It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Perhaps it has to do with how the scientists approach the experiments. The scientists own thoughts, if negative, could influence the experiments and make them fail.
There are a number of different ways that of why the other experiments could have failed, and it has nothing to do with the findings of the paper this thread is about being wrong.
originally posted by: GetHyped
Convenient way to make your claims unfalsifiable.
"Didn't work? You just didn't believe hard enough!"
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Yea it's super weak, especially considering the opposite has more likelihood of having merit. That being a single chump really wanted this to be so his "positivity" influenced the results that nobody else could replicate. People believe what they want to, but fortunately science doesn't rely on belief.
originally posted by: fluffy
1. It was incorrect when SuperFrog claimed that no one else could produce those results, so I wouldn’t worry too much about trying to explain why they all failed, because they didn’t.
Expanding the Double Slit Experiment
Still, once the photon theory of light came about, saying the light moved only in discrete quanta, the question became how these results were possible. Over the years, physicists have taken this basic experiment and explored it in a number of ways...
In the early 1900s, the question remained how light - which was now recognized to travel in particle-like "bundles" of quantized energy, called photons - could also exhibit the behavior of waves. Certainly, a bunch of water atoms (particles) when acting together form waves. Maybe this was something similar.
One Photon at a Time
It became possible to have a light source that was set up so that it emitted one photon at a time. This would be, literally, like hurling microscopic ball bearings through the slits. By setting up a screen that was sensitive enough to detect a single photon, you could determine whether there were or were not interference patterns in this case.
One way to do this is to have a sensitive film set up and run the experiment over a period of time, then look at the film to see what the pattern of light on the screen is.
Just such an experiment was performed and, in fact, it matched Young's version identically - alternating light and dark bands, seemingly resulting from wave interference.
This result both confirms and bewilders the wave theory. In this case, photons are being emitted individually. There is literally no way for wave interference to take place, because each photon can only go through a single slit at a time. But the wave interference is observed. How is this possible? Well, the attempt to answer that question has spawned many intriguing interpretations of quantum physics, from the Copenhagen interpretation to the many-worlds interpretation.
It Gets Even Stranger
Now assume that you conduct the same experiment, with one change. You place a detector that can tell whether or not the photon passes through a given slit. If we know the photon passes through one slit, then it cannot pass through the other slit to interfere with itself.
It turns out that when you add the detector, the bands disappear! You perform the exact same experiment, but only add a simple measurement at an earlier phase, and the result of the experiment changes drastically.
Something about the act of measuring which slit is used removed the wave element completely. At this point, the photons acted exactly as we'd expect a particle to behave. The very uncertainty in position is related, somehow, to the manifestation of wave effects.
In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."
The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.
Spin is depicted here as an axis of rotation, but actual particles do not rotate.
Entanglement occurs when a pair of particles, such as photons, interact physically. A laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal can cause individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons.
The photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more.
When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: GetHyped
Back to the double slit experiment. Even when we use an instrument to measure the experiment, the consciousness of the observer is linked to the experiment through the instrument. The result of the experiment only changed when it was being observed as the experiment was occurring. If the experiment was left alone it gave a different result.
originally posted by: SuperFrog
Care to elaborate??
Anyone not associated with Dr. Bem had somewhat similar results?
Sorry, but I stay correct - no other group of scientist ever was able to reproduce it. This does not mean someone might not do it in future, but at this point, everything just points to simple fraud in research, that simply is not scientific, as it is not repeatable.
The Global Consciousness Project (GCP) is an international effort involving researchers from several institutions and countries, designed to explore whether the construct of interconnected consciousness can be scientifically validated through objective measurement. The project builds on excellent experiments conducted over the past 35 years at a number of laboratories, demonstrating that human consciousness interacts with random event generators (REGs), apparently "causing" them to produce non-random patterns. A description of the technical implementation is given under procedures.
The experimental results clearly show that a broader examination of this phenomenon is warranted. In recent work, prior to the Global Consciousness Project, an array of REG devices in Europe and the US showed non-random activity during widely shared experiences of deeply engaging events. For example, the funeral ceremonies for Princess Diana, and the international Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, created shared emotions and a coherence of consciousness that appeared to be correlated with structure in the otherwise random data. In the fully developed project, a world-spanning array of labile REG detectors is connected to computers running software to collect data and send it to a central server via the internet. This network is designed to document and display any subtle, but direct effects of our collective consciousness reacting to global events. The research hypothesis predicts the appearance of coherence and structure in the globally distributed data collected during major events that engage the world population.
Summary: Through analysis of 144 sliding windows, from 5 minutes to 12 hours, in 5 minute increments, we find that over a period of 3 months, one date is associated with a statistical anomaly: September 11, 2001. On this date, the time range appearing most often is 6 AM - 10 AM, peaking around 9:00 - 10:00 AM, and the location primarily the East Coast of the USA.
originally posted by: SuperFrog
GetHyped already answer this one, but let's just repeat rather obvious - no experiment without Dr. Bem were successful. Sure, nothing is definite in science (yes, we can't disprove God either) but we can conclude with high probability that Dr. Bem's experiments are fluke and rather statistical errors then abnormalities.
And before you say - they did not try - they did - they followed his paper, but were not able to reproduce results he had. As someone else already mentioned, don't you think this would help people playing card games in Vegas??
originally posted by: fluffy
Not necessarily. If it were real, many players (even unknowingly) may be trying to use psi to their individual advantage, with the net effect being that nobody's psi is noticeably productive. Also, in experiments where psi is supported, the deviation from chance is very small. In fact physicist Nick Herbert calculated that the odds on even the most favorable casino games are about 100 times larger than most of the deviations from chance observed in PK experiments.
It should also be noted that even if psi could tilt the odds in a player's favor, it is unlikely to occur in the real-world since a casino is designed to be distracting and to prevent careful thought and concentration (whereas experimental conditions are designed to be as psi-conducive as possible, e.g. quiet and relaxing with few distractions). This is why experimental sessions are usually limited to 15-30 minutes (to stop boredom and fatigue). To win at the casino over the long run, people would need to perform consistently at an optimal level, perhaps over a period of months or even years. In theory, it could be possible, but who would really be able to do this with the bright lights, loud music, scantily clad women, and free alcohol.
On top of all of this, the actual house take is usually much larger than its theoretical advantage. This is because people rarely play consistently, and they often reinvest their winnings.
So yes, if psi were true, it would be theoretically possible for an individual to beat a casino (if they understood the strategies of each game they played, consistently played according to those strategies, stopped when they were ahead, and consistently applied strong, reliable psi). But most people still wouldn't beat a casino. So I don't think it's the case that casinos would have gone out of business long ago if psi were real.