Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Interim Report for Objective E, Task 9 (RA on Dunaliella Velocity) (verbatim transcription--not edited) HERBERT LEY Exceptions: None. Comments: Need to see protocols & informed consent statement for evaluation of project’s meeting human use requirements. Recommendation: I do not...until it reaches final report stage. 11-7-86 S. JAMES PRESS Exceptions: The velocity data are fitted to a normal distribution. But the data are very clearly non-normal. So the f-tests subsequently arrived at are not valid. In fact, the data are clearly “fat~tailed,” so it might be sensible to try to fit a Student t-distribution, or a stable symmetric distribution to the data. Page 8, paragraph 2: What is meant by the statement that the velocities “are not necessarily statistically independent, & cannot be considered random variables in the usual sense”? They sure seem like random variables to me. “ The “scores,” or the velocity changes hypothesized to be produced by human interaction, as shown in Figures 4, 5, appear to fall with the normal range of variation of the algae circadian rhythms. The regressions carried out appear to be poor. There is clear heteroscedasticity (sic) (unequal variances in the disturbances), (Fig. 9, Fig. 10, etc.). Moreover, it is not clear much is happening. In Fig. 11, the slope appears to be zero, indicating the regression is not meaningful. Similarly in Fig. 12. I cannot quite figure out the measuring apparatus. I cannot help wonder whether the apparatus itself affects the velocity of the algae. I feel this experiment is looking for an effect that lies in the noise. I would recommend “detrending” by removing the circadian rhythms (diurnal variations) from the data, instead of removing a straight line trend. Comments: None. Recommendation: None. 11-7-86 69 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 ROSS ADEY Exceptions: ; (1) This report resurrects the archaism that it remains to be shown that living systems exist in “indefinite” states and can “thus qualify as quantum systems.” (2) This viewpoint fails to recognize generally accepted views of the essential role of cooperativity in (sic) an essential phenomenon in biological systems (hemoglobin oxygen association-disassociation curve, retinal photon detection, auditory threshold detection mechanisms, cell membrane amplification in transductive coupling, etc., etc.). Comments: (3) It should be known to these investigators that many key biomolecular systems function as quantum detectors. This knowledge would seem vitally important in further development of this program. (4) The research plan envisages a separation of informational processes (intuitive data sorting, IDS) from causal factors (Remote Action, RA), with the expectation, that, if causal, “averaging over a large number of cells will produce a strong result.” This is a most important concept that should be central to future studies in RV that would be based on simultaneous multi-subject testing. Recommendation: None. 11-10-86 EDWIN MAY Response: We agree with Dr. Press’s criticism of the in-place statistical analysis reported by Dr. Pleass. There are a number of serious objections that need to be addressed before experimentation can begin. In the one comment about our statistical analysis, he questions whether the velocity measurements are statistically independent. Because the cells appear to have at least one known nonrandom cycle (the circadian rhythm), it is necessary to demonstrate that the “detrending” (regardless of the technique) has been successful. Until this is done, it is particularly risky to use statistics that assume sample independence. Yes, we are looking for small effects in a very noisy background. In responding to Dr. Adey’s remarks about living systems and quantum mechanics, we point out that, while living systems might be shown to be sensitive to quantum phenomena, it has never been demonstrated (to date) that they can exist in quantum coherent indefinite states! In fact, an ensemble of atoms * 105 must be cooled to 50 milli-degrees above absolute zero before such effects can be seen. 70 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective F, Task 1 (RA Hardware Construction: Quantum Mechanical Photon Experiment) NICK YARU Exceptions: |. Comments: Recommendation: (verbatim transcription--not edited) None. A “ballpark” experiment usually leads to controversy and a stringently controlled experiment is required for credibility. Hence verified data that two photons are not in the apparatus simultaneously is needed; how do we know a photon does not “split.” Some more data may not overly complicate the proposed experiment. I do. 11-6-86 FRED ZACHARIASEN Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: S. JAMES PRESS Exceptions: Additional comments: Recommendation: None. This is a simple experiment; & since it might get rid of an apparent (though minor) controversy it ought to be carried out. I do. 11-7-86 None. I am not a physicist, so I really can’t comment intelligently about the soundness of the experimental setup. It does appear to me, however, to be an important experiment to run, & it looks to be straightforward to run it. I do. 11-6-86 MICHAEL A. WARTELL Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: None. Exciting experiment--look forward to seeing results. I do. 11-6-86 71 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 BRIAN SKYRMS Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: EDWIN MAY Response: Interpretation: One slit being closed at a time is not a measurement but rather a specification of basic possibilities. Thus a positive result would not support Wiogner (sic) but rather falsify Quantum Mechanics. Redundancy: { expect that essentially this experiment has been done many times, with the expected negative results. The experimenter (sic) doesn’t look till the end, after many trials. I suggest a review of the experimental literature to see if this is not the case. You might want to check some experimentalists (sic) in the EPR field, e.g., Horne (sic). I do not. 11-10-86 Dr. Yaru may be confused by the prose. In this setup, all photons are “split.” The question is whether the “halves” are allowed to combine again at the detector. Dr. Yaru’s excellent suggestion about showing that we have a few-photon domain will be incorporated into the experimental design. I am not sure if I understand Dr. Skyrms’ comment. The quantum mechanical question centers on identifying the proper form for the state vector. In a standard Michelson-Morely interferometer, it is given by w= a,yW+ a, , and Te VW". In the case of the “unknown” shutter, is the state vector still given by the above, or does it now become ai W: or az W2--depending upon which shutter is closed? A positive result would support Wigner. All it would say about quantum mechanics is that consciousness is a necessary ingredient in the state vector collapse. In 1982, we had done such a literature search and found only one experiment involving positron annihilation, which was ambiguous with regard to consciousness. As of January 1986, we have found no other papers. 72 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 PHIL ZIMBARDO--GENERAL COMMENTS (verbatim transcription-—not edited) Formal General Assessment Statement 1. The SRI staff has done an impressive job in meeting the research objectives set forth in our initial session a year ago. a. A large body of research has been started and much completed. b. Some of the research is of sufficiently good quality to merit continued use of these promising paradigms. 2. There are enough results that are “suggestive” and “provocative” to warrant further study using some more simplified experimental procedures, improved assessment of the outcome measures, and additional statistical analyses. 3. It is my opinion, however, that the number and scope of the research projects should be limited in FY 1987-1988. 4, There should be greater quality control exercised by SRI staff over the (fewer number of) subcontractors’ performance; closer monitoring of ongoing procedures; presenting clear criteria for reporting of procedural details, data analyses and general reporting procedures. 5. The SRI staff should prepare a summary statement of what paradigms, and measures seem to them to be most promising, what results they put most confidence in, and what they believe are not promising and should be terminated. 6. There is a concern that experimental paradigms be simplified as much as possible, that any potential source of artifact, source of criticism re deception (intentional or non-intentional) be eliminated from new protocols. 7. I remain an open-minded skeptic who believes that if psychoenergetic (PE) phenomena exist, the SRI group is the best possible to demonstrate it. Informal 1. Breadth of focus is too broad at this time. Need a few PE demonstrations of impecable quality (limit focus). 2. Differentiation of different types of PE. 3. Theories about how PE works (future feedback, mechanisms). 73 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 10. 11. 12. Training PE subjects. Selection procedures for screening PE subjects. Operationally defining valid, reliable measures of RV, etc., training, learning. Need to simplify number of projects and procedures within project. Need a statement from SRI staff about their views as to their confidence levels of belief in various PE phenomena. And what they need to increase their confidence and what they believe would increase the confidence levels of skeptics. Potential application demonstrations to be done. Working for two masters--mixed directions--mixed bag of projects. Obtaining scientific credibility in academic/research community of this particular project. Conclusions are stated in non-conservative terms that are excessive in the scientific community “striking,” “powerful,” for relatively weak effects. But are necessary to convince contractor. Too much is going on to expect such quality control. Action: Cut back on subcontractors; have staff member directly responsible as liaison to each sub.; set specific guidelines re: procedural safeguards, data analysis, data reporting, get preliminary proposal for staff review prior to any public report. 