Conference hydra::dejavu

Psychic phenomena are either inside or beyond "science."  I tried to estanb-
lish a note earlier ("What's Psychic?") to address this issue.

The stuff that's supposed to be within the scope of paraphysics are the
"psi" phenomena, such as telepathy, precog, clairaudience.

The stuff outside are the quasireligious things such as Spiritualism.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    There are intriguing hints of connections between modern physics
    and psychic phenomena, but so far they remain just hints.
    
    I am not aware of any psychic-looking implications of the Grand
    Unification Theories.  But quantum mechanics, part of the background
    for those theories, is riddled with weirdness, some of it
    psychic-looking.
    
    When quantum mechanics was first assuming a coherent shape, around
    1930, it involved a mathematical entity called the "wave function"
    (which, by quaint coincidence, is represented by the letter psi).
    People have been arguing for the last seventy years about the physical
    significance of the wave function.  On the first brush, it looks
    fairly simple: the square of the wave function at any given place
    and time is proportional to the probability of finding the associated
    particle at that place and time.
    
    But what do you mean by "probability"?  Is the particle's position
    unpredictable because the particle is inherently somewhat chaotic,
    or because we lack sufficient data?  It gets much more complicated
    than that, pretty quickly.  The upshot has been to leave us with
    two possible interpretations, both very odd and somewhat magical
    in appearance:
    
    1) Material objects DO NOT HAVE a definite physical state until
    they are observed.  The act of observation makes them "make up their
    minds" so to speak.  This is the Bohr Interpretation, named for
    Niels Bohr, who defended it against Einstein, who couldn't abide
    it.  ("God does not play dice with the universe," he said.)  This
    is supposedly the "standard" and "accepted" interpretation of quantum
    mechanics.  In fact, the issue of interpretation has simply been
    ignored for the last fifty years or so, but is now heating up again.
    
    2) The behavior of material objects is definite, but is inter-related
    by what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" (I translate
    freely).  These coordinating influences, sometimes called the "hidden
    variables," would have to propagate faster than light, if quantum
    mechanics is to match the observed behavior of matter as well as
    it does.  And things that move faster than light can do screwy things
    in time as well as space.  No wonder Einstein didn't like the idea.
    But he liked it better than Bohr's intetrpretation.
    
    As I said, these are mere hints.  There is nothing in the Bohr
    interpretation that indicates you can CONTROL the way that matter
    makes up its mind, nor is there anything in the hidden variable
    interpretation that indicates you could tune in on hidden variables
    to read off telepathic or clairvoyant data, or that you could
    manipulate them to produce psychokinetic effects.  They remain hints.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    A fine reference work which discusses just this issue  is Jung/Pauli
    Synchronicity.  
    
    Rita
    

    Jorge:
    
    I hope you're still around. I'm new to NOTES. Re: your comment on
    "What Einstein Didn't Know". I've read and conferred with a number
    of Physicists over the past several years who have adduced a new
    Paradigm of Science (at least, the begginings), which will account
    for telepathy, clairvoyance, syncronicity, etc. Among them are David
    Bohm, Nick Herbert, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Pribram. They are not all
    Physicists; the new paradigm (Holonomy is a one-word pointer to
    a complicated subject) is multi-disciplinary. Read George Leonard's
    "The Silent Pulse" for an introduction.
    
    Richard

    >> As I said, these are mere hints.  There is nothing in the Bohr
    >> interpretation that indicates you can CONTROL the way that matter
    >> makes up its mind

    If conscious observation affects the behavior of matter, then it must
    be remembered that there is a LOT of conscious observation occurring at
    all times.  We have more than 5 billion people on the planet
    consciously observing the physical world.

    Mind Energy as a Force Vector
    -----------------------------
    I like to think of conscious observation as a force that I call Mind
    Energy.  If it is a force, then it can be described as a vector--it
    has a magnitude and a direction.  

    *    Direction is the content of the thought.  For example:  Metal is 
    hard.

    *    Magnitude is a measure of certainty.   Magnitude determines the 
    level of belief that an observer gives to the thought.  For example:  I
    will sit in my car in a hailstorm, because I believe that the metal is
    hard enough to keep the hail from hitting me.

    I would like to propose that all observable phenomena in the world of
    matter could be described as the vector addition of all Mind Energy
    forces.

    --Ruth

    .5
    >If conscious observation affects the behavior of matter, then it must

    i think .3 was talking about a physical type of thing, nothing mystic
    about it, to know what something is doing, you need to interact with it, 
    touch it, see it, send a wave to it and see how long it takes to 
    be reflected, etc... . but when you do that, you'll affect the state of the
    thing that you wanted to measure to start with.  depending on the
    object you are observing, they are either affected a lot or a little
    by your observations, large sized objects get affected less than
    very small objects. i can wrong offcourse, i have not taken any
    course on quantum mechanics, but i always thought the reason for this
    was something along these lines.

    correct me if iam wrong , but i think you are trying to explain this thing
    (our observations affecting what we observe) as  some kind of 
    mind-energy-thoughts-foucs-brain waves etc.. type of thing, but i think 
    there is no need for it, unless we cant explain what is happening just
    based on physics alone.

    >Mind Energy as a Force Vector
    >-----------------------------
    >I like to think of conscious observation as a force that I call Mind
    >Energy.

    Ok, iam not sure i understand this and what you say after that, to 
    start with, Energy is a scalar quantity , it has units of Joule. force 
    has units of Newton. how can energy be a force vector? and what is 
    actually the definition of "mind energy"? 

    sorry , but i get confused when i hear terms like that and i try
    to see their definitions and do units check on them and i find 
    that the left side has different units from the right side.

    \nasser

RE: .6
> i think .3 was talking about a physical type of thing....

I'm glad you brought this up.  There is nothing mystical about quantum
physics.  But--it is well known and proven that the act of observation
*itself* affects the state of a particle on the quantum level.

It is true that by directing energy toward an object that the energy
changes the state of the object, so that our observation affects the
experiment.  But quantum physics goes a step beyond that.  

	...from page 156, "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat," by John
Gribbin (a physicist)

"This misconception still arises today, partly because of the way the idea
of uncertainty is often taught.  Heisenberg himself used the idea of
observing an electron to make his point.  We can only see things by looking
at them, which involves bouncing photons of light off them and into our
eyes.  A photon doesn't disturb an object like a house very much, so we
don't expect the house to be affected by looking at it.  For an electron,
though, things are rather different.  To start with, because an electron is
so small we have to use electromagnetic energy with a short wavelength in
order to see it (with the aid of experimental apparatus) at all.  Such
gamma radiation is very energetic, and any photon of gamma radiation that
bounces off an electron and can be detected by our experimental apparatus
will drastically change the position and momentum of the electron--if the
electron is in an atom, the very act of observing it with a gamma ray
microscope may knock it out of the atom altogether."

	"All this is true enough, and it does give a general idea of the
impossibility of measuring precisely both the position and momentum of an
electron.  But what the uncertainty principle tells us is that, according
to the fundamental equation of quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as
an electron that possesses both a precise momentum and a precise position."

	"This has far-reaching implications.  As Heisenberg said at the end
of his paper in the 'Zeitschrift,' "We *cannot* know, as a matter of
principle, the present in all its details."

------------------
Note .2 sums all this up rather nicely

	>> Material objects DO NOT HAVE a definite physical state until
they are observed.

Bohr's interpretation has been substantiated by the well-known Bell and
Aspect experiments.  You can read about these in the book listed for the
above quote, or try Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality."

Also, there's an excellent book on the spirituality and beauty of the new
physics, "Fearful Symmetry," by the highly respected physicist Dr. A. Zee.
    
    
    --Ruth

RE .6

>> i think you are trying to explain this thing...as some kind of
>>mind-energy-thoughts-foucs-brain waves et.. type of thing, but i think there
>>is no need for it, unless we cant explain what is happening just based on
>>physics alone.

At one time in our not-so-distant history, electrical forces were thought
to be magic, unexplainable, mystical phenomena.

Then in a flurry of experiment and imagination and leaps in intelligence --
it was understood.  The experiments of men such as Faraday, Ampere, Gauss,
and of course the one who tied it all together, James Clerk Maxwell, gave
us a way to describe these mysterious and previously uncontrollable forces
of electricity and magnetism.

Several years ago, Marcel Vogel, (who earned his credentials as an IBM
senior scientist) did some intriguing experiments in measuring mind energy.
I saw a PBS (NOVA maybe?) special on it.  Maybe his experiments were bogus,
maybe they weren't, but what I am proposing is that it is possible that
someday we will be able to understand what this "act of observation"
really is and how it influences our quantum as well as localistic world.

Yes, this harmonizes with many religious/intuitive/mystic ideas.

But the Mind Energy idea can be approached from the rational science side,
as a definable, measurable, force.  So it hasn't been done yet?  So what?
Have we learned everything there is to learn about physics?

So what I'm presenting is the embryonic stages of a conceptual model.  What
if:

1.  Consciousness/Thought/Mind Energy is a measurable, mathematically
definable energy.

2.  It could have properties that are similar to other forces that we are
already familiar with -- such as being able to sum it's effects using a
kind of vector addition.  This would explain why my coffee cup doesn't pick
itself up and move into my hand when I focus my mind on it.  My little
shred of Mind Energy would be totally negated by the massive collective
Mind Energy that holds that it can't happen.  It would be like a beetle
playing tug-of-war with an elephant.



>>Energy is a scalar quantity

Is there a physicist in the house?  I'm trying to remember exactly how all
this is defined.  It has been 8 years since my last Physics course.

Yes, the unit known as a Joule is a scalar quantity.  It is an SI unit of
measurement, more commonly referred to as a Newton-meter.

But when considering how one "thing" such as an electron, affects another
"thing" such as another electron, the direction of energy is always
considered.  Coulombs law itself is defined using a unit vector.

If I'm designing a laser to prune trees, I have to deal with both an energy
level and a direction.  I have to have enough energy (magnitude) to burn
through tree fiber as well as be able to point that energy (direction) at
the tree instead of the neighbor's house.

...Back to the Bohr model,

So, the quantum physicist says that observation collapses a potential (a
probability wave) into particle (our observed reality).  Why can't we
control it?

My theory is that we can affect it individually --  but not much.  The real
force of observation lies in the summation of all observation occurring at
any given point in time.


--Ruth

    

ELBERT::FANNIN 
    
Interesting theory... 
    
>2.  It could have properties that are similar to other forces that we are
>already familiar with -- such as being able to sum it's effects using a
>kind of vector addition.  This would explain why my coffee cup doesn't pick
>itself up and move into my hand when I focus my mind on it.  My little
>shred of Mind Energy would be totally negated by the massive collective
>Mind Energy that holds that it can't happen.  It would be like a beetle
>playing tug-of-war with an elephant.

    And the atoms themselves form patterns ... habits.... natural laws.... 
    ... strange attractors that they resist violating... hence your coffee 
    cup doesn't *want* to jump into your hand.

>So, the quantum physicist says that observation collapses a potential (a
>probability wave) into particle (our observed reality).  Why can't we
>control it?

    We can.. 
    
>My theory is that we can affect it individually --  but not much.  The real
>force of observation lies in the summation of all observation occurring at
>any given point in time.

   I think that's a pretty good theory, Ruth
    
    "once in awhile you get shown the light,
     in the strangest of places if you look at it right"

VERGA::STANLEY 
    
>>    And the atoms themselves form patterns ... habits.... natural laws....
>>    ... strange attractors that they resist violating... hence your coffee
>>    cup doesn't *want* to jump into your hand.

Right.  It's the old Schroedinger's cat argument that the consciousness of
the cat has to be accounted for.  How "far down" the ladder of life
forms/matter do we go to look for consciousness?  Are atoms themselves
conscious?  Electrons?  Quarks?  Leptons?  Mickey-Mouseons?

There's probably some holistic paradigm that I'm missing on this.

Those darn spin (Bell, Aspect) experiments that demonstrate "spooky
action at a distance" -- as Wajenberg described it in .2 -- would lead us
to believe in that mystic concept of interconnectedness of all matter.

Maybe we can't separate conscious observation into nice neat little forces.
Or maybe we can do it, but only on a localistic level.  We don't have too
much horsepower in the way of good experimental data to support Mind Energy
as a force (yet).  But we do have a cartload of anecdotal evidence.

Now, I don't want to put the anecdotal cart before the empirical horse, but
we can get ideas from present cultural mythology.  Specifically,

1.  The infamous "hundredth monkey effect" -- whether bogus or not, it
resonates some intuitive chord in people.  Does it always have to be just
coincidence?  Why *did* Leibnitz and Newton invent Calculus at the same
time?  Was it an idea whose time had come?  Or were Leibnitz and Newton
tapping into a joined (summed observation) consciousness?

2.  The strange effects of collective behavior.  People simply become
willing to do all sorts of things they would never even think of doing --
when everyone else is doing it.  Some leftover evolutionary herd instinct?
Or could it be an extremely big vector summing with a tiny vector in each
individual's own mind energy system?

3.  Menstrual cycles in the human female.  Any woman who has ever lived
with a group of other women know that the cycles will eventually become
synchronized.  Is it some kind of subconscious biofeedback loop or resonant
Mind Energy coaxing a natural system into synchronization?


So my question is this?  How the heck do we set up a valid, reproducible,
experiment to disprove or prove the idea that observation is a force to be
reckoned with?

    --Ruth

RE: .7

>But--it is well known and proven that the act of observation
>*itself* affects the state of a particle on the quantum level.

    Yes, that is important to emphasize.  Originally Heisenberg
    interpretted his uncertainty principle in terms of the physical
    interaction -- that to observe you have to pump energy which modifies
    the system under observation.  Within a short time of his original
    paper, however, he and soon all the people seriously working on this
    stuff realized that what is going on is much more fundamental than
    that.  Unfortuantely that piece of misinformation has gotten
    permanantly fixed in many popularizations.  Bottom line -- anything
    you read which attempts to "explain" the uncertainty this way is
    unreliable.  The author does not really understand QM and you may
    well come away from reading such a source knowing less about QM than
    you knew when you started.

    Another point to emphasize is that "observation" and "observer" are
    specialized technical terms in QM.  They do *not* refer to "conscious
    observation" or to a "conscious observer".  They do not have anything
    to do with "consciousness".  QM does not refer to consciousness nor
    assign any special role to consciousness -- it does not enter into the
    theory.

    There are interpretations of QM which *add* a concept of consciousness
    to the basic theory of QM, but those interpretations are held as of any
    special interest only by a very small percentage of those with a real
    knowledge of QM.  There is some room in QM to "attach" consciousness as
    something "real" but it is *not* part of the theory.

    Any source which says otherwise: which talks about "the role of
    consciousness in QM" as something established or some such is junk.
    Ignore what it says, it can only confuse you.  (This isn't to say that
    speculation or discussion of those interpretations/extensions of QM
    which talk about consciousness are not legitimate as long as they make
    it clear that it is not what most scientists who are talking about QM
    are talking about).

					Topher

    >observation" or to a "conscious observer".  They do not have anything
    >to do with "consciousness".  QM does not refer to consciousness nor

    this is my late night attempt to prove the above: 
    (without me defining what a "conscious" is . (can i do that?))

    ASSUME what is below to be TRUE:
    observer's A can affect what is observed based on things other
    than purely physical forces, i.e. by being a "conscious" observer,
    then one can construct two identical systems, and bring two observers, A 
    and B, with different "conscious" or whatever you want to call this 
    "extra" non physical force in play, and let A observe one system, and B 
    the others, let them observe using identical physical methods, only 
    difference is the observers are different in their "conscious", so at 
    the end, the systems will (most likely) have different states, (unless 
    by chance they happen to end up in the same state), they'll be 
    "different" because A and B are "different" observers in the sense that
    their "conscious" is different.

    THEN this is TRUE: (conclusion A)
    2 systems starting from same state, can end up in two different states
    even though the same PHYSICAL forces are being applied on them.

    but this conclusion contradicts a fact that there are only ONE laws 
    of physics, (laws of physics cant change because the observer changes 
    his/her "conscious").

    hence conclusion A contradicts what we know about physics, hence
    assumption is wrong since it leads to this conclusion, hence "conscious"
    of observer do not affect the state of system, only physical forces
    do.

    iam getting dizzy thinking about how can a "consiouse" change what
    is observed, becuase i really dont understand what it mean...
    
    now i go back and read last few notes to read what every one wrote ;-)
    
    \nasser
    \nasser

ELBERT::FANNIN 
> -< yes, but who cleans the litterbox? >-
     
     Well... since we're the only one's here, I guess we do... :-)
    
>Right.  It's the old Schroedinger's cat argument that the consciousness of
>the cat has to be accounted for.  How "far down" the ladder of life
>forms/matter do we go to look for consciousness?  Are atoms themselves
>conscious?  Electrons?  Quarks?  Leptons?  Mickey-Mouseons?

    Yes... I think so... everything is conscious though with it's own
    particular perception...
    
>There's probably some holistic paradigm that I'm missing on this.
>Those darn spin (Bell, Aspect) experiments that demonstrate "spooky
>action at a distance" -- as Wajenberg described it in .2 -- would lead us
>to believe in that mystic concept of interconnectedness of all matter.

    I believe it anyway...
    
