Are parapsychologists just jumping on the ‘weird physics’ bandwagon?
My first response to this question was actually a recollection of an event last year; Dr Richard Wiseman (who was interviewed earlier in this course) was presenting at a university on the topic of luck. During the Q&A, an enthusiastic listener stood up and asked if he had ever considered applying theories of quantum physics to his studies.
I recall that Dr Wiseman took an almost imperceptible step backwards (well, we know memory is fallible, but that is what I recall!) and politely responded that he was not a physicist; that he had not considered such theories and that perhaps such a question would be better suited to someone who was familiar – he suggested a few names off the top of his head (the works of Paul Dirac may have been one example).
Since quantum physics involves the behaviour of quarks and gluons (constituents of nuclear matter) and are not applied to macroscopic scales typically (superfluidity appears to be the only exception), it seems odd and possibly dangerous for parapsychology to adopt theories that are still under development in their field of origin – and most importantly, focus primarily upon the unexplained behaviour of the ‘very small world’. Physics is not about limiting metaphysics (a wider world view) but does constrain it.
In reflection of what Dr Harold Walach discusses what he considers to be an ‘overarching’ approach, it must be noted that quantum processes in the brain may possibly have some connection with the existence of the human conscious mind, but random subatomic uncertainty is VERY different from the exercise of the free will of an agent. Wave / particle duality is a fascinating phenomenon and clearly it has caught the imagination of many; yet it does not afford us an opportunity to misuse science and indulge in contradictory notions that could be potentially disastrous for both study of psychology and physics. Although there may have been parapsychological theories that seemed to mimic or echo some elements of quantum theory, whether it is correct to claim that they are the same seems rather presumptuous without further study of what quantum physics involves, let alone what agreement is made about psi requires for proof.
If this was a question of philosophy and thought experiments (very much a basis of some of the work done in quantum physics), then we could see it as a useful hypothetical exercise. Yet assumptions that it naturally will lead to evidence of ESP, psi, et al, does seem a little over-eager so far. Exercising caution after the popular adoption of an pseudo-quantum ‘hype’, allowing an ‘anything goes’ attitude by New Age and religious fringe-groups (such as the debunked pseudo-documentary/fringe religion doctrine based film ‘What the Bleep Do We Know’) should be considered. It would be unfortunate to shut down possible avenues for investigating a possible link further, due to a popular attitude of ‘only physics gets it right and other fields are all just taking advantage of the uncertainties to push a pseudoscientific agenda’. Collaboration and careful steps would best suit any field that would seek to bring such an integration of quantum theory to their body of knowledge.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
That was some very well presented information and it covered the bases. I will be careful and not assume that just because eyes can capture light in the transformation states of photo/batho-rhodopsin in 200 femto-seconds, that I can shoot lasers from my eyes if I concentrate hard enough.
I dunno man. All I ask for was sharks with frickin’ laser beams…
In all seriousness – the thing about quantum mechanics is that it DOES yield testable, falsifiable, experimental results. Not exactly a lot in common there with parapsychology, is there?
Before invoking something to explain weird results, let’s get some repeatable documented weird results. Ideally in less than another century – we’re all getting dreadfully bored here waiting.
I guess the fact that one field indeed has demonstrated repeatable, documented weird results… means that we can’t give up hope, yes? And in a pragmatic sense, if we’re striving for science, then we can’t give up questioning in all aspects easily. If you’d like to know more about the reference I cited, I can tell you more.
Hi there, nice article. What I indeed always find curious, is to hear/read how quantum physics are used to ‘hide’ the open ends of alternative theories. The argument always seems to be something like:
I have a theory which is not at all based on present knowledge of physics –> I have some issues which I cannot explain –> I call it uncertainty or chance –> I refer to the element of chance in quantum physics –> now my theory is based on physics –> I am right.
(Please note that ‘I’ is not ‘Me’)
Most often these alternative theories deal with something completely out of the domain of quantum physics. Someone once told me: If you are building a bridge, you’ll need to know physics, but not about quantum physics. Which is something different than saying that quantum physics is irrelevant, but it is about the level that is talked about.
So, I agree that we should think about what the bleep we know indeed, and what the bleep we still don’t understand. And then keep it separate.
Hi!
