62 replies to this topic

[Robot]

Admin please delete post #45, it is a partial duplicate of my post #44. Thanks

[stevenedel]

"0.0002 millimeter-square wafer of quartzlike material" - interesting definition of macroscopic... If researchers are looking for quantum effects observable with the naked eye, why don't they simply replicate Schmidt's setup??

[stevenedel]

I wonder why it is when I ask a few critical questions about a particular study, you go of on a tangent?

Placebo studies are an interesting area but quite another matter. Assuming the placebo effect exists at all, an assumption questioned in several large meta-analytical studies, the mind influencing the body is still something very different from the mind influencing matter outside the body. Even if placebo works, it works on a fairly limited range of mental and physical states only; it doesn't cure organic disease, for instance. So you can't simply jump from 'mind over (some parts of the) body' to 'mind over matter'.

[Robot]

stevenedel, on Aug 1 2010, 06:50 AM, said:

"0.0002 millimeter-square wafer of quartzlike material" - interesting definition of macroscopic... If researchers are looking for quantum effects observable with the naked eye, why don't they simply replicate Schmidt's setup??

At least you are asking questions instead of making statements. I simply dont have time to tutor you in Physics.

I'm glad to see you starting to research the subject, and hopefully some fundamentals of Physics as well.

I have corresponed with some "well known" Skeptics, I value the nature of their role, However most skeptics I encounter are naive in the subject matter and have very limited Scientific knowledge, yet they are "driven" to get thier point across, however ignorant it is.

Thank God for the "enlightened" 5% of Skeptics I have encountered. The other 95% are applicable to this quote from Proverbs:

Proverbs 18:2

"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion"

stevenedel, on Aug 1 2010, 08:45 AM, said:

I wonder why it is when I ask a few critical questions about a particular study, you go of on a tangent?

Placebo studies are an interesting area but quite another matter. Assuming the placebo effect exists at all, an assumption questioned in several large meta-analytical studies, the mind influencing the body is still something very different from the mind influencing matter outside the body. Even if placebo works, it works on a fairly limited range of mental and physical states only; it doesn't cure organic disease, for instance. So you can't simply jump from 'mind over (some parts of the) body' to 'mind over matter'.

Study the "particulars" of the study. Better yet, study similar studies. Learn from others.

I could write extensively on your placebo "statements", but you already have all the "answers".

Please learn about what you make statements about. My patience at educating you is exhausted.

[Caniswalensis]

stevenedel, on Jul 25 2010, 06:01 AM, said:

I read the Phillip experiment in the first post on this thread. It has one very big and obvious flaw that stands out immediately: it was conducted by believers rather than neutral subjects. These people had an interest in making something happen. And then they go on TV - not the most reliable arena for producing good science. I don't know the details, but I wouldn't rule out faking as a simple explanation before throwing out the laws of physics.

If this had been a rigourous, truly well controlled scientific experiment, its results could have been published in any well-established, peer reviewed journal, rather than the obscure Journal of Parapsychology. The Lancet, no less, published a study into near-death experience not so long ago that claimed to offer proof of life after death, so don't tell me that the scientific establishment shies away from such things (although this clearly wasn't one of the Lancet's finest moments, as the research by Van Lommel et al. was seriously flawed and proved nothing of the kind).

How is it possible, I always wonder, if an ability like telekenesis is a common human faculty, that reports of it are so rare, and studies even rarer? Why is it so hard to get evidence for it, and why do we have to make do with reports of 40-year old experiments?

Nice post, Stevenedel

I think you make some good observations here, and ask some fair question.

I particualrly agree about the Phillip experiment. It was high;y biased & uncontrolled. Still, a very interesting story. I think we learn more about human psychology from it than anything else.

I would like to see this experiment refined and reproduced.

Regards, Canis

[ohreally?]

Robot, on Jul 30 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

stevenedel, on Jul 30 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

Take comfort, Robot. I am working on my PK knowledge. From your link I randomly picked an article by Helmut Schmidt, entitled The Strange Properties of Psychokinesis (JSE, vol. 1, nr. 2, 103-118). I seem to have picked rather well, as I find Mr. Schmidt is quite a name in PK. Imagine finding in such an utterly obscure journal experimental findings that rewrite our knowledge of quantum physics! Why doesn't the world know?

