate with their own, already split-off, quantum copies in other worlds.

Specifically, the wave equation is linear, with respect to the wavefunction or state vector, which means that given any two solutions of the wavefunction, with identical boundary conditions, then any linear combination of the solutions is another solution. Since each component of a linear solution evolves with complete indifference as to the presence or absence of the other terms/solutions then we can conclude that no experiment in one world can have any effect on another experiment in another world. Hence no communication is possible between quantum worlds. (This type of linearity mustn't be confused with the evident non-linearity of the equations with respect to the fields.)

Non communication between the splitting Everett-worlds also explains why we are not aware of any splitting process, since such awareness needs communication between worlds. To be aware of the world splitting you would have to be receiving sensory information from, and thereby effect by the reverse process, more than one world. This would enable communication between worlds, which is forbidden by linearity. Ergo, we are not aware of any splitting precisely because we are split into non-interfering copies along with the rest of the world.

Consider also this novel variation of the Fermi Paradox implied by the MWI…

Is linearity exact?
http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#exact

Linearity (of the wavefunction) has been verified to hold true to better than 1 part in 10^27 [W]. If slight non-linear effects were ever discovered then the possibility of communication with, or travel to, the other worlds would be opened up. The existence of parallel Everett- worlds can be used to argue that physics must be exactly linear, that non-linear effects will never be detected. (See "Is physics linear" for more about linearity.)

The argument for exactness uses a version of the weak anthropic principle and proceeds thus: the exploitation of slight non-linear quantum effects could permit communication with and travel to the other Everett-worlds. A sufficiently advanced "early" civilisation [F] might colonise uninhabited other worlds, presumably in an exponentially spreading fashion. Since the course of evolution is dictated by random quantum events (mutations, genetic recombination) and environmental effects (asteroidal induced mass extinctions, etc.) it seems inevitable that in a minority, although still a great many, of these parallel worlds life on Earth has already evolved sapient-level intelligence and developed an advanced technology millions or even billions of years ago. Such early arrivals, under the usual Darwinian pressure to expand, would spread across the parallel time tracks, if they had the ability, displacing their less-evolved quantum neighbours.

The fossil record indicates that evolution, in our ancestral lineage, has proceeded at varying rates at different times. Periods of rapid development in complexity (e.g. the Cambrian explosion of 530 millions years ago or the quadrupling of brain size during the recent Ice Ages) are interspersed with long periods of much slower development. This indicates that we are not in the fast lane of evolution, where all the lucky breaks turned out just right for the early development of intelligence and technology. Ergo none of the more advanced civilisations that exist in other worlds have ever been able to cross from one quantum world to another and interrupt our long, slow biological evolution.

The simplest explanation is that physics is sufficiently linear to prevent travel between Everett worlds. If technology is only bounded by physical law (the Feinberg principle [F]) then linearity would have to be exact.

[F] Gerald Feinberg. Physics and Life Prolongation Physics Today Vol 19 #11 45 (1966). "A good approximation for such [technological] predictions is to assume that everything will be accomplished that does not violate known fundamental laws of science as well as many things that do violate these laws."

[W] Steven Weinberg Testing Quantum Mechanics Annals of Physics Vol 194 #2 336-386 (1989) and Dreams of a Final Theory (1992)

Just admit it Gary, the only reason you to subscribe to the “many worlds” interpretation is because it sounds "mystical" and the layman is easily fooled into believing it leaves some “wiggle room” for the paranormal… surely if the MWI is “trivially true” as Hawkings reportedly said to Tipler (a creationist) these other worlds are real and can potentially interact with ours! :roll:

Again, I dare you to put your money where your mouth is and commit Quantum Suicide to prove to yourself the MWI is literally true…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_su ... mmortality

That or I suggest you shut up and calculate. :D

As to Valentini’s ideas you may search for my previous comments here and regarding the likelihood of any “modifications” to QM “saving the day” per your last post, see above regarding linearity.

AD
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Next

Google

Return to PSI / Mind Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron