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
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
ROSS ADEY
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation
EDWIN MAY
Response:
(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.).
(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.
None.
11-10-86
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 ^
10s must be cooled to 50 milli-degrees above
absolute zero before such effects can be seen.
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
(RA Hardware Construction: Quantum Mechanical Photon Experiment)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NICK YARU
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation
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:
None.
Comments:
Recommendation:
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
S. JAMES PRESS
Exceptions:
None.
Additional comments:
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.
Recommendation:
I do.
11 -6-86
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
Exciting experiment—look forward to seeing results.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-6-86
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:
I 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. Yarn’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
'P
=
a, ^
+
aj'Rj
, and
I
=
'P'P*
.
In the case of the “unknown" shutter,
is the state vector still given by the
above,
or does
it now become
ai 'Pi or
3,1 'Hz—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.
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)
A.
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.
B.
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).
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
i
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.
•
A sufficiently long half-life
is needed so that the emission rate
will not
change substantially during the time of the experiment (approximately
one year).
•
The a-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 < E <,
15 MeV.
•
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 a-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-l, 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 pm.
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
communicadons 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.)
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Signal processing
is accomplished through commercially available charge-sensitive
preamplifiers, pulse amplifiers, and pulse discriminators.
A 48-bit Coincidence Register
receives the amplified detector pulses from each of the 48 active detector strips, thus allowing
the computer to assign a unique strip-position to each detected a-particle.
D.
Environmental Considerations
The primary concern in designing this experiment was to anticipate the possible normal
sources of deflected a-particles, so that RA can be distinguished from artifact.
Collisions of
gas molecules with a-particles appeared to be the greatest source of potential
artifact.
This
is
a common problem faced on a daily basis by the operators of accelerator laboratories.
Using
existing data for the cross sections of Oi-particles and
air molecules, a number of calculations
of collision probabilities were performed.
These calculations assumed a vacuum of 2 x 10-8
Torr, an a-particle emission rate of 1,000 counts per second, and a detector-source distance
of 5 cm.
Under these conditions, the probability of a collision equaled 0.05 only after 11
years of continuous operation.
While this appears to be adequate protection against collision
artifact, we
will
still conduct long control
trials during experimental sessions.
Other possible sources of artifact are electromagnetic (EM) and gravitational
fields.
While
it
is likely that the local gravitational ambient
will remain stable during the time of a
proposed experimental session (15 to 90 minutes), the same may not be true of the EM
environment.
However,
in order to
feel confident that any detected anomalous events are
due to RA,
it
is clear that appropriate shielding for EM
fields, and transient detection for
both EM and gravitational
fields must be employed during the actual experimental sessions.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
FIGURE
B-4
DETAIL OF DETECTOR SIGNAL OUTPUT, RADIOACTIVE SOURCE AND
POSITION SENSITIVE DETECTOR
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4