Henry Stapp, Physicist
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Reprinted from Physics
Today, July 1995 An attack from a US Army physicist on Stapp and his
theory of PK just presented. Stapp, like Harvard psychiatrist,
John Mack, who studies UFO abductions, is under serious peer
pressure (e.g. head of LBL where Stapp works) to supress
his fringe research. This is a new threat to academic freedom in
our elite universities. I have a serious concern that I
would like to present to the physics community at large. It
appears to me that there is a small but dedicated group
of scientistssome with quite respectable reputations—who
nevertheless dabble in things that most of us would not call
science. (The terms "pseudoscience" and "pathological science"
come to mind.) Occasionally attempts are made to dress up this
type of work and anoint it with the trappings of "real science"
and then usher it into publication in prestigious journals along
with mainstream material—giving it the mantle of undeserved
legitimacy. For example, in the 1 July 1994 issue of Physical
Review A there appeared an article by Henry P. Stapp,
"Theoretical Model of a Purported Empirical Violation of the
Predictions of Quantum Theory.''(1) This paper develops
an acausal theoretical model of nonlinear quantum mechanics that
is loosely based on work by Steven Weinberg. It is clear that
this article was specifically created to explain the apparently
anomalous results found in experiments designed to establish the
physical reality of supposed paranormal phenomena: Stapp's
reference (8) is to the telekinesis experiments of Helmut
Schmidt, published in the Journal of Parapsychology.(2) Schmidt
claims to have demonstrated that human beings are able to use
psychic powers to retroactively alter the decay rate of naturally
occurring radioactive isotopes months before the actual expenment
took place. Schmidt's conclusion— which Stapp has tried to model
theoretically in PRA—is that the test subjects used their
psychic powers to alter the laws of quantum mechanics and
Einstein causality. Several scientific investigations have
dismissed previous paranormal experiments by Schmidt as
statistically and scientifically unsound, at the very least.(3)
The latest experiments—summarized in reference (2)— have not been
reproduced. At the very least, these acausal "telekinesis"
experiments seem too controversial and pseudoscientific for there
to be theories appearing in Physical Review A purporting to
explain them. It's one thing for the physics community to be
openminded but entirely another for us to be supporting
parapsychology and promoting pseudoscience. You can be sure
that Schmidt, in his future publications in the Journal of
Parapsychology, will reference Stapp's paper and claim that a
theory that explains all his experimental data has been published
in the flagship journal of the American Physical
Society. There is another interesting point. When you read
Schmidt's paper (2) you find that it is not itself a report of an
experimental result but rather a summary and statistical analysis
of five experimental results—all by Schmidt—published in the
Journal of Parapsychology from 1986 to 1993. Each of those
experiments tested "psychic" subjects for their ability to
acausally and telekinetically alter the generation in the past of
random numbers based on the decay of radioisotopes. Each of
Schmidt's five corresponding papers reports data that, although
suggestive, are not statistically significant. In the
summarizing paper(2)—the one that Stapp actually refers
to—Schmidt averages the results of his previous five experiments.
Upon doing so he finds a statistically significant indication of
acausal telekinetic activity. Each of the five experiments was
camed out with Schmidt as principal investigator and
first author, with the names of one or two coinvestigators
appearing as second or third author. For the fifth experiment,
published immediately preceding Schmidt's summarizing paper (2)
in the same issue of the Journal of Parapsychology, Schmidt's
coauthor and coexperimenter is none other than Stapp.(4) Hence
Stapp's theory paper in PRAI is in fact a theoretical explanation
for Stapp's own experiment. It seems odd that this connection
was nowhere mentioned by Stapp in his PRA article. The
Physical Review editorial board has informed me that some changes
have been made in the guide to authors and referees to reduce the
possibility of such papers' being published in the future.
However, it is not clear to me that this solves the problem, or
even that the physics community at large is even aware that there
is a problem. Should we take the extreme "openminded" position
and let such papers appear, rather than be accused of censorship?
Or should we put our foot down and say, "Articles dealing with
parapsychology should not be published in PRA— period." (I'm not
advocating that papers like Stapp's not be published at all, but
there are more appropriate forums, for example, the Journal of
Parapsychology.) In any case, only we as physicists can decide
this. I hope that this missive will stimulate interesting
public debate on this topic. One might argue that a more
appropriate approach for criticizing an article in PRA would be
to submit an official comment to PRA. In fact, I and four
coauthors are preparing such a comment. We will discuss our
concerns about the physical theory of Stapp as well as the experiments
of Schmidt. The purpose of this letter is not to discuss the nuts
and bolts of a particular physical problem but to bring out into
the open my concerns about the philosophy and direction of
physics as a whole. References 1. H. P. Stapp, Phys.
