Telepathy and entrainment00:30 Jun 24 2011
Times Read: 704
A scientific look at telepathy.The mecahnism behind the magic?
This is the html version of the file http://www.parapsych.org/papers/44.pdf.
Page 1
ShanThe Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 413A PRIMARY QUANTUM MODEL OF TELEPATHYGao ShanThe Scientists Work Team of Electro-Magnetic Wave Velocity, Chinese Institute of Electronics and Institute of Quantum Physics, Beijing ABSTRACTThe physical nature of psi phenomena such as telepathy is an important problem in present science ofconsciousness. Scientists have basically confirmed the existence of telepathy phenomena through many strictexperiments. Then can modern science (e.g. quantum theory) provide a scientific explanation for telepathyphenomena? In this paper, we will seek the possible quantum nature of telepathy from both theoretical andexperimental aspects, and will present a primary quantum model of telepathy process. It is well known that eventhough present quantum theory permits the existence of quantum nonlocality, it does forbid the realization ofnonlocal communication or quantum superluminal communication (QSC). However, the usual no-go theoremsdon‘t consider the possible active role of consciousness during quantum measurement process. In a recent paper(see Found. Phys. Lett, 17(2), 167-182), it has been demonstrated that a proper combination of quantum processand conscious perception will permit the distinguishability of nonorthogonal quantum states, and further resultin the realization of QSC or nonlocal communication. This is called the QSC principle. On the basis of the QSCprinciple, we propose a primary theoretical model of telepathy process. According to the model, the telepathyprocess mainly includes three phases. The first phase is to form the quantum entanglement state of brains, thesecond phase is to hold the entanglement state of brains, and the third phase is to collapse the entanglementstate of brains. When the entanglement state of brains is collapsed by a certain measurement on one of thesubjects, the brain states of both subjects turn to be definite states from entanglement state, and the other subjectwill perceive the change at a distance according to the QSC principle. When in the entanglement state orsuperposition state, no definite perception relating to the state exists, whereas when the superposition statecollapses into a definite state, a definite perception relating to the collapse state appears. Then the telepathybetween the subjects may appear. It should be stressed that, even though the above quantum model may inprinciple provide a primary scientific explanation of telepathy phenomena, there are still some left technicalproblems such as the expression of high-level telepathy information etc. Lastly, in order to test the QSC principleand the above quantum model of telepathy, some feasible schemes of quantum perception experiments andperception entanglement experiments are further proposed on the basis of present technology. We urge that suchquantum perception experiments need to be conducted as soon as possible. If the experiment results are positive,they will have far-reaching influence on the present science of consciousness and psi research, and will help tobridge the gap between the parapsychology and present science. INTRODUCTIONThe physical nature of psi phenomena such as telepathy is an important problem in present science ofconsciousness. The existence of telepathy phenomena has been basically confirmed through many strictexperiments (Duane & Behrendt, 1965; Targ & Puthoff, 1974; Puthoff & Targ, 1976; Radin & Nelson,1989; Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al, 1994; Bierman & Radin, 1997; Gao, 2000; Wackermann et al, 2003).Then can modern science (e.g. quantum theory) provide a scientific explanation for telepathy phenomena?In this paper, we will seek the possible quantum nature of telepathy from both theoretical and experimentalaspects, and will present a primary quantum model of telepathy phenomena. It will be shown that,according to the principle of quantum superluminal communication (QSC) (Gao, 2000; Gao, 2003; Gao,2004), quantum theory can in principle provide a scientific explanation of telepathy phenomena whenconsidering the role of consciousness in quantum process, and some experiments may have indicated thevalidity of this explanation. Lastly, we will propose a series of feasible experiment schemes to test thequantum model of telepathy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
A primary quantum model of telepathyProceedings of Presented Papers414A ROLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN QUANTUM MEASUREMENTWe will first analyze the role of consciousness in physical measurement process. As we know, physicalmeasurement generally consists of two processes: (1). the physical interaction between the observed objectand measuring device; (2). the psycho-physical interaction between the measuring device and observer. Insome special situations, measurement may be the direct interaction between the observed object andobserver. Even though what physics studies is the insensible object or matter, the consciousness of the observermust take part in the last phase of measurement. The observer is introspectively aware of his perceptionabout the measurement results. The conscious function is used to end the infinite chains of measurement.This is the main role of consciousness different from that of usual measuring device in the measurementprocess. But this difference doesn‘t result in the physically testable different displays for classicalmeasurement process. In classical theory, the influence of the measuring device or observer to the observedobject can be omitted in principle during measurement process, and the psycho-physical interaction betweenthe observer and measuring device does not influence the reading of the pointer of the measuring deviceeither. Thus classical measurement is only one kind of plain one-to-one mapping from the state of theobserved object to the pointer state of the measuring device and further to the mental state of the observer,or direct one-to-one mapping from the state of the observed object to the mental state of the observer from aphysical point of views. In short, the consciousness of the observer possesses no physically testable differentfunctions from physical measuring device in classical theory. However, the measurement process is no longer plain in quantum theory. The influence of themeasuring device to the observed object can‘t be omitted in principle during quantum measurement owingto the existence of quantum superposition. It is just this influence that generates the definite measurementresult to some extent. Since the measuring device has generated one definite measurement result, thepsycho-physical interaction between the observer and measuring device is still one kind of plain one-to-onemapping, and this process is the same as that in classical situation. But when the observed object andobserver directly interact, the existence of quantum superposition will introduce new element to the psycho-physical interaction between the observer and measured object. The interaction will result in the appearanceof the observer with consciousness in quantum superposition state. Then whether or not does theconsciousness of the observer in quantum superposition state have some physically testable different displaysfrom physical measuring device? We will try to give the answer.In order to further analyze the possible role of consciousness during quantum measurement, we need acomplete theory describing the quantum measurement process. As we know, present quantum theory hasn‘tprovided a complete description of the evolution of wave function during measurement yet, and theprojection postulate is just a makeshift. Revised quantum dynamics (Ghirardi et al, 1986; Pearle, 1989;Diosi, 1989; Ghirardi et al, 1990; Penrose, 1996; Gao, 2000; Gao, 2001; Gao, 2003) and many-worldstheory (Everett, 1957; Dewitt et al, 1973; Deutsch, 1985) are two main alternatives to a complete quantumtheory. Here we mainly discuss the measurement process in the framework of revised quantum dynamics,and the conclusion will be also valid in the many-worlds theory. At the present time, even if the lastcomplete theory has not been found, but one thing is certain, i.e. the collapse process of wave function isone kind of dynamical process, and it will take a finite time interval to finish. Our analysis will only rely onthis common character of the complete quantum theory.As we know, the nonorthogonal quantum states or nonorthogonal states such as 1ψ and 1ψ + 2ψ can‘tbe distinguished in present quantum theory. What‘s more, the usual measurement using physical measuringdevice can‘t distinguish the nonorthogonal states either in the framework of revised quantum dynamics. Butwhen the physical measuring device is replaced by a conscious being and considering the influence ofconsciousness, it has been shown that the nonorthogonal states can be distinguished under some conditionusing the consciousness function (Gao, 2000; Gao, 2003; Gao, 2004). The observer with consciousness mayobtain more information about the intermediate process before the collapse of wave function finishes, and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
ShanThe Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 415the added information can help him distinguish the nonorthogonal states. This is the special role ofconsciousness different from that of physical measuring device during quantum measurement process. Herewe will introduce the main ideas.Let the states to be distinguished be the nonorthogonal states 1ψ and 1ψ + 2ψ , where 1ψ and 2ψ cantrigger the definite perception states 1χ and 2χ of the observer, and the initial perception state of theobserver be 0χ . After interaction the corresponding entangled state of the whole system is respectively1ψ 1χ and 1ψ 1χ + 2ψ2χ . We assume that the observer satisfies the —QSC condition“, i.e., his perceptiontime for the definite state 1ψ 1χ , which is denoted by Pt , is shorter than the dynamical collapse time of thesuperposition state 1ψ 1χ + 2ψ2χ , which is denoted by Ct , and that the time difference t∆ = Ct - Pt is largeenough for him to identify. The observer can perceive the input definite state 1ψ after the perception timePt , whereas for the input superposition state 1ψ + 2ψ , only after the collapse time Ct can the observerperceive the collapse state 1ψ or 2ψ . Before the collapse time Ct the observer in superposition state1ψ 1χ + 2ψ2χ has no definite perception related to the definite state 1ψ or 2ψ ; After the collapse timeCt , the state of the measured system collapses to a definite state 1ψ or 2ψ , and the observer has a definiteperception for the collapse state 1ψ or 2ψ . Since the observer can be conscious of the time differencebetween Pt and Ct , he can distinguish the nonorthogonal states 1ψ and 1ψ + 2ψ . It should be stressedthat, since the collapse time of a single superposition state is an essentially stochastic variable, which averagevalue is Ct , the —QSC condition“ can be in principle satisfied in some collapse processes. For thesestochastic collapse processes, the collapse time of the single superposition state is much longer than the(average) collapse time Ct and the perception time Pt .A NONLOCAL COMMUNICATION METHODIt is well known that even though present quantum theory permits the existence of quantum nonlocality(Einstein et al, 1935; Bell, 1964; Aspect, 1982), it doesn‘t permit the realization of quantum superluminalcommunication (QSC) (Eberhard, 1978; Ghirardi, 1980). However, such demonstrations didn‘t considerthe possible active role of consciousness during quantum measurement process. As we have demonstratedabove, a proper combination of quantum process and conscious perception will permit the distinguishabilityof nonorthogonal states. Once the nonorthogonal states can be distinguished, we can directly realize QSCor nonlocal communication. This is called the QSC principle. Here we present a typical method to realizenonlocal communication. According to the above analysis, we can design a device to distinguish the nonorthogonal states. We callit NSDD (Nonorthogonal States Distinguishing Device). The design rules are as follows, i.e., when the inputstate is a definite state, the output of NSDD is ”1‘, whereas when the input state is a superposition ofdefinite states, the output of NSDD is ”0‘. In the following, we will briefly introduce how to achieve QSCusing NSDD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
A primary quantum model of telepathyProceedings of Presented Papers416Fig. 1: A scheme of QSCWe use the EPR polarization correlation pairs of photons as the carriers of information. We encode theoutgoing information by operating the polarizer, and decode the incoming information using NSDD. Theexperimental setting is shown in Fig 2. Pairs of photons, whose frequencies are ν1 and ν2 , are emitted inthe -z direction and +z direction from a source, are then analyzed by the two-channel polarizer π1 and π2respectively. The optical switch 1C in the left side can be controlled to determine whether or not thephoton ν1 will pass to π1 . The transmission axes of the polarizers are both set in the direction x. The two-channel polarizer π1 and π2 allows the polarization components of the photon both parallel to andperpendicular to the transmission axis of the polarizer to be passed. The photon passed and analyzed by thepolarizer π1 is detected by 1D or 2D , and the photon analyzed by the two-channel polarizers π2 is dividedinto two paths in space, and respectively input to NSDD from different directions. We now explain how QSC can be achieved by means of the above setting. Let the sender operate theoptical switch 1C , and have the receiver observe the output of NSDD. Suppose the communication rulesare stated as follows. The encoding rule for the sender is that not measuring the photon represents sendingthe code ”0‘, and measuring the photon represents sending the code ”1‘. The decoding rule for the receiver isthat the output of NSDD being ”0‘ represents having received the code ”0‘, and the output of NSDD being”1‘ represents having received the code ”1‘. The communication process can be stated as follows. When thesender wants to send a code ”0‘, he controls the optical switch 1C to let the photon ν1 move freely and notbe analyzed by the polarizer π1 . Then the state of the photon ν2 is a superposition state after it passes thepolarizer π2 , and the output of NSDD is ”0‘. The receiver can decode the sent code as ”0‘. When the senderwants to send a code ”1‘, he controls the optical switch 1C to allow the photon ν1 to be analyzed by thepolarizer π1 and detected by 1D or 2D before the photon 2ν arrives at NSDD. Then the state of thephoton ν2 collapses into a definite state, and the output of NSDD is ”1‘. The receiver can decode the sentcode as ”1‘. Thus the sender and receiver can achieve QSC using the above setting and communicationrules. TELEPATHY AND ITS POSSIBLE QUANTUM EXPLANATIONEven though some superphysical phenomena may be not real, telepathy does exist. Its usual display isthat one can perceive the other's happening, say being sick or being injured etc, at a distance between thefamiliar people, say twins, relatives or friends. Many people have this kind of experience. At present, thetelepathy phenomena have been basically confirmed by some strict experiments (Duane & Behrendt, 1965;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
ShanThe Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 417Targ & Puthoff, 1974; Puthoff & Targ, 1976; Radin & Nelson, 1989; Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al, 1994;Bierman & Radin, 1997; Gao, 2000; Wackermann et al, 2003), and are being studied by more scientists. In the experiment conducted by Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al (Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al, 1994), pairs ofsubjects were first allowed to meditate together, and then put into two semisilent Faraday chambers 14.5mapart. Their EEG activities are registered by two EEG machines. One subject of each pair was stimulated by100 flashes at random intervals, and each photostimulation resulted in an evoked potential for thestimulated subject. It is observed that, when the stimulated subject showed distinct evoked potentials, thenonstimulated subject showed —transferred potentials“ similar to the evoked potentials in the stimulatedsubject, at the same time, the subjects both felt their interaction had been successfully completed. Inanother experiment conducted by Wackermann et al (Wackermann et al, 2003), six channelselectroencephalogram (EEG) were recorded simultaneously from pairs of separated human subjects in twoacoustically and electromagnetically shielded rooms. Even though the —transferred potentials“ is not foundin the experiment, the correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated humansubjects are also observed using a more complex method of data analysis. Since the subjects were separatedby the soundproof Faraday chambers in the above experiments, these experiments guarantee that neithersensory signals nor electromagnetic signals is the means of communication, and thus strictly confirms theexistence of nonlocal correlations and nonlocal communication between human brains. In the following, we will analyze the above telepathy experiments in terms of the above QSC principle.According to the QSC principle, the proper combination of quantum collapse and conscious perceptionwill result in the realization of nonlocal communication. It will be shown that this may provide a possibleexplanation of the above telepathy experiments, and indicates that telepathy may result from the quantumprocess in brains. We first argue that the —QSC condition“ is satisfied in the above telepathy experiment as implied by theexperiment results. The —QSC condition“ is that the perception time of a conscious being for the definitestate is shorter than the dynamical collapse time of the perceived quantum superposition state, and the timedifference is large enough for the conscious being to identify. On the one hand, the quantum entanglementstate between the subjects A and B in the experiment, which is formed by meditative interaction or othermeans, can hold for a long time until the experiment is completed, then there appears the observedcorrelations between brain electrical activities of the two subjects. This indicates that the dynamical collapsetime of the quantum entanglement state is also very long, say several ten minutes. On the other hand, theperception time of the subjects for the definite state is generally of the orders of 500ms. Thus in the aboveexperiments the collapse time of the quantum entanglement state or quantum superposition state isevidently much longer than the perception time of the subject for the definite state, and the time differenceis also large enough for the subject to identify, i.e., the —QSC condition“ is satisfied in the experiments. It seems to be a well-known fact that the wet and warm brain doesn‘t support the quantum coherence(Tegmark, 2000). However, on the one hand, the —QSC condition“ is related to the collapse time, not thedecoherence time of wave function. Even though the decoherence time is very short due to environmentaldecoherence, the collapse time may be much longer (Hagan et al, 2002). Here we will also give an example.As we know, the number of neurons which can form a definite conscious perception is in the levels of 410 .In each neuron, the main difference of activation state and resting state lies in the motion of 610+Na spassing through the membrane. Since the membrane potential is in the levels of210− V, the energydifference between activation state and resting state is approximately 410 eV. According to one kind ofrevised quantum dynamical theory (Percival, 1994; Hughston, 1996; Fivel, 1997; Gao, 2000; Gao, 2003),the collapse time of the superposition of the activation state and resting state of one neuron is2)(EEpc∆≈ħτsMeVMev5210)01.08.2(≈≈, where ħ is Planck constant divided by 2π , pE is Planck energy,E∆ is the energy difference of the state. Thus the collapse time of the superposition of two different
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
A primary quantum model of telepathyProceedings of Presented Papers418conscious perceptions is cτmsMeVMev1)1008.2(2 ≈≈, in which one conscious perception state contains 410neurons in the activation state, and the other conscious perception state contains 410 neurons in theresting state. Since the collapse process is an essentially stochastic process, and the collapse time of a singlesuperposition state is a stochastic variable, which average value cτ is nearly ms1 , the —QSC condition“ canbe in principle satisfied in some collapse processes happening in the brains. For these stochastic collapseprocesses, the collapse time of the single superposition state is much longer than the average perceptiontimems500. This may account for the experimental results of the above telepathy experiments. Once the required —QSC condition“ is satisfied, realizing QSC and explaining telepathy will be probable.According to the QSC principle, the subject satisfying the —QSC condition“ will possess differentperceptions for the definite state and the superposition of definite states. As revealed in the experiment,when the subject A is not stimulated and the quantum entanglement state still holds, the subject B will bein a superposition state, and he has no distinct feeling or distinct distributions of the brain electricalactivities related to the state. Whereas when the subject A is stimulated and the quantum entanglement statecollapses, the subject B will be in a definite state, and he does have a distinct feeling that their interactionhas been successfully completed or distinct distributions of the brain electrical activities. Then QSC can berealized if we encode the different stimulating operations to subject A, and correspondingly decode thecodes through the different feelings or EEG activities of subject B. This may naturally explain the telepathyphenomenon between the subjects.A QUANTUM THEORETICAL MODEL OF TELEPATHY PROCESSOn the basis of the QSC principle and the above analyses, we will further present a primary theoreticalmodel of telepathy process. In this model, the telepathy process includes three main phases.Phase 1: Form the quantum entanglement state of brainsDuring this phase, the quantum states of the brains of the telepathy subjects are entangled. Here we givea possible way to entangle the quantum states of brains. Suppose two photons are in the entanglement state2121ψϕϕψ +, and they respectively enter the eyes of two subjects A and B whose initial states is respectively)(0 Aχand)(0 Bχ. Then after interaction the entanglement state of these two brains will be formed,which can be written as)()()()(1221BABAχχχχ+. Here we assume that the photons are absorbed inthe process. In the above experiments, this phase is achieved by the meditative interaction or otherinteractions between the subjects. Phase 2: Hold the entanglement state of brains The formed entanglement state of brains may hold for a long time in some places of brain under somespecial conditions. According to the QSC principle, the holding time should be much longer than the usualperception time of the subjects. It is argued that this condition may be satisfied in some places of the brain(Penrose, 1994; Hameroff & Penrose, 1996; Hagan et al, 2002). In the above experiments, the entanglementstate is hold by the subjects feeling each other‘s presence at a distance. Phase 3: Collapse the entanglement state of brains When the entanglement state of brains is collapsed by a certain measurement on one of the subjects, thebrain states of both subjects turn to be definite states from entanglement state, and the other subject willperceive the change at a distance according to the QSC principle. Here the telepathy between the subjectsappears. When in the entanglement state or superposition state such as)()()()(1221BABAχχχχ+, nodefinite perception relating to the state exists, whereas when the superposition state collapses into a definitestate )()(21BA χχor)()(12BA χχ, a definite perception relating to the collapse state can appear. In theabove experiment, this phase is achieved by stimulating the subject A with flashes or visual patterns, and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