Yes, that’s what kind of bugs me; although the lecture that we got through the course I’m doing (you can find a link at the end of my post here – and I HIGHLY recommend it – will do a review when all the weeks are over with!) mentioned how there were similarities with earlier theories of psi and some notions implied by QT…
It seems rather odd to seize upon them as an ‘answer’ to the issues involving psi (in one lecture, Wiseman says that there was an odd sort of ‘concordance’ amongst parapsychologists, because although there were apparently discrepancies amongst definitions held in the field, the vagueness kept them in a kind of ‘limbo’ of agreement… I should get the exact quote and post it…).
If there is some sort of coherent link… it’s going to have to wait until QT gets itself more together, let alone parapsychology. Here’s to further studies!
Quantum physics is relevant for understanding, say, the nature of the chemical bonds holding atoms together to make molecules. This is nothing new; the idea goes back to Linus Pauling and friends. The question here is whether any properties of quantum phenomena are necessary for understanding the collective behaviour of large aggregates of atoms, on the scale of nerve cells, and therefore necessary for understanding cognition. (To make solid-state electronics, you need to know about how electrons move through semiconductors, which ultimately requires quantum mechanics. However, when we try to debug a program running on a computer made of a hundred million or more digital switches, we don’t ask about the band-gap energy of the transistors. No, we recognize that the problem is that you’re running Windows frakking Vista.) The answer to this question is, probably not.
As a Card-Carrying Physicist Bastard (no, really), I’d make a stronger statement. The “elements of quantum theory” typically invoked in such discussions, such as the role of “measurement” or “the observer”, are not features of quantum theory per se, but ideas introduced to try and interpret quantum physics, at a time when we really knew an awful lot less about the subject than we do now. Since the early 1970s, the trend has been more and more to treat “the observer” and the “collapse of the wavefunction” caused by observation as pedagogical fictions, convenient half-lies we tell to undergraduates. The undue prominence of these half-lies in vulgarizations of the subject is partly due to bad luck: the people working on quantum mechanics in the 1920s and ’30s were plenty smart enough to figure out decoherence, which might well have led that whole “measurement” business being chucked out on its ear, but they weren’t thinking in that direction.
Last comment for the night: when people on the Intertubes get all huffy about “what quantum physics implies” and how it supports the validity of their pet theory, I’m often tempted to pull out a pop quiz. Typical questions:
1. For ten points, calculate in the Heisenberg picture the time evolution of a harmonic oscillator state produced by acting on the lowest-energy eigenstate with a spatial translation operator.
2. For five points, does the energy of a hydrogenic atom depend upon the angular momentum quantum number l, and if so, under what circumstances and why?
3. (5 points) Given the canonical commutation relation [x,p] = i, derive an expression for the commutator [x,p^n]. (15 points) Use your result to express the momentum operator in the position basis.
I always assure people that I give partial credit. (-;
Yes, and the recent developments (I probably shouldn’t have to nod in the direction of the LHC, but it’s an example of such a development) in science have allowed us to make such improvements. Yet I do see how the pedagogical fictions have been seized upon eagerly and can very much hurt psychology more by trivialization and misuse of ‘ideas to try and interpret’… when I think many people already view parapsychology as a waste of time altogether anyway.
I must admit, one of my other initial responses was to recall when I was teaching at a particular school and one document being passed around tried to retro-fit a particular biology concept as being ‘foretold’ by the Koran…
OK, the comment I said would be my last comment for the evening is caught in a filter trap somewhere. . . .
The LHC isn’t really intended to explore or refine what the meaning of quantum mechanics might be. Few people are even expecting its results to force a modification in the basic rules of quantum behaviour; rather, the aim is to better understand which fundamental particles exist. Questions of decoherence and such fall more into the domains of molecular physics, condensed-matter physics and quantum computation.
No, I didn’t say that – in fact, I would recommend the latest book by Dr Karl for a great summation of what it involves and it isn’t talking about QM!! What I said was that it was an example of a modern development that allows for improved understanding of science.
As for the ‘filter’, my blog has boomed recently somewhat in popularity, resulting in more and more spam heading my way. Have changed my access for comments accordingly! :/ Sorry if you thought it was personal!
*promptly makes the ‘no Physics majors’ restriction MORE stringent and smacks the hamster-wheel to make it so…*
Ah, I should have pointed out this for you – probably the most modern paper that draws the two together: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15992244
The text we’re using (Intro to Parapsychology by Irwin and Watt) says “a broadly similar observational theory by Schmidt (1975) is couched in terms of feedback to a ‘psi source’, or observer by which the probability of a given outcome in a quantum state collapse may be altered, depending on the ‘strength’ of the psi source. In Schmidt’s model, ESP comprises an influence upon the quantum indeterminacy of neural processes in the brain. The later notion is developed by Jahn and Dunne (19860 who draw parallels between aspects of mentation and various dimensions of quantum processes”.
All of this essentially prompted me to write what I did for the blog post, which was my assignment task.
Balderdash.
Walach’s “generalized entanglement” is fuzzy word salad. It is a tacit admission that quantum physics — you know, the package of precise mathematical propositions which gives testable and exhaustively verified predictions about the physical world — does not suit the purposes of “alternative medicine” “researchers”, and that therefore they will make up their own pretend science. “Weak quantum theory” exists solely to shellac a layer of pseudo-respectability over a rotten core of woo.
Hence the caution.
The more it goes down that path, the more likely those skeptics who try to work to improve the study of parapsychology will find themselves at an impasse. Have you seen Watt’s report on the parapsychology studies of recent years? Dr Caroline Watt’s review of 96 student projects conducted at the KPU.
The wrongness of this passage is quite remarkable, in that no matter how I try to unpack it, it reveals an undiminished expanse of wrong. Let me then confine myself to saying that in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the one which made much of “the observer” and the “collapse” caused by observation, the observer could not choose the outcome of a collapse. In the Copenhagen formalism, one could calculate the probabilities of various outcomes assuming a measurement was taken at a particular time; during the interval between measurements, those “probability amplitudes” changed in definite, calculatable ways, while at the instant of measurement, another process took over and caused the system being measured to settle into a single eigenstate. This secondary process, the process of measurement which obeys such different rules than the ordinary time-evolution of the system, cannot change the probability amplitudes themselves.
So, Schmidt (1975) has succeeded in making psi analogous to quantum mechanics. . . by inventing something which is not quantum mechanics. Jolly good show, by Jove.
I have two blog posts to plan and an SF novel to be revising, so I really shouldn’t be harping on this point so, but gawd dayum, these people get under my skin. I think I’m coming down with full-blown SIWOTI Syndrome.
I wish I knew a book I could just point people to in order to avoid explaining this stuff myself. Unfortunately, as Carl Sagan sez,
A typical physics curriculum may in fact introduce the rudiments of quantum principles before reaching group theory; that aside, this sounds about right.
I’d suggest Feynman’s The Character of Physical Law followed by his QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter as a two-part sequence which does about the best one could do, under the circumstances. (To the latter book, I would only add that in the years since its publication, physicists indeed found the top quark, and developments in “renormalization group” methods have somewhat drawn the teeth of the troublesome issues with infinities which Feynman mentions.) Extending or updating these books to reflect a post-Copenhagen understanding of quantum behaviour. . . I’m not sure anybody has tried that yet.
I have Feynman’s and Jennifer Ouellette’s books. You might be interested in signing up for the parapsych course in the future; they certainly encourage skeptics (when you’re not so hideously busy!).
Way to inspire confidence.
“Way to inspire confidence.”
Then clearly they need more skeptics, yes? And clearly they recognise a problem…
They’ve been receiving input from skeptics for decades, and this is as far as they’ve gotten: blatant abuse of physics. On the scale of possible research efforts I could join, this sounds about as fun as being the test subject for newer and spicier replacements for pepper spray.
Actually, I’d say that they have been investigating and receiving both input and abuse… and it isn’t as ‘far as they have got’. There’s some work on ‘Skeptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology’. Just ignoring them won’t work. Improving them, working with and discussing issues like Dr Richard Wiseman does? Well, maybe it’s something that is for other skeptics; it certainly intrigues me.
As for ‘research efforts’, it’s actually an online course that I’m doing – something I mentioned earlier on in the year and signed up for… you might like the lectures provided, by the likes of Wiseman, French, and even Alcock, mixed in with the parapsychologists.
[by the way - not to give much away, but you'd be surprised as to how many responding to my post in the course have firmly agreed with your conclusions...]
Yes, improving the standards of research is a nice thing. However, if the textbook being used in an online course is uncritically reporting quantum woo, then there’s a long way to go.
It actively encourages criticism. After all, it has open slather for skeptics to join and you can see Caroline Watt’s attitude towards what she’s doing. I don’t think there has been any strong case voiced in the discussion about the blog post that said that “CLEARLY it’s all PSI and QM!!!!”
…because, as we show, that’s too easy to pull apart and show why not. Therefore, what should they be doing instead? Much more pragmatic to do that.
… and if you’re referring to THAT particular XKCD comic – go to bed!! We’re doing okay, regardless!
“Bed”? What’s that??
It’s kind of like your bat-coffin, but softer.
You must log in to post a comment.