Why indeed?

Schmidt's experiments sure look sophisticated, if at times unnecessarily cumbersome. While the forums around here are full of moving furniture and what not, this researcher finds evidence for a mere few percents deviation in the random flashing of lightbulbs. Compared to some claims made in the paranormal arena it looks decidedly unspectacular. But his findings are statistically significant. Or so he says.

If that is true, Mr. Schmidt has shown that a person with PK capabilities is able to change the printing on a list of scores in a sealed envelope! That is actually what his research implies. His theory is that as long as the outcome of a random generator run has not been observed, it will be in a state of quantum uncertainty. So if the outcome of a random trial is printed, and the print is not looked at by anyone but put in a sealed envelope, the actual figures on the print will not be determined until someone looks at them. This gives the PK-subject the opportunity to influence the outcome of the pre-recorded random events one way or the other. Indeed, the independent observer who holds the envelope can ask the subject to skew the outcome of the random generator in a particular direction. After the test run is completed he opens the envelope, and low and behold, the printed outcome is indeed significantly skewed in the direction that was requested!

However. Despite his PhD Schmidt seems unaware that when quantum physicists talk about observing, they don't necessarily mean a conscious observer. Any apparatus that 'watches' or registers the outcome will do. This has actually been demonstrated in research (see here, for instance: article in Nature). Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes, Schmidt's printer in fact already registers and therefore determines the outcome. There is no changing of the print after that. So how come his findings fit so neatly with his faulty theory?

Schmidt didn't mind testing the PK abilities of chickens and even cockroaches. Unfortunately he was shown to have tampered with the data in at least one of those studies. Maybe that explains, too, why his data in this study so neatly fit a faulty theory?

The results Schmidt reported, if valid, would be utterly spectacular. Yet the research is old, forgotten and unreplicated and doesn't seem to have caused even the tiniest ripple in the community of quantum physicists. I think I can see why. Pseudoscience remains just that even when conducted by a physicist with a PhD and disguised under layers of technicalities and sophistication.

On to the next article. Any suggestions? This is fun!

Again, your ignorance of Physics is showing.

Quote

Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes,

Quantum effects, (most specifically entnanglement), HAVE been demonstrated on a Macroscopic Scale. Indeed, large enough to be seen by the human eye.

http://www.ia.ucsb.e....aspx?pkey=2200

http://www.wired.com...-santa-barbara/

http://www.foxnews.c...ses/?test=faces


Schmidt is only one researcher and set(s) of studies. Keep in mind "Retro-Causality" is a human interpretation of events, there are other Non-Retro Causality explanations.

Physicist York Dobyns told and audience I was in "Placebo Effect, is the Schizophrenia, of the Medical Community".

If you truly have an interest in Pk, study the analogues with "Placebo Effect". Thousands of studies have been conducted by many Physicians. Yet there remains NO clear concensus. It is just as "slippery" as Pk studies and may involve some of the same "mechanisms".

Most Doctors would agree, mind over matter can assist biology with things like pain, transmitters emitted from the brain from using a Placebo effect to initiate the interaction. Although some Physician's say there is NO Placebo effect, only misinterpretation of data.

However, Placebo effects seem to pursist even where no evidence of Psychological/Biological mechanism exists.

My personal Physician, supervised a study for a hair regrowth drug. A control group of placebo's was also used. A significan percentage,(outside normal distribution) showed new hair growth on the Placebo!

My Physician just shook his head. I asked him how he interpreted this, his answer was "you tell me!"

If you study Placebo Effect Abstracts, (many from the New England Journal of Medicine), you will see that these bizzare results are common. Placebo effect removing warts is another abstract.




Good to see you taking an apparent sincere interest. Nothing wrong with Skepticism, as long as it is informed, knowledgeable Skepticism.


Eventually I will need to start charging for all this "tutoring"


See everyone bright and early Monday, Regards, John

You forgot to take note of this sentence.