>Maybe we can't separate conscious observation into nice neat little forces.
>Or maybe we can do it, but only on a localistic level.  We don't have too
>much horsepower in the way of good experimental data to support Mind Energy
>as a force (yet).  But we do have a cartload of anecdotal evidence.
>Now, I don't want to put the anecdotal cart before the empirical horse, but
>we can get ideas from present cultural mythology.  Specifically,

>1.  The infamous "hundredth monkey effect" -- whether bogus or not, it
>resonates some intuitive chord in people.  Does it always have to be just
>coincidence?  Why *did* Leibnitz and Newton invent Calculus at the same
>time?  Was it an idea whose time had come?  Or were Leibnitz and Newton
>tapping into a joined (summed observation) consciousness?

    I don't think it's coincidence anymore... more like an idea whose time
    has come.
    
>2.  The strange effects of collective behavior.  People simply become
>willing to do all sorts of things they would never even think of doing --
>when everyone else is doing it.  Some leftover evolutionary herd instinct?
>Or could it be an extremely big vector summing with a tiny vector in each
>individual's own mind energy system?

    That and more... it's like a Strange Attractor for our kind of
    animal... life form...
    
>3.  Menstrual cycles in the human female.  Any woman who has ever lived
>with a group of other women know that the cycles will eventually become
>synchronized.  Is it some kind of subconscious biofeedback loop or resonant
>Mind Energy coaxing a natural system into synchronization?

    Both maybe... ?
    
>So my question is this?  How the heck do we set up a valid, reproducible,
>experiment to disprove or prove the idea that observation is a force to be
>reckoned with?

I don't know.. I know know... Ruth.... only a scientist would have the
    knowledge and experience to figure that out... I've tried and tried
    all kinds of different things myself but... I don't know.. I'm never
    satisfied, I guess.

STAR::ABBASI 
    

>    ASSUME what is below to be TRUE:
>    observer's A can affect what is observed based on things other
>    than purely physical forces, i.e. by being a "conscious" observer,
>    then one can construct two identical systems, and bring two observers, A 
>    and B, with different "conscious" or whatever you want to call this 
>    "extra" non physical force in play, and let A observe one system, and B 
>    the others, let them observe using identical physical methods, only 
>    difference is the observers are different in their "conscious", so at 
>    the end, the systems will (most likely) have different states, (unless 
>    by chance they happen to end up in the same state), they'll be 
>    "different" because A and B are "different" observers in the sense that
>    their "conscious" is different.

      Yes... like the way the different countries in the world developed...
    not a common culture or system but all different... viewed by a
    different "observer".... not like a herd of deer or cows who all the
    world over are more or less the same...
     
>    >THEN this is TRUE: (conclusion A)
>    2 systems starting from same state, can end up in two different states
>    even though the same PHYSICAL forces are being applied on them.

     Yes.. like the countries of Earth...
    
>    but this conclusion contradicts a fact that there are only ONE laws 
>    of physics, (laws of physics cant change because the observer changes 
>    his/her "conscious").

     No it doesn't...
    
>    hence conclusion A contradicts what we know about physics, hence
>    assumption is wrong since it leads to this conclusion, hence "conscious"
>    of observer do not affect the state of system, only physical forces
>    do.

     No Nassar... you can have different states that follow the same
    natural laws... can't you?  What do you mean by state?
    
>    iam getting dizzy thinking about how can a "consiouse" change what
>    is observed, becuase i really dont understand what it mean...
    
     It means... that there are an infinite number of possibilities and
     reality has to go somewhere cause it's constantly in motion... and
    you can decide where it's going to go *cause it isn't there yet* ...
    you talk about a "state" as if it is a solid unchanging condition
    and that's a fallacy of the language, Nasser... it's a flaw in the
    scientific method.... it's an *incorrect* basic assumption... it just
    isn't like that in real life... in real life everything is always moving 
    and changing ... if it's alive... and even if it isn't.. it's always
    growing... becoming... motion.. you don't have motion factored in there
    do you?
    

>So my question is this?  How the heck do we set up a valid, reproducible,
>experiment to disprove or prove the idea that observation is a force to be
>reckoned with?
    
    One problem is that this question seems to underestimate the complexity
    of such an endeavor.  
    
    The reason we can't do this is because 'observation' is so ill-defined
    in most cases.  'Conscious' and 'observer' are frequently defined
    in such a vague manner, independent of any other experimentally
    testable conceptual framework that no possible way of testing anything
    related to them is possible.  That was the primary reason we lapsed
    into 50 years of behaviorism in psychology in the U.S., in the early
    20th century. Remember classical and operant conditioning and
    stimulus and response ?  IMO, there were some very good reasons why
    those ideas supplanted philosophical psychology at the time they did.
    