Rev. A 50, 18 (1994). 2. H. Schmidt, J. Parapsychol. 57, 351 (
1993). 3. C. E. M. Hansel, The Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1981,
p. 26. R. Hyman, ibid., p. 34. J. E. Alcock, Science and
Supernature, Prometheus, Buffalo, N. Y. (1990), pp. 81181. 4. H
Schmidt, H. P. Stapp, J. Parapsychol.
57, 331(1993). JONATHAN P. DOWLING US Army
Missile Command Redstone Arsenal, Alabama" STAPP
REPLIES: A scientist does not become "dedicated" to pseudoscience
by accepting a challenge to examine purely physical facts created
under highly controlled conditions. Indeed, to refuse to look at
such physical evidence on ideological grounds would be
pseudoscience. Let me describe the special circumstances that led
me to submit my theory paper to the Physical Review. I was
approached during a conference by Helmut Schmidt, who asked me
why in view of my longstanding interest in the
apparent nonlocality associated with Bell's theorem, I never
referred to his experiments, which seem to indicate the existence
of a similar kind of effect. I replied, frankly, that the results
he claimed seemed to me so astounding that I would sooner believe
in the occurrence of a procedural flaw, or even outright fraud,
than in the reality of the claimed effect; since I lacked
the expertise and time to do confirming experiments myself I
simply remained silent. He answered that there was a
very simple procedure that I could carry out in my own office,
involving only printed numbers and no dealings with
human subjects, that should allow me to confirm the reality of
the claimed effects (which are backed up by the claims of other
"psi" researchersl) without my having to make any assumptions at
all about his competency or integrity. I listened, and we
eventually set up a protocol that satisfied me, and I agreed to
carry out the specified procedure. I received by mail (in
batches) a set of thick cardboard sheets. Each sheet had a set of
rows, with each row consisting of a pair of short strips of
black tape. After receiving a batch I waited for at least a week,
and on a day prescribed by the fixed protocol, I extracted from
the weather table of The New York Times, by a fixed recorded
procedure known only to me, a pair of "random numbers" that I
then used as seed numbers in a computer program devised by myself
and divulged to no one (until after the experiment
was completed). This program generated from the seed numbers a
set of pairs of (pseudo) random signs (sigmali, sigma2i), with
one pair of signs for each row i. The sign sigmali specified,
according to the preestablished protocol, which one of the two
black strips in row i I would peel off. Under the removed
strip in row i was a (signed) number ni, which I multiplied by
the sign sigma2i. I then computed, by a standard, preestablished
procedure, taken from a statistics book, the "positive bias" of
the sequence of numbers sigma2i ni. Since I had multiplied each
incoming number ni by a randomly selected sign sigma2i that I had
generated independently, I expected no statistically significant
positive bias, and that is what I found. I then sent the set of
signs sigma2i to Schmidt, and some months later, after receiving
a goahead from Schmidt, I removed the remaining strips of
black tape (in the batch) and computed, by the same
preestablished procedure, the positive bias of the sequence
sigma2i ni' formed from the newly revealed numbers ni'. I
expected, for the same reasons as before, to find
no statistically significant positive bias, and that is what I
found. During the interval between the time I sent to Schmidt the
signs sigma2i and my uncovering of the numbers ni' Schmidt
supposedly had his subjects trying by mental effort to positively
bias the numbers sigma2i ni'. On the basis of four earlier
experiments of a generally similar kind, Schmidt predicted that
I would find the sequence of numbers sigma2i ni', unlike the
control sequence sigma2i ni, to be positively biased to about
three standard deviations or more—something that would be
expected to occur by chance only once in about a thousand
trials. Schmidt and I had agreed beforehand that the result would
be published regardless of whether the outcome confirmed his
expectations or not, and hence my negative result was duly
published in Jonathan Dowling's reference (4). That reference
described also what Schmidt had done; I myself had no involvement
in any aspect of the experiment beyond what I did in my
office, which I have described above. The procedure that
I myself carried out was purely a "physics experiment." Since all
the relevant numbers were in my possession and were stored in
a secret and secure place, there was, according to orthodox
physical ideas, no way for Schmidt to produce a systematic
positive bias in the set of numbers sigma2i ni'. I described my
physics experiment in detail in the original version of the paper
I sent to the Physical Review but was forced by the referee and
editors to exclude that part of my paper from the
published version. It was within the specific context of
simple and clean physical experiments of this particular kind
that I put forth my quantum mechanical model of how results of