Quote

They wired the resonator to an electronic device developed for quantum computation, a superconducting qubit, and cooled the integrated device to temperatures near absolute zero

.
Large scale macroscopic quantum effects need special conditions to occur. Stevenedel is correct in his analysis and I'll add this. If Schmidt had discovered something real he'd have a Nobel Prize.

[ohreally?]

stevenedel, on Aug 1 2010, 06:50 AM, said:

"0.0002 millimeter-square wafer of quartzlike material" - interesting definition of macroscopic... If researchers are looking for quantum effects observable with the naked eye, why don't they simply replicate Schmidt's setup??

I'm on your side, but that is considered in the physics community to fit the term macroscopic.

[Robot]

ohreally?, on Aug 5 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

Robot, on Jul 30 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

stevenedel, on Jul 30 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

Take comfort, Robot. I am working on my PK knowledge. From your link I randomly picked an article by Helmut Schmidt, entitled The Strange Properties of Psychokinesis (JSE, vol. 1, nr. 2, 103-118). I seem to have picked rather well, as I find Mr. Schmidt is quite a name in PK. Imagine finding in such an utterly obscure journal experimental findings that rewrite our knowledge of quantum physics! Why doesn't the world know?

Why indeed?

Schmidt's experiments sure look sophisticated, if at times unnecessarily cumbersome. While the forums around here are full of moving furniture and what not, this researcher finds evidence for a mere few percents deviation in the random flashing of lightbulbs. Compared to some claims made in the paranormal arena it looks decidedly unspectacular. But his findings are statistically significant. Or so he says.

If that is true, Mr. Schmidt has shown that a person with PK capabilities is able to change the printing on a list of scores in a sealed envelope! That is actually what his research implies. His theory is that as long as the outcome of a random generator run has not been observed, it will be in a state of quantum uncertainty. So if the outcome of a random trial is printed, and the print is not looked at by anyone but put in a sealed envelope, the actual figures on the print will not be determined until someone looks at them. This gives the PK-subject the opportunity to influence the outcome of the pre-recorded random events one way or the other. Indeed, the independent observer who holds the envelope can ask the subject to skew the outcome of the random generator in a particular direction. After the test run is completed he opens the envelope, and low and behold, the printed outcome is indeed significantly skewed in the direction that was requested!

However. Despite his PhD Schmidt seems unaware that when quantum physicists talk about observing, they don't necessarily mean a conscious observer. Any apparatus that 'watches' or registers the outcome will do. This has actually been demonstrated in research (see here, for instance: article in Nature). Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes, Schmidt's printer in fact already registers and therefore determines the outcome. There is no changing of the print after that. So how come his findings fit so neatly with his faulty theory?

Schmidt didn't mind testing the PK abilities of chickens and even cockroaches. Unfortunately he was shown to have tampered with the data in at least one of those studies. Maybe that explains, too, why his data in this study so neatly fit a faulty theory?

The results Schmidt reported, if valid, would be utterly spectacular. Yet the research is old, forgotten and unreplicated and doesn't seem to have caused even the tiniest ripple in the community of quantum physicists. I think I can see why. Pseudoscience remains just that even when conducted by a physicist with a PhD and disguised under layers of technicalities and sophistication.

On to the next article. Any suggestions? This is fun!

Again, your ignorance of Physics is showing.

Quote

Assuming that quantum effects, which have only ever been demonstrated on the level of elementary particles, can be so readily translated to the macroscopic world as Schmidt casually and without any evidence assumes,

Quantum effects, (most specifically entnanglement), HAVE been demonstrated on a Macroscopic Scale. Indeed, large enough to be seen by the human eye.

http://www.ia.ucsb.e....aspx?pkey=2200

http://www.wired.com...-santa-barbara/

http://www.foxnews.c...ses/?test=faces


Schmidt is only one researcher and set(s) of studies. Keep in mind "Retro-Causality" is a human interpretation of events, there are other Non-Retro Causality explanations.

Physicist York Dobyns told and audience I was in "Placebo Effect, is the Schizophrenia, of the Medical Community".

If you truly have an interest in Pk, study the analogues with "Placebo Effect". Thousands of studies have been conducted by many Physicians. Yet there remains NO clear concensus. It is just as "slippery" as Pk studies and may involve some of the same "mechanisms".