    The road back to studying the mind has been pioneered in psychology
    by Gestalt and Cognitive theories.  (I view) most of the literary attempts 
    (at the current time) to correlate quantum physics with theories
    of consciousness as specious at this point in our knowledge.  No reason
    not to 'think about it,' but proposing a real experiment of some kind
    to correlate the quantum observer with the psychoanalytic
    ego, or some such cross-disciplinary leap, requires a lot more
    groundwork, I think.  The physical correlates of aspects of human
    consciousness are still extremely crude.  Things like statistical
    patterns of neural activity and evoked potentials are probably not 
    nearly sufficient to make a link back to quantum events, if you see
    what I mean ?  And subjective reports are {notoriously unreliable},
    etc. etc. etc..
    
    A few serious attempts at integrative theory seem notable, like Karl 
    Pribram's work in brain science.  Most of it, though, makes for 
    interesting fantasy and speculation, but real 'scientific' knowledge is 
    yet to be built on firmer foundations, after we model consciousness in a 
    more adequate manner.  There are a number of levels of theory that have to 
    be correlated in some way just to have a somewhat unified definition of 
    what an 'observer' is in psychology, before we can relate that observer 
    to whatever is going on at the subatomic level theoretically.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    re: .15,
    >So my question is this?  How the heck do we set up a valid, reproducible,
    >experiment to disprove or prove the idea that observation is a force to be
    >reckoned with?
    
    Of course, there are also two aspects to this ... showing that 
    'something happens,' and then explaining it.
    
    If you mean to ask whether we can experimentally correlate intention 
    of some sort directly with physical effects in a manner not explained by 
    existing theories, that's probably something that some of Topher's 
    colleagues attempt to set up on a regular basis, I would think ?   That's 
    a lot of what experimental parapsychology is about.  That, and 
    experimentally showing how information might be transmitted by 
    non-conventional means, and so on.  But as far as I know, they don't 
    generally try to explain things down to the quantum level, at least not in 
    technical publications.   
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    Well... that's ok... while you guys are doing that, maybe we can figure
    out how it works and how to control it better.. meet you at the pass. 

Note 28.16                    
DWOVAX::STARK 
    
>    non-conventional means, and so on.  But as far as I know, they don't 
>    generally try to explain things down to the quantum level, at least not in 
>    technical publications.   
    
     Well,  they're scientists.. they're really observing effects.. aren't
    they?  Don't you think?  Is that right, Topher?

    There are some statements in .10 that have not been commented on.
    
    Concerning the "hundredth monkey effect":  It did not exist in the
    case of the monkeys; there was misreporting.  Leibnitz and Newton
    invented *integral* calculus at the same time because they were
    corresponding with each other.
    
    Sometimes people engage in strange collective behavior, because they
    think they'll get torn apart (literally or figuratively) if they do
    not.  Sometimes it is simply because they have faith that Other People
    Know Things that they themselves do not.  Most of us really have
    little or no protection against someone who lies to us.
    
    Menstrual synchronization is caused by pheromones, not "subconscious
    biofeedback loop" or "resonant Mind Energy".
    
    							Ann B.

RE: .8 (Ruth)

    Sorry it took me a while to get to this -- I've been rather busy.

>But when considering how one "thing" such as an electron, affects another
>"thing" such as another electron, the direction of energy is always
>considered.  Coulombs law itself is defined using a unit vector.

    You are confusing to related but quite different things.  Nothing to be
    embarrased about, they are rather easy to confuse.  What you are saying
    is "energy" -- which is a scalar (i.e., has no direction) -- but what
    coulombs law is about is "force" (which is a vector quantity).

    To see that they are different, imagine two identical masses, some
    force is applied to the first mass for a fixed amount of time.  Double
    that force is applied to the second mass for the same amount of time.
    The second mass will end up going twice as fast as the first.  But,
    the kinetic *energy* of the second mass will be four times as much
    as the first.

    A practical consequence of this is braking distances for vehicles.
    Basically, brakes use friction to convert kinetic energy (energy of
    motion) into heat energy, and they do so at a roughly constant rate
    (for the same amount of pressure).  This means that a car going twice
    as fast will require four times as much time to brake.  It also means
    that if the car is stopped catestrophically (i.e., if there is a crash)
    there is four times as much energy causing damage.