74 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 Appendix B SINGLE aw-PARTICLE EXPERIMENTAL HARDWARE (This Appendix is UNCLASSIFIED) by G. Scott Hubbard 75 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001 -4 SINGLE w-PARTICLE HARDWARE Objective F, Task 1 We have designed and constructed hardware that will be used to test for the existence of remote action (RA) by examining the geometrical distribution of a beam of a-particles as a function of the attention of selected participants. The hypothesis under examination is that an RA interaction will cause an o-particle to be deflected into a position where it would never appear under “normal” circumstances. In the proposed experiment, a low-intensity (*¥ 100 counts/second) collimated beam of w-particles will be allowed to drift, in a vacuum, approximately 1 cm from the radioactive source to a position sensitive radiation detector. The detector will be capable of registering the arrival of single particles. During the experiment, individuals will be asked to produce a deflection of the beam by “mental” means alone. Figure B-1 displays the conceptual approach to the experiment. Position Sensitive Detector: 48 Active Regions Divided into Strips 80 um in width. Normal Beam Spot o-Particle Influenced by RA Detector Groove (inactive region) 20 ym In Width « -——— o-Particle, Normal Trajectory —_—\———- Cm 24 Radioactive Source FIGURE B-1 CONCEPTUAL CONFIGURATION OF AN®-PARTICLE EXPERIMENT 77 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 This conceptual approach was adopted for the following reasons: e If RA exists, it is plausible to assume that a mental interaction with matter might be mediated by electromagnetic forces. This assumption is partly based on many years of published claims in the parapsychological literature that RA (more commonly known as psychokinesis or PK) can affect electrical and mechanical apparatus. e An qa-particle, consisting of two protons and two neutrons, represents an extremely simple and well-understood electromagnetic target. ® Macroscopic RA sensors (such as strain gauges) are sensitive to many influences such as mechanical vibration, acoustic energy, infrared radiation, and electromagnetic fields. With a suitable vacuum environment, the a-particle should be affected only by electromagnetic and gravitational forces. The four hardware elements that are crucial to this experiment are a suitable radioactive source, a position sensitive detector, an appropriate data acquisition system, and proper environmental monitoring and conditions. Figure B-2 shows a schematic layout of the entire system. Figure B-3 displays the actual hardware. Vacuum Chamber Position Sensitive Detecto Collimators Detector Pre-amps CAMAC Crate LSI 11/23 and Pulse Processing Host sogPuter Modules CAMAC Interface FIGURE B-2 SINGLE w-PARTICLE RA APPARATUS 78 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 FIGURE B-3 HARDWARE SYSTEM FOR SINGLE a-PARTICLE RA EXPERIMENT 79 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 A. Radioactive Source The following requirements had to be met before the proper radioactive source could be selected: @ The source must be as close to a 100% a-emitter as possible so that there is no conflicting radiation that might confound the experiment. e 6A sufficiently long half-life is needed so that the emission rate will not change substantially during the time of the experiment (approximately one year). e The o-~particles must be energetic enough to be sensed by the radiation detector, but also be low enough in energy to stop completely in the the detector bulk. For a typical silicon detector of * 100 microns depletion depth, the particle energy (E) must be: 2 MeV SE < 15 MeV. e Finally, the source must be collimated so that the diameter of the beam penumbra will be = 1 mm at a distance of 1 cm. All of the above requirements were met by Curium 244, a 99.97% a-emitter having a half-life of 18.1 years and a principal ~-energy of 5.81 MeV. [The balance of the emissions (0.03%) are 40 to 100 keV gamma-rays, which will not be detected by our system.] The vendor was also required to supply the source encapsulated with a pair of collimators spaced 2 mm. apart and an aperture diameter of 0.25 mm. B. Radiation Detector “The detector that was selected is a position sensitive silicon strip device. As indicated in Figure B-1, the device is divided into 48 active strips and inactive grooves. Each strip is connected to a separate preamplifier so that a-particles can be detected with an x-dimension position sensitivity of 100 ym. The detector purchased was a commercially available unit commonly used in high-energy and nuclear physics experiments. Figure B-4 shows a detailed view of the detector, source, and signal readout. C. Data Acquisition and Signal Processing In order to provide maximum flexibility, the apparatus clearly needed to be computer controlled. We selected an existing LSI 11/23 computer as the host device and the Computer Automated Measurement and Control (CAMAC) instrumentation system as the communications link to the detector system. (CAMAC is a recognized standard for nuclear digital data acquisition; modular components are available from a large number of firms.) 80 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001 -4