Approved For Release 2000/2^g^^^jaB96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(U)
(U)
In this report, we
consider the possible production by individuals
of physical effects,
such as
the perturbation of sensitive electronic
equipment
that appears
to be well
shielded against
,
or otherwise inacces-
sible
to, human influence.
The precedent
for considering whether sensitive
electronic equipment
can be influenced as
a result
of
a remote perturbation
(RP) phenomenon has been established in the open literature
in 48 published
papers
,
1 “4a *
These reports
describe 214 separate experiments,
74 of which
show statistical evidence
for an anomalous perturbation— a factor of
nearly
seven times
chance expectation.
(U)
A representative experiment
of
this type involves three basic
elements
:
(1)
A source of "true" random electronic output.
(2)
A statistical analysis technique,
(3)
An individual who attempts
to cause, by mental
means alone,
a change
in the random source's
output
.
(U)
Although the
data base
cited above appears
to
be quite
impressive,
a close examination of these studies reveals that
they all can be
con-
sidered incomplete
in one
or more significant details.
For example,
44%
of
the references report no control tests
of any type
,
and the majority
of the studies afford insufficient
details about
the experimental apparatus
to permit assessment
of possible environmental
influences.
(S)
We believe that the
serious implications
of RP for
science in
general and for military applications
in particular
necessitated the
(U)
References are
listed at the end of this report.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release 2000/0a/Qj^£IA£pP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
(s)
design and execution of a random number generator
(RNG) experiment,
which attended to these important factors.
A one-year,
two-phase program
was initiated to accomplish this objective.
(U)
During Phase
I
a computer-based binary RNG system was
constructed
from two isolated sources
(noise diode and radioactive
(3-decay source),
an LSI-11 microcomputer, and a video graphics
display unit.
Pulses from
a given random source were used to construct binary sequences.
Sequential
analysis
,
a particularly sensitive method
of determining whether a given
sequence
is
"random," was applied to this binary output.
Finally the
results were stored for further analysis and displayed on the video
graphics system.
(U)
The results
of Phase
I are described in detail in May and
Hubbard
,
but are summarized briefly here.
Both sources were investigated
for their sensitivity to changes
in physical environment,
and those
parameters that were found to influence them were either controlled by
cut-off circuitry or monitored.
The sources were shielded, electrically
isolated, and coupled to the
computer by optical transmission links.
Both
the sequential analysis program and the sources were modeled by Monte Carlo
techniques and found to
be well within expected limitations.
The entire
RNG system was
tested by a series
of standard fixed- length statistical
tests
and found to meet all standard criteria
for randomness.
In addition,
the system was
checked using the variable- length sequential analysis
procedure.
The binary sequences also satisfied the criteria set by that
technique for randomness.
(U)
The requirements and protocol
for Phase
II are detailed in
May et al.
During this phase we screened
17 volunteers and selected
seven of them to participate
in the formal portion of the experiment.
We
set an a priori
criterion that required significant runs from two of
the seven subjects
to label
the entire effort
a success
.
It was also
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release ^JJ^O^JT^^-J^I^^OySSROOl 30021 0001 -5
(U)
predetermined that over a period of
three months each subject would
complete
100 trials.
(U)
A trial
is defined as
a variable-length sequence terminated by
the
a priori
criteria set by sequential analysis.
Only two results are
possible from a single sequential analysis trial:
the binary sequence
is distorted
(i.e.
f
the probability of finding a one
in a given bit
position
is either greater than 0.52 or
less than 0.48),
or the sequence
is within chance expectation.
These two decisions are made to within a
confidence level of 95 percent.
For a single subject to contribute a
significant result to the overall series,
he had to produce
16 or more
distorted trials
out
of his
set of
100,
(U)
Two types
of
control trials were taken during the formal portion
of Phase
II:
(1) global trials that usually were generated in sets
of
100
each at random times throughout the investigation,
and
(2)
local trials
that were taken immediately prior to each subject's period of effort.
Both types
of controls were generated without personnel in the experimental
area.
The global trials served as
a time-independent
check on the parent
distribution from which the samples were
drawn.
The
local control trials
tested the momentary statistical fluctuations
immediately before the formal
session
,
(U)
The results from the study met
the preestablished,
formal
criteria for
success:
•
Two
out
of the seven subjects produced significant
runs.
(The possibility that
chance fluctuations
alone could produce this result
is
p
= 0.029, where
p
is
the probability.)
»
Neither type
of
control run exhibited significant
overall deviations from chance expectation.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release
l00788R001 300210001 -5
L0/08/D7
Cl
III
INTRODUCTION
(U)
(U)
Occasionally reports appear of anomalous failures
of electronic
equipment that seem to
be caused by the proximity of
certain individuals.
Of
special interest
is
a
class
of phenomena involving perturbation of
sensitive equipment isolated from human subjects
by distance or shielding.
In certain
of these instances the generation of such effects appears
to
be under volitional control of the subjects involved.
(U)
Included among
the above are experiments
in which a subject
attempts
to perturb the output
of an electronic RNG drived by electronic
noise or radioactive decay.
This kind
of RP experiment has an investigative
appeal because it involves
no subjective interpretation,
i.e., the results
may be expressed in terms of well-understood statistical theory.
(U)
The first such experiment of this type was published in 1970 by
2 —43
Helmut Schmidt.1
As
of December
1979,
there have been 47 other papers
published,
mostly in the literature on parapsychology.
Almost all
of
these
experiments have two points in common:
•
A truely random input
device,
•
An individual with motivation and intent to have the
statistics
of the random input device differ from chance
expectation during designated periods.
(U)
A representative experiment might proceed as
follows
.
A random
input
device,
such as the noise associated with a solid state diode,
is
used to create
a random binary sequence.
The accumulated number of ones
in the sequence
is indicated to the subject by lights
connected to the
noise source.
In a successful experiment
the subject
is
able
to enforce
an excess number of
ones.
As in
the
case of biofeedback research, effects
have been demonstrated even when little
is known about the mechanism.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
SECRET
(U)
We have examined the body of literature spanning the ten years
from 1970 to
1979.
In this
survey,
we have only considered the random
generator experiments published
in the three major
U.S.
parapsychological
journa Is
:
The Journal
of the American Society for Psychical Research
,
Journal
of
Parapsychology
,
and Research in Parapsychology .
This
survey,
which represents
the vast majority
of
the published RNG studies,
is
detailed
in the Appendix and summarized
in Table
1.
Forty-eight papers
reported
a total
of 214 individual experiments
,
74 of which claimed
statistically significant results.*
The
chance
likelihood of such an
-41
outcome
is approximately
2 X 10
(U)
This impressive statistic must,
however,
be evaluated with
respect
to experimental equipment and protocols.
All the studies
surveyed
could be
considered incomplete in at
least one of
the following four areas
(1)
No
control tests were reported in more than 44 percent
of the references.
Of those that
did,
most did not
check for temporal stability of the random sources
during
the
course of the experiment.
(2)
There were insufficient
details about the physics and
constructed parameters
of the experimental apparatus
to assess
the possibility of environmental influences.
(3)
The raw data was
not saved for
later and independent
analysis
in virtually any of the experiments
.
(4)
None of
the experiments reported controlled and
limited access
to the experimental apparatus
.
(5)
We believe that the serious implications
of RP for military
applications and for science necessitated the design and execution of an
RNG experiment that was more complete with respect
to the four points
enumerated above.
(U)
A two-phase program was initiated to accomplish the objective
stated at
the outset.
Phase
I aimed to develop a reliable computer-based,
*
^
(U)
p £ 0.05
for any individual experiment.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release
^^^iW'Pft00788^01 300210001-5
(U)
status
of the binary sampling.
We hypothesized that
in this
fashion the
subject
might
learn to influence
the sequence more readily.
1.
Random Sources
(U)
(U)
The random source elements
consisted
of
a commercially
available
noise diode and a radioactive source with an appropriate radia-
tion detector.
(U)
A Texas
Instruments MD-20 planar silicon noise
diode was
chosen for
its
large noise output
(-^500 pV//5z) and
its well-described
functional characteristics
.5 0 ,Bl
,
v
147
147
(U)
Promethium
(
Pm) was selected as
a radioactive source
because
it
is nearly a
100-percent
(3 emitter with essentially no competing
decay modes.
Detection of the electron continuum was accomplished using
a well-understood and reliable ORTEC silicon surface-barrier detector.
(U)
Figure
2 shows
the process by which a random number was
generated from the noise diode source.
Random-amplitude
1-MHz sawtooth
voltage pulses
from the diode,
Figure 2(a), were filtered by a bandpass
filter, Figure 2(b).
At each positive-going zero crossing of
the filtered
signal
a TTL pulse was generated,
giving a random digital signal,
Figure 2(c).
Finally,
a divide-by-two circuit
changed state at
the rising
edge of each TTL pulse,
yielding
a binary bit
stream,
Figure 2(d) with
probability of being
in the
logical one
state
of one-half.
This
bit
stream was
sampled and shifted into an 8-bit
shift register
at a
1-kHz
rate,
so that
a random 8-bit number might
be selected at intervals greater
than 8 ms
.
A completely analogous process occurred with
the
0-decay
source.
The major distinction was
that
electrons
of random energy arrived
at
a detector where they were converted into electrical signals
of random
voltage.
A low-level discriminator generated
a logic pulse whenever the
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release 2(|^^O£^^F|ipff0)788ROO1 30021 0001 -5
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
FIGURE
(U)
PULSE
PROCESSING
SEQUENCE
Approved For Release
6-00788R001 300210001 -5
(U)
voltage rose above
a threshold corresponding to electron energy of
25 keV.
From this point the signal processing was
the same as
described above
for
Figure 2(c).
2.
Analysis and Control
(U)
(U)
The analysis and control portion of the system consisted
of an LSI-11 microcomputer.
The
LSI-11 was programmed to sample one
of
the
noise sources
at
a specified rate to obtain its random bits.
A sequence
of such samples was tested by the LSI-11
for an excess
or
lack of ones
on
a continuous basis, using
a sequential analysis statistical technique
. B
> B
(U)
Sequential analysis
is an efficient technique
for determining
whether the output
of a binary random generator contains
a distribution
of zeroes and ones
as expected,
or
is distorted.
The principal advantage
of
this technique
as
compared with other methods
is
that,
on the average,
fewer bits
per
final decision are required
(roughly 50 percent
fewer)
for
an equivalent degree of statistical reliability.
(U)
Before we are able to detect whether the random output
of
a binary generator has been distorted, we
must
a priori
define criteria
as
to how much distortion we require,
and what statistical risks we are
willing to accept
for making an incorrect
decision.
To meet these
criteria,
sequential analysis demands the specification of four parameters
to de-
termine to which binomial distribution a particular data sequence belongs.
The four parameters
are:
(1)
p
the fraction of ones expected in an
undistorted distribution;
(2)
p^
,
a threshold for the fraction of ones
assigned to define distorted distributions;
(3) a,
the assigned acceptable
I
probability for concluding that the random source
is perturbed
(p^ dis-
tributor or greater) when it
i_s
not
(Type
I error);
(4) and
P,
the
assigned acceptable probability for concluding that the random source
is
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release |J(j^^|0^^J^|fqi^g)00788R001 30021 0001 -5
(U)
unperturbed
(pQ distribution) when it
is
(Type
II error).
With
the
parameters thus specified,
the sequential sampling procedure provides
a
decision graph as shown in Figure
3.
In this
figure,
the y axis displays
the accumulated number of excess
ones
(number of
ones
less expected number
of ones)
as
a function of sample number
(x axis).
Using Figure
3,
a
decision can be made after the nth sample by applying the following
algorithm:
(1)
Sample
the binary sequence.
(2)
Sum the excess
number of ones
to date.
(3)
If the excess
sum of ones
lies above Line A but not
in Region
1,
or below Line
B but
not in Region 2,
do Step
1.
(4)
If
the sum lies
in Region
1,
stop the sampling and
conclude that the binary sequence
is derived from a
distorted distribution with fraction of
ones greater
than p^
.
(5)
If
the sum lies
in Region 2,
stop the sampling and
conclude that
the sequence belongs
to a distorted
distribution with fraction of ones
less than
- p^.
(6)
If
the sum attempts
to
cross both Line A and Line
B,
stop the sampling and conclude that the sequence
belongs
to the undistorted distribution,
pQ
.
The detailed analysis and mathematical formulations
of
sequential analysis
4 @
can be found in May and Hubbard.
(U)
For the experiment described in this report,
p^,
p_^
,
ot
,
and
P were fixed at
0.50,
0.52,
0.05,
and
0.05,
respectively.
3.
Display
(U)
(U)
The computer-driven graphics display system consisted of
two independent
19-in. color video monitors,
a Grinnell display controller,
and a Summagraphics 20-by-20-in. graphics
tablet.
Using these
components,
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
ACCUMULATED
EXCESS
NUMBER
OF
ONES
Approved For Release
00788R001 30021 0001 -5
160
120
-120
-160
2000
4000
6000
SAMPLES
UNCLASSIFIED
8000
10000
FIGURE 3
(U)
EXAMPLE OF A 2-TAILED SEQUENTIAL SAMPLING PLOT
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release ^j^/^0^:^ypij)|^-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
(U)
data from sequential sampling statistics,
pulse height analysis,
or any
other output
could be displayed.
B.
System Testing
(U)
(U)
Noise diodes
for use
in this system were extensively tested for
response to changes in temperature
(-40 to +40
C)
,
leakage current
(40 pA
to 200 pA)
and other environmental factors
such
as
a 6000-gauss
dc
241
147
magnetic field and
low-intensity radioactive sources
(
Am,
Co,
Pm;.
We found that over the range examined for each factor the spectral noise
density was
flat within ±1 dB for the bandpass
of
the filter
(1 kHz
to
200 kHz).
Furthermore,
the filtered noise followed
a Gaussian distribution
under all
conditions tested as
long
as
the
leakage
current was
80 to 120 pA.
We confirmed the manufacturer's specification for the dependency of the
noise power-spectrum on temperature.
This
change was
insignificant
for
variations
of
±5 C near room temperature.
147
(U)
The random emission of electrons from the
P decay of
Pm is
independent of known external influences.
The sensitive element,
the
surface barrier detector, was tested for
changes
in leakage
current
as
a
function of temperature.
At
the maximum temperature tested
(-40 C)
the
noise contribution was
caused by the
increased current
leakage and was
eliminated completely with an appropriate low-level discriminator.
(U)
We assumed that the TTL logic circuitry of the major system
elements
(LSI-11,
Grinnell controller, and the
like) would continue to
operate as
specified by the vendor,
so that
extensive environmental testing
of these components was
not
done.
Any possible failures
of these components
would have been observed in the extensive
control investigations described
be low
.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
UNCLASSIFIED
C.
System Isolation and
Interference Protection
(U)
(U)
To prevent spurious
signals from known external influences
being incorporated into the random source output,
numerous precautions
were taken.
Each random source was encased
in a sealed
0. 125-in.
thick
soft iron box with radio frequency shielding to provide protection against
mechanical,
magnetic,
or rf intrusion.
Batteries
supplied the electrical
power to eliminate ac-line transients and 60-Hz noise.
All
data output
to the LSI-11 occurred via optical transmission links
to ensure
complete
electrical isolation.
In addition,
the
noise
diode was monitored con-
tinuously with a precision of
±0.2
C to determine any temperature changes,
(U)
Fail-safe
circuits were
included
in both random sources
so that
the units would shut
off automatically and require manual reset under the
following circumstances:
•
The battery supply dropped below
a
critical point
(12
V).
•
The electron detector
leakage
current rose above an
acceptable
level
(2.0 pA).
•
The diode
current deviated from a narrowly defined
current window.
D,
System Certification Testing Results
(U)
(U)
A variety
of
fixed-length statistical
tests were applied to
500,000 sample
control runs
of random numbers generated by the system
described above.
In addition,
approximately
3 X 10^ samples
from each
source were subjected to sequential analysis.
No unexpected deviations
from chance expectation were observed in any of these control tests,
indicating that
the system performed in accordance with design.
Complete
details
of the hardware,
computer software,
testing procedures,
and
numerical results
can be found
in May and Hubbard. 49
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release 2000/A^gfh|l<fDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
V
EXPERIMENT PROTOCOL
(U)
(S)
A complete experiment protocol was prepared and submitted to the
client organization in advance of the formal data-acquisition portion of
Phase
II.
Much of that protocol
is repeated here.
A.
Definitions
(U)
(U)
We began the discussion of
the Phase
II Formal Test Protocol by
introducing
a set of definitions:
•
TARGET BIT
•
SAMPLE
•
TRIAL
The determined single bit from one of the random
sources to be used in the analysis.
The acquisition of eight
binary bits from the
RNG of which the fifth bit
is defined as
the
target bit.
(The additional bits are to provide
a local temporal history of the bit stream in
which the target bit
is
imbedded.)
A number of samples
comprising
a sequence that
meet
a set
of
statistical conditions
that
terminate
the sequence
.
•
RUN
•
CONTROL TRIAL
•
SEQUENTIAL
ANALYSIS
•
CHANCE
DISTRIBUTION
*
DISTORTED
DISTRIBUTIONS
100 trials
A trial carried out automatically by the
computer
under the same conditions
as the data acquisition
session,
but with
no one present
in the session
area
.
The statistical procedure that provides
a decision
algorithm for
terminating
the trial,
A binomial distribution of binary digits
(0,
1)
with
a mean probability of
0,05 for observing
a
one as
the target
bit
,
Binomial distributions with means greater than or
equal to 0,52,
or
less
than or equal to
0.48
(a two-tailed test).
SCGI1CT-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release ||j^/^e|0^:^^^|Eg-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
(U)
Table
2 shows
the timing intervals for
a sample,
trial,
and
run.
It
is important
to note,
that
no bits
in the binary sequence were
lost for a single trial, and that
data for each trial was
a continuous
record of
bits
collected in 8-bit samples.
Thus,
the average trial
length
consisting
of 3300 samples was approximately 25
s.
All bits from the
source that were generated between trials were
lost.
Table
(U)
TIMING INTERVALS
Item
Timing Interval
Sample
Trial
Run
ms
^25
s
^3 months
B *
Data-Acquisition Session Description
(U)
(U)
A data-acquisition session was
divided into three sections:
(1)
Presession
(2)
Session
(3)
Postsession.
(U)
During the presession before the subject's arrival,
the hardware
was
checked for proper functioning, and the
set
of variables
characterizing
the session
(e.g,,
time
of day,
noise source) were entered into the system
program.
The variables
chosen were those specifically determined for
that
participant
during the pilot period.
In addition,
no
less than five control
trials were executed with no one present
in the session area.
These
con-
trol trials were collected under the same environmental conditions
as
the
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release(2pM40^OAxpM<|)pW-OO788ROO1 30021 0001 -5
(U)
session trials,
except
for the absence
of putative human intervention.
Once the
control session was
initiated,
an automatic trial sequencer cycled
through
a sequence of trials,
spaced apart by random time intervals
x^
o <
T < 20
s.
This random spacing insured that
the
control trials
simulated human interaction with the system as
closely as possible.
(U)
To begin a session,
the subject and one monitor entered the
session room.
The subject
took his
place in front of the viewing monitor
and controlled the start time of
the individual trials by means
of
a start
button on a cursor associated with the graphics tablet.
This
constituted
the only form of physical interaction of the subject with the apparatus.
The subject's
task was
to cause mentally either an excess
number of ones
or an excess number of zeroes in the binary sequence.
The session lasted
no longer than 30 min.
During the session the subject received visual
feedback for all trials, and auditory feedback
(a bell)
for trials
that
sequential analysis
indicated belonged to one of
the distorted distributions.
(U)
The postsession consisted of
a debriefing in which the subject
discussed his experience.
At the conclusion
of the debriefing,
there was
an additional period during which
no
less
than five more trials were
con-
ducted with no one present
in the session area.
Such postsession trials
(not
to be confused with control trials) were conducted specifically to
investigate the
claim that there might
be
a
linger effect associated with
putative RP interaction.
This
linger effect might
be
compared to the well-
understood physics
concept
of relaxation time.
Postsession trials were
recorded separately for
later analysis,
(U)
To allow for
a possible
linger effect
,
a minimum of one-hour
separation between subjects was generally enforced.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release gj)|^/g8|()^:^^|-^|^-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
C.
Controls
(U)
(U)
Aside from the presession control trials,
a total
of
1000 addi-
tional
control
trials were taken in sets
of
100 or more for each of the
seven participants.
These trials were collected at random times
on a 24-
hour basis
to establish the empirical sampling distribution throughout
the formal testing period.
D.
Test Requirements
(U)
(U)
The test requirements
for
a single trial were determined com-
pletely by the formulation of the sequential analysis
theory.
In that
analysis a
set
of decision boundaries
completely determines
(within the
bounds of the Type
I and Type
II errors
specified) from which of
the
distributions
(chance or distorted)
a given sequence belongs.
Details
of this analysis are given in May and Hubbard.49
For a single trial to
be successful,
the sequence had to belong
to a distorted distribution
corresponding either
to a mean SO. 52 or £
0.48, with
a single-tailed
confidence factor of
95 percent.
The overall chance likelihood for making
a decision in favor of a two-tailed distorted distribution on any given
trial was
0.1.
(U)
Each subject was required to contribute
100 valid trials.*
Of
these
100 trials,
the number
of sequences
designated by the sequential
analysis
as being distorted were tallied by the computer.
The probability
of obtaining
16 successful events
in
100 trials
is
less than 0.039
(fifteen
is greater than p = 0.05).
The subject therefore had to produce
16 or
more successful formal trials
out
of
a total of
100 to have completed
a
significant run.
As
during the pilot period,
the subject
could choose
to
exercise a pass option before any given trial,
in which case
it was
labeled
*
(U)
See Part F below for definition of valid/invalid trials.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
UNCLASSIFIED
(U)
For all trials except
the extra
1000 control trials
, raw data
was recorded on a second floppy disk.
These
included:
•
All the data
for each trial from the summary disk
(redundancy check).
•
All parameters
of
the sequential analysis used to
analyze
the
trial in question.
•
Two bytes
of data for each sample,
one byte for the
random 8—bits acquired for that sample and one byte
of
count-rate information for secondary analysis
(i.e.,
3-decay rate
or the number of voltage zero
crossings
from the noise diode).
•
Target bit position.
F.
Trial
Invalidation Requirements
(U)
(U)
The two random sources were equipped with appropriate hardware
failsafe
circuitry.
Nonetheless,
to account for possible hardware/software
failures, we designated,
in advance,
the following certain conditions
under which data would be rejected as
invalid,
i.e.,
not
counted as part
of the formal series:
•
If the battery power supply dropped below a preset
level,
or various other hardware parameters exceeded their
prespecified operating ranges,
the source output was
inhibited.
The system program detected this state and
by software forced a
"pass" condition for that
trial.
The
trial
just prior to system "shut down" was
labeled
"invalid" regardless
of
its particular statistic.
•
As
a further cross-check against possible source hardware
difficulty,
a trial was
labeled "invalid"
if
the raw data
contained five contiguous samples of identical data bytes.
The probability of
this occurring by chance alone
is
less
than one part in
lO1^.
Because there was
no prior evidence
that
such large-scale effects occur in RNG systems,
we
concluded that
such a sequence of data bytes would most
likely have resulted from momentary hardware failure.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release 2000/0fl/ft7* fil*'RDP96-00788R001 300210001 -5
G.
General Considerations
(U)
(S)
At no time
did the subject have access
to the generating hardware,
nor was he
left unattended in the session area.
As
a closed,
classified
area,
it
is
secured by combination and
4—state
cipher
lock.
(S)
The guidelines
set forth in May et al54 with regard to human
experimentation were in effect during
the
course
of
the experiment
,
SCGREf
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release MM/^0A:d^ftl?e^00788R001 30021 0001 -5
VI
RESULTS
(U)
A.
Pilot
Phase
(U)
(U)
Seventeen SRI
International employees were chosen to take
part
in the pilot phase of this program.
They were selected purely upon their
own expressed interest
in participating in such a program,
rather than on
any previous RP experience.
During this phase, although the sample rate
was fixed at
125
s each subject was allowed to select his
favorite time
of
day,
his preferred experimenter,
the source which seemed to "work"
best
for him,
and the number of
trials
he would do at
a single sitting.
(U)
Two general experimental parameters emerged from the pilot phase.
First,
it became rapidly apparent
to the experimenters
that an arbitrary
limit of five trials/session seemed optimal.
If
the subject
continued
much beyond this
limit, he became bored with the task and began to initiate
each successive trial in a "mechanical" or rote fashion.
(U)
Secondly,
we
felt
that more interesting feedback displays might
only serve to divert
the subject's attention from the RP task;
therefore,
we decided
not
to design alternatives to the display of the sequential
sampling decision
lines.
Neither
of these two viewpoints were based on
sufficient data to
be statistically significant,
but
the pilot success
rate
of a number of
subjects
indicated that these conditions should be included
in the formal portion of Phase
II.
(U)
Because the participants
contributed varying numbers
of trials,
our selection criteria for the formal phase included not only the scoring
rate,
but also the subject's
interest
and availability for a three-month
period.
Table
3 shows
the pilot results for each
of the seven subjects
who were finally chosen for the formal experiment, and an asterisk indicates
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release y^^^§£||f]|?£j00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Table
(U)
PILOT PHASE RESULTS
Subject
Source
Trials
t
Successes
085
P decay
130
Diode
115
146
P decay
346
P decay
*
531
P decay
758
*
Diode
827
Diode
228
*
(U)
Independently significant.
t,
x
(U)
Probability of a single success of
0.1.
(U)
those who were scoring at
a significant
rate.
The combined score for all
subjects using the diode source approaches
significance
(49 successes for
388 trials,
p S 0.054);
the total
for the p-decay source
is significant
—3
(27 successes
for
159 trials,
p ^ 4.4
X
).
B.
Global Control Runs
(U)
(U)
Global control runs were
long sessions
of trials generated without
intentional influence on the apparatus
in the absence of all personnel
from the experimental environment.