    The relevant forumlas are that:

	F = m*a

    The force present in an interaction which causes an acceleration is
    equal to the mass of the thing accelerated times the amount of
    acceleration it undergoes.  Twice the acceleration means that twice
    the force was present (and vice versa).

    But:

	KE = m*v*v/2

    The kinetic energy of a moving body is equal to half its mass times
    its velocity (actually its speed -- direction is irrelevant) squared.

    Another difference is apparent here.  When acceleration stops, the
    force goes away.  Poof, it's gone.  Force is not "conserved".  But when
    the acceleration stops, the mass is still moving and the energy
    transfered is still there.


>If I'm designing a laser to prune trees, I have to deal with both an energy
>level and a direction.  I have to have enough energy (magnitude) to burn
>through tree fiber as well as be able to point that energy (direction) at
>the tree instead of the neighbor's house.

    This is a little bit different.  No force is evident because there is
    no (macroscopic) acceleration.  Here you *are* talking about energy.
    Specifically, you are talking about transfering energy from one point
    to another.  Of course there is a direction associated with that
    transfer but it is no more a property of the energy than to say that
    there is a direction associated with mass because I can take a mass
    from one place and put it in another which has to be some direction
    or another from the initial position.

    Here are my approximations of the standard definition:

	Force is the measure of the effort needed to accelerate a given
	mass (a little more accurately, the effort needed to modify the
	momentum of a mass).

	Work is the application of a force over a distance (numerically
	equal to the product of the force and the distance over which that
	force is applied).

	Energy is the capacity to do work.

    That probably didn't help at all, I'm afraid.  You really have to work
    with these things numerically for a while to get a feel for them.
    Roughly speaking, energy is "seen" in some force being applied across
    some distance.  That is what the units say to.  Reduced to the most
    basic units, force is kilogram-meters-per-second-squared, while
    energy is kilogram-meters-squared-per-second-squared.

					Topher

Article: 6461
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Sender: news@well.sf.ca.us
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:08:09 GMT
 
 
I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
influential European corporation. If you want to make
corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
major role with major funding.
 
This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
and that something new-age is needed.
 
On the Mind-Matter Interaction
by Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.
 
The connection between mind and matter is not a problem restricted to
philosophy and theology. It is a problem for new physics. Indeed, it may be
the fundamental problem for the new post-Einsteinian physics of quantum
connectivity beyond the confines of space and time.
 
The new physics is the telepathic physics of "The Force" without force
portrayed in the film "Star Wars". It is the Physics of Destiny. It is the
source of meaning. It is the generator of existence in a universe of
purpose uniting Man with God.
 
The new physics provides the beginnings of a paradigm for wholistic
medicine.  It provides ideas on how disease develops, how drugs work, how
electromagnetic machines influence health, how the body influences the mind
and how the mind influences the body.
 
Today we use our fingers to type messages into a computer.  This is
changing rapidly. We already have programs that respond to our voice
commands. We are beginning to develop programs coupled with sensitive
electromagnetic detectors that allow computers to respond to our tiny eye
movements. Soon the computers will respond to the electromagnetic
radiations from our brains that correspond to our thoughts.  The computer
will obey the commands of our unvoiced thoughts.  It will work both ways.
The computer will be able to generate thoughts, feelings and experiences
directly into our conscious and unconscious minds without audio and video
outputs.  This new "psychotronic" technology will, like any new technology,
have the potential for healing and harming.
 
How is the new physics different from the old physics?  The basic
difference is in that complex of connected ideas represented by the words:
"signal", "communication", "information", "meaning" and "value". Old
physics assumes that causes are always before their effects, and that the
only way to transfer information is by moving matter or radiation. New
physics permits causes to be after their effects under certain condition.
When an effect happens, the several causes of that effect are both in its
past and in its future. There is also a third possibility. A cause of the
effect can be faster-than-light  in Einstein's "absolute elsewhere" of that
effect. New physics also says that there are two modes of information
transfer. The first is the old physics mode, in which the information is
transferred by a carrier within Einstein's unified spacetime. The carrier
is either radiation or matter in motion (e.g., a radio or TV signal, a
sound wave packet, a courier etc.).
 
The second mode of information transfer is telepathic,
clairvoyant,psychokinetic and precognitive, alien to old physics but
familiar to prophets, mystics, poets and artists. It is communication on
the "nonlocal" quantum connection "beyond spacetime".  There is no single
direct carrier of matter or radiation moving directly from sender to
receiver. There are, however, two indirect connected carriers moving from a
third "source" to sender and receiver, respectively. Under certain
conditions called "delayed choice" the sender of information can be in the
far future of the receiver of that information.  It is in this sense that
we think of The Force without force or "La Forza del Destino".
 