Most Doctors would agree, mind over matter can assist biology with things like pain, transmitters emitted from the brain from using a Placebo effect to initiate the interaction. Although some Physician's say there is NO Placebo effect, only misinterpretation of data.

However, Placebo effects seem to pursist even where no evidence of Psychological/Biological mechanism exists.

My personal Physician, supervised a study for a hair regrowth drug. A control group of placebo's was also used. A significan percentage,(outside normal distribution) showed new hair growth on the Placebo!

My Physician just shook his head. I asked him how he interpreted this, his answer was "you tell me!"

If you study Placebo Effect Abstracts, (many from the New England Journal of Medicine), you will see that these bizzare results are common. Placebo effect removing warts is another abstract.




Good to see you taking an apparent sincere interest. Nothing wrong with Skepticism, as long as it is informed, knowledgeable Skepticism.


Eventually I will need to start charging for all this "tutoring"


See everyone bright and early Monday, Regards, John

You forgot to take note of this sentence.

Quote

They wired the resonator to an electronic device developed for quantum computation, a superconducting qubit, and cooled the integrated device to temperatures near absolute zero

.
Large scale macroscopic quantum effects need special conditions to occur. Stevenedel is correct in his analysis and I'll add this. If Schmidt had discovered something real he'd have a Nobel Prize.

What do you know of Nobel requirements for Physics?

I can assure you, there is nothing common sense about it. Mostly politics driven with years of preparation/promotion prior to the "prize".

Edited by Robot, 05 August 2010 - 08:26 AM.

[ohreally?]

Robot, on Aug 5 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

What do you know of Nobel requirements for Physics?

I can assure you, there is nothing common sense about it. Mostly politics driven with years of preparation/promotion prior to the "prize".

I know that discovering new physics would constitute recognition of Nobel Prize caliber by your peers. I wouldn't eat those sour grapes if I were you.

[Robot]

ohreally?, on Aug 5 2010, 04:35 PM, said:

Robot, on Aug 5 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

What do you know of Nobel requirements for Physics?

I can assure you, there is nothing common sense about it. Mostly politics driven with years of preparation/promotion prior to the "prize".

I know that discovering new physics would constitute recognition of Nobel Prize caliber by your peers. I wouldn't eat those sour grapes if I were you.

No "new" Physics would be required. The same ignorant statement, Randi said about Serios.

[canuck]

Allow me to point out that the credibility of the Nobel Prize, for anything, went down the drain when Al Gore was awarded one for his Global Warming scam, and Barack Obama got one for peace.

[Robot]

canuck, on Aug 5 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

Allow me to point out that the credibility of the Nobel Prize, for anything, went down the drain when Al Gore was awarded one for his Global Warming scam, and Barack Obama got one for peace.

Amen Brother

[stevenedel]

Ooops, conspiracy theories seeping in again...

On the website of the Dutch society of skeptics there is an interesting article by 't Hooft, a Nobel prize winning phycist whom you can hardly call naive about quantum physics, no matter what your thoughts on the Nobel Prize are. I'm not sure if I can link to it directly, but it's here: 't Hooft on quantum explanations for paranormal events. 't Hooft addresses the possible explanations for reports of paranormal events, with special attention to the question if modern (quantum) physics could be useful in this regard. He is quite clear about it that it isn't: paranormal phenomena entail assumptions that simply do not fit with quantum theory.

It is in Dutch, unfortunately, and I lack the time to translate it, but his conclusions speak for themselves:

"To the ears of the physicist explanations [of paranormal phenomena] in terms og particle physics, quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity [...] sound absurd."

And:

"Scientists are often accused of refusing to look at paranormal phenomena with a scientific 'open mind'. It would however not be indicative of openness if we didn't try to fit the reported phenomena logically into the large array of already established natural phenomena and laws. The laws of physics, of biology and of psychology all indisputably point in the direction of by far the most plausible explanation, ie., that all paranormal phenomena occur inside people's heads, and not outside of them."

[ohreally?]

I anticipate more sour grapes.

[Robot]

ohreally?, on Aug 8 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

I anticipate more sour grapes.

How about productive input relevant to the thread, instead of "opinions".