The sessions, which consisted of
multiples of
100 trials each
, were taken at all times
of
the day throughout
the course
of the formal experiment and were designed
to monitor the
long-
term statistical behavior of
the random sources.
Such long runs average
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release ^^/^0^:^^pi|^|^00788R001 30021 0001 -5
(U)
over small local deviations and give an accurate measure
of the ideal
distribution from which the samples
are taken
(binomial in this
case).
(U)
The protocol required 1000 trials
for each subject.
The results
of
these
controls are shown in Table
4 and were analyzed in runs
of
100
trials
.
(U)
The general expression for the expected number
of successful runs
is
:
N
= N
X
p
s
R
s
where N
is
the number of runs and
p
is the probability of
a single
R
s
successful
run.
(U)
The probability of obtaining five
or fewer successful trials
is £ 0,024
(six
is
not
significant).
Thus,
for this
case Nr
= 70,
o
=0 024 and N
=1.7.
The asterisks
in Table
4 indicate those runs
s
#
s
with significantly too few successes:
The
chance probability
of this
occurring
is
p ^ 0,027.
(U)
Similarly,
the probability of obtaining
16 or more
successful
trials
is
£ 0.040
(15
is
not significant).
Therefore
Nr = 70,
p
= 0.040,
and N
=2.8.
The daggers
in Table
4 indicate those
runs with
or more
s
successful trials:
the expected number
is three and two were observed
(not
s i gni f i cant )
.
(U)
In the overall,
two-tailed
case
five runs are expected to show
some significant deviation,
and seven were observed.
This result
is
not
significant
and confirms that the
long-term parent distribution was
binomial
.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release yjj^^8/0^:^jRDP96^-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Table
(U)
GIOBAL CONTROL RUNS
Subjects
|
Set
085
130
146
346
531
758
827
5*
17 +
3*
3*
5*
12.
5*
19 +
*
(U)
Significantly too few successes,
t
s
(U) Significantly too many successes.
C.
Formal
Phase
(U)
(U)
Each of the seven subjects
chosen for the formal phase contributed
100 trials over a 3-month period.
Table
5 shows
the results of the
formal
experiment
as well
as
for
the
local controls and post-session trials.
(U)
None of the local control
sets
before each session were signifi-
cant
for any of the subjects.
This indicates that
the sources were pro-
ducing bit streams
consistent with the binomial distribution immediately
prior
to the
subject's period of effort.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release 2000/0^(gg^^DP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
(s>
mechanical model of
the diode was
developed and found
to match direct measurement
to within
1 percent error.
This model enabled us, by Monte Carlo methods,
to
simulate temperature fluctuations and assess their
influence upon the statistical output.
We found that
temperature
changes
of ±20.0 C did not effect the
statistical,
single bit probability of the binary
sequence, which was
the expected effect
of
the 200-kHz
bandpass
filtering of the diode output.
Likewise,
large temperature changes
in the radioactive source
would have added electronic noise to the electron
signal
,
but would not have affected the single bit
probability.
Considering the isolation precautions
and the extensive random source testing described in
Q
May and Hubbard,
we concluded that
the sources were
stable against usual and in some
cases
(magnetic
fields,
for example),
large environmental changes.
•
We monitored the output from the sources with global
and local control trials throughout the course of the
3-month experiment.
Because no long- or short-term
statistical
changes were observed, we concluded that
both sources were stable with time.
•
We saved a complete record of the sample-by-sample
raw data for both the formal experiment effort
as well
as
for the local
control trials.
These data were
archived with the client organization.
•
We conducted
the entire experiment
in a classified
vault
:
at
no time did the subjects have unsupervised
access
to
the
room.
(U)
The experiment described in this
report
is
more complete with the
addition of parameters described above.
We have enumerated the individual
results
for
local
control,
formal,
and postsession runs in the previous
section.
Although the
combined results for each of
these three categories
cannot
be reported formally in terms
of the protocol,54
they merit some
discussion,
nonetheless.
(U)
The
combined result
for the local
control runs
(63 successes
for
675 trials)
is
not
significant, whereas the total across all subjects
for
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release ^^|)7^^l^-|^p^|^)0788R001 30021 0001 -5
(U)
the formal experiment
is.
Five
of the seven subjects produced runs above
chance expectation
(ten successes), which contributed to the overall
formal
score
of 87 successes
out
of 700 trials
(p = 0.021).
The odds
that
such
a deviation would occur by chance alone are greater than 47:1.
Note
that
none of the formal trials were invalidated under the guidelines
of
the
protocol
.