The Princeton University Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory under
the former Dean of the Engineering College, Robert Jahn, claims that the
human mind has this "precognitive remote-viewing" ability. The "skeptics"
(e.g., former Scientific American columnist Martin Gardner's Committee to
Investigate Claims of the Paranormal), who only believe old physics, claim
that Dr. Jahn is misinterpreting is results with bad statistics. However, a
late station chief of the American Central Intelligence Agency assured me
that he had used "remote viewing" very successfully in covert operations
inside the Soviet Union during the peak of the Cold War. If Martin
Gardner's real motive is to hide the reality of remote viewing for reasons
of "national security", then he would naturally wish to debunk it.  The
American Army has published positive reports of "psychic warfare" in
several professional journals like Miltary Review and Signal.  The gossip
is that Martin Gardner and the arch-debunker, "The Amazing Randi" take
psychic phenomena very seriously. That is why they came down so hard on Uri
Geller because they believe him to be an imposter - a stage magician in
psychic clothes. It is certainly true that Randi can do everything that
Geller can do. It is also true that Geller fails rigorous tests set up by
other stage magicians. On the other hand, I saw topologically intricate
twisted metal allegedly bent by psychics in Brazil that is very puzzling.
The reader should form his own opinion. As a scientist, I do not have an
opinion on the reality of psychokinetic metal-bending at this point in
time.
 
We must be more precise about telepathic information transfer on the
quantum connection. The quantum connection was discovered by Einstein in
the early 1930's in his debate with Bohr on the completeness of the new
quantum mechanics of quantum jumping electrons (in atoms, molecules and
crystals) emitting and absorbing photons. Both electrons and photons, under
certain experimental conditions, behaved like tiny particles, while
behaving as spread-out waves under different incompatible experimental
conditions.  All quantum particles obeyed the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle. This principle asserts that observable properties of the
particle like its position and its momentum were incompatible. That is, an
increase in the precision of our measurement of one property would decrease
the precision in a simultaneous measurement of the other incompatible
property.  This was something new, not found in Newton's classical
mechanics of gravitational or electromagnetic forces causing particles to
accelerate (i.e. change speed or direction or both).
 
Einstein thought about a simple molecule that split into two atoms that
flew away from each other in opposite direction. He showed that the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle for one of the atoms could not be true
unless there was a real quantum connection or an "action at a distance"
between the two atoms. This long-range connection was qualitatively
different from from the known long-range forces of gravitation and
electromagnetism. The known forces weaken with increasing separation
between the two particles. Quite the contrary is the case for the quantum
connection which persists undiminished with increasing separation in either
space or time. Einstein called this "telepathic" and "spooky action at a
distance". Quantum mechanics seems to open the door to a precise
mathematical voodoo, i.e., embracing or "entangled" quantum
"wavefunctions".
 
An experiment by Alain Aspect at the University of Paris in 1982 on a pair
of photons emitted in opposite directions by a calcium atom shows
conclusively that such a theoretically predicted faster-than-light quantum
connection is real.  There is a "loophole" that must be plugged when more
efficient photon detectors become available. To really be sure the photon
detectors must be at least 83% efficient. Aspect's detectors are
considerably less efficient. However, the extremely good agreement between
the experimental data and the theoretical curve of standard quantum
mechanics makes most experts quite confident that the loophole when plugged
will not overturn Aspect's result.
 
We must however be clear that Aspect's discovery is not sufficient to
establish the factuality of useful faster-than-light communication in which
the quantum connection is a communication channel. A communication channel
means that we must be able to encode a message at the sender and to decode
it at the receiver.  In Aspect's experiment it is easy to encode the
message but it is impossible to decode it by observations at the receiver
alone. One must compare or "correlate" the observations from both the
receiver and the sender in order to decode the message. This, unfortunately
defeats the purpose. On the other hand, this observed quantum connectedness
may be vital in understanding the coherent behavior of complex living
systems. There is little doubt that a deeper understanding of the webs of
quantum connectivity between widely separated spinning electrons on DNA and
enzymes will lead to more effective medicine in the battle against disease
and aging. It will also lead to a new psychotronic nano-technology
interfacing mind to machine including new healing therapies.
 
to be continued (the above is one evening's work).
 
Admiral Sarfatti
Star Fleet Academy
Star Fleet Command
Presidio
San Francisco
Federation of United Planets.