ShanThe Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 419when the entanglement state is collapsed by the stimulation, the subjects will display distinct distributions ofthe brain electrical activities or even feel that their interaction has been successfully completed. It should be stressed that, even though the above primary quantum model may in principle provide ascientific explanation of telepathy phenomena, there are still some left technical problems. One is to findthe position in the brain where the holding time of a quantum superposition state can be much longer thanthe usual perception time, i.e., to test the existence of —QSC condition“ in human brains. Another problemis to study how the brain generates the high-level telepathy information from the low-level one transmittedthrough the above QSC means. This closely relates to present neuroscience research. Undoubtedly, theseunsolved problems need to be deeply studied in experiments. In the next section, we will suggest someexperimental schemes that may help to solve the problems.SOME EXPERIMENTAL SCHEMESIn order to test the existence of —QSC condition“ in human brains, and confirm the above primaryquantum model of telepathy, we propose the following experimental schemes. Control experimentProduce some photons with a certain frequency. Input them to the eyes of the subject. Test and recordthe conscious time of the subject through EEG (electroencephalograph) or his oral description. Quantum perception experiment IProduce the direction superposition state of the photons with the same frequency (e.g. as stated insection 2). Input one branch of the superposition state to the eyes of the subject, and let the other branchfreely spread (not input to a measuring device). Test whether the subject perceives the photons during thenormal conscious time. Quantum perception experiment IIProduce the direction superposition state of the photons with the same frequency. Input both branchesof the superposition state to the eyes of the subject. Test whether the subject perceives the photons duringthe normal conscious time.Perceptions entanglement experiment IProduce the direction superposition state of the photons with the same frequency. Input the branches ofthe superposition state to the eyes of two independent subjects respectively. Test whether the subjectsperceive the photons during the normal conscious time. It is suggested that the subjects are unfamiliar witheach other before the experiment, which can be further confirmed by the phase incoherence of their brainwaves. If the subjects can only perceive the photons after a time interval longer than their normal conscioustime in any case of the above experiments, then we will have confirmed the existence of —QSC condition“ inhuman brains. Besides, we suggest that the subjects in the above experiments should be composed of threeindependent groups at least. The subjects in the first group are in normal state, the subjects in the secondgroup are in meditation state, and the subjects in the third group are in qigong state. Perceptions entanglement experiment IIProduce the direction superposition state of the photons with the same frequency. Input the branches ofthe superposition state to the eyes of two independent and isolated subjects respectively. Then stimulate oneof the subjects using flashes at random intervals. Record his evoked potentials and the corresponding brain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
A primary quantum model of telepathyProceedings of Presented Papers420electrical activities of the other subject. Test whether there exists statistical relevance between these brainelectrical activities. At the same time, ask the subjects whether they have some kind of conscious perceptionrelating to the stimulations. The existence of the correlation of the brain electrical activities or the directperception will have confirmed the above primary quantum model, and it can be used to realize controllablehuman brain communication. This experiment can be taken as the quantum version of the above telepathy experiments. It is furthersuggested that the experiment be conducted at much longer distance, e.g. at a distance longer than thebound distance 40km. The present experimental results have shown that the maximum time delay betweenthe EEG response of the receiver and the evoked potentials of the sender is approximately 130 sµ(Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al, 1994; Wackermann et al, 2003). Considering the