(U)
The overall total for the postsession runs
is significantly too
low
(53 successes for 670 trials,
p
= 0.028).
In the protocol we noted
that
the postsession trials were used
as
a
check on the claim of
a linger
effect:
it has been noted in past experiments
that after
a significant
deviation was
observed during a subject’s
effort
period,
postsession trials
taken just after his
effort
tended to deviate significantly as well.
Usually,
these trials would
decay" back
to
the expected value
in
a short
period of time.
We see no evidence of such
a correlation in our data,
but we note here
the significantly
low overall result
for the sake of
completeness
.
(tJ)
We
conclude that we have observed an anomalous and,
as
yet,
unexplained effect upon an electronic system, which
cannot
be accounted
for easily by simple engineering
considerations
because
*
The magnitude
of our results
is commensurate with
previous reported studies.
Precautions
and controls significantly exceeded any
former experiments.
^
^
assume,
then,
that we have verified our initial hypothesis
that an anomalous RP phenomenon exists, we must
then examine
the possible
mechanisms for this effect.
(U)
The first such potential mechanism,
and that which
is frequently
mentioned in the data base,
is some form of remote perturbation—that
is,
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
UNCLASSIFIED
(U)
a physical change
in a system that occurs without
a subject's physical
intervention.
In this
model,
a subject through his volutional control
literally "forces"
a random source to change
its behavior
,
Although this
kind of RP interaction has been reported variously by 5000 years
of human
culture,
it
has appeared to be at odds with currently accepted ideas
of
physics.
However,
in a recent paper,
Y. Aharonov and M.
Verdi
describe
that under specific conditions,
"...
if one
checks by continuous observation
if
a given
quantum system evolves
from some initial state
,
to some
other final state,
along a specific trajectory in Hilbert
space,
the result
is
always positive, whether or not
the
system would have
done
so on its own accord
.
Aharonov' s and Verdi's reference to "continuous observation"
is
a critical
point
in the paper.
They note that to enforce a
change of state by con-
tinuous observation,
the time between successive measurements
is many
orders
of magnitude smaller than is presently possible for real measuring
devices
.
Furthermore
,
it
is
a long way from a highly speculative
con-
sideration about the nature of a quantum system to a physical explanation
for a given experiment
.
We are not claiming that
remote perturbation
is
the
correct or only mechanism for what we have observed in this experiment,
but rather that
it may have some merit in terms of developing theories
in
physics
.
(U)
A second possible mechanism, which was mentioned in Schmidt
entails
some form of psychoenergetic data selection
(PDS).
In this
mode
of operation,
the subject
scans
the unperturbed binary sequence ahead in
time and selects
the proper time to initiate the trial.
This strategy
enables him to take advantage of an unperturbed,
yet significantly
deviant subsequence and achieve a success
for that trial.
At first
thought,
this idea also seems
inconsistent with current
thinking in
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 30021 0001 -5
Approved For Release y^^f^§^|^^5°
0788R001 30021 0001-5
<u)
physics because
it
involves obtaining information about
a future state
of
a random system with virtually an infinite number of possible future
states available
.
(U)
Many physicists
have speculated upon the time-reversed information
flow for quantum systems,
but
the most detailed discussion has been
presented by O.
Costa
de Beauregard
>
,
He
shows,
by using strict
covariant
formalism,
that advanced probability waves
can carry information
from some future state
of
a system backward in time
to the present.
De Beauregard concludes
:
11 ... what would the phenomenology of advanced waves,
decreasing
probability,
blind statistical retrodiction
,
and information as
organizing power,
look
like?
Exactly to what parapsychologists
call precognition and/or psychokinesis
.
Logically these
phenomena should show up,
no
less than thermodynamical
pro-
c
ry
gressing
f luctuations--which indeed they are/
Within the physics
community the concept
of gaining information from
future events
may not
be inconsistent with current
ideas
of quantum physics
.
Even if
such physics speculations
of
de Beauregard
should prove
to be true,
there are many unanswered questions:
how does
the subject
f, receive n
such
information and in what
manner does
this
information reach the subject’s
conscious awareness?
We must emphasize here that
de Beauregard’s hypothesis
should not
be regarded as proof
of mechanism,
but only as interesting
speculation.
(U)
In our experiment,
it was premature
to attempt
to determine what
mechanism was
involved.
The
first part
of
the objective simply entailed
the verification of
the existence of
the phenomenon under nearly ideal
conditions.
Since this objective was
met,
future work in the area should
*
(U)
The emphasis
is
de Beauregard’s.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5