value of light speed, thebound distance excluding the influence of classical signals with light speed is approximately 40km. Here thepossible classical signals with light speed can‘t be used to explain the statistical relevance between thepotentials of the subjects. Thus we can strictly confirm that the possible human brain communication is onekind of superluminal and non-electromagnetic phenomena, and further confirm the proposed quantummodel of telepathy. REFERENCESAspect A., Dalibard J. & Roger G. (1982). Experimental Test of Bell‘s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers.Phys.Rev.Lett 49, 1804.Bell J.S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics 1, 195.Bierman, D.J. & Radin, D. I. (1997). Anomalous anticipatory response on randomized future conditions. Perceptualand Motor Skills 84, 689-690.Deutsch, D. (1985). Quantum Theory as a Universal Physical Theory. Int. J. Theo. Phys. 24, 1-41.DeWitt, B. S. & Graham, N. ed. (1973). The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.Diosi, L. (1989). Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. A, 40, 1165-1174.Duane, D. & Behrendt, T. (1965). Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins. Science,150, 367.Eberhard P .H. (1978). Bell‘s theorem and the different concepts of locality. Nuovo Cimento B, 46, 392.Einstein A., Podolsky B. & Rosen N. (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be consideredcomplete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780.Everett, H. (1957). —Relative state“ formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454-462.Fivel, D. I. (1997). An indication from the magnitude of CP violations that gravitation is a possible cause of wave-function collapse, LANL e-print quant-ph/9710042.Gao Shan (2000). Quantum Motion and Superluminal Communication. Beijing: Chinese BT Publishing House.Gao Shan (2001). From quantum motion to classical motion-seeking the lost reality. Physics Essays, 14(1), 37-48.Gao Shan (2003). Quantum. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Gao Shan (2004). Quantum collapse, consciousness and superluminal communication. Found. Phys. Lett, 17(2), 167-182.Ghirardi G.C., Rimini A. & Weber T. (1980). A general argument against superluminal transmission through thequantum mechanical measurement process. Letters Nuovo Cimento. 27, 293.Ghirardi,G.C., Rimini, A. & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys. Rev.D, 34, 470-491.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
ShanThe Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 421Ghirardi,G.C., Rimini, A. & Weber, T. (1990). A Continuous-spontaneous-reduction model involving gravity. Phys.Rev. D, 42, 1057-1064.Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Dalaflor, D., Attie, L. & Goswami, A. (1994). The Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen paradox in thebrain: The transferred potential. Physics Essays, 7, 422.Hagan S., Hameroff S. R. & Tuszynski J. A. (2002). Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence andbiological feasibility. Phys. Rev. D, 65, 061901.Hameroff, S. R. & Penrose, R. (1996). Conscious events as orchestrated space-time selections. Journal of ConsciousnessStudies, 3 (1), 36-53. Hughston, L. P. (1996). Geometry of Stochastic State Vector Reduction. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 452, 953-979.Pearle, P. (1989). Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization. Phys. Rev. A 39,2277- 2289.Penrose, R. (1996). On gravity‘s role in quantum state reduction. Gen. Rel. and Grav, 28, 581-600.Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind: a search for the missing science of consciousness. Oxford : Oxford University Press.Percival, I. C. (1994). Primary state diffusion. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 447, 189-209.Puthoff, H. E. & Targ, R. (1976). A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distances: Historicalperspective and recent research. Proc. IEEE, 64, 329-354. Radin, D. I. & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Found.Phys. 19(12), 1499-1514.Targ, R. & Puthoff, H.E. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature 252, 602-607.Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys. Rev. E 61, 4194-4206.Wackermann, J., Seiter, C., Keibel, H. & Walach, H. (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of twospatially separated human subjects. Neuroscience Letters 336, 60-64.Address for correspondence: Gao Shan, The Scientists Work Team of Electro-Magnetic WaveVelocity, Chinese Institute of Electronics, LongZeYuan24-3-501, Hui Long Guan, ChangPing District, Beijing102208, P.R. China. E-mail: rg@mail.ie.ac.cn
COMMENTS
-
captainglobehead
19:58 Jun 25 2011
That clip was magnificent! Thank you!
Theban
13:25 Jul 03 2011
Interesting, I would also say that the battle is always ongoing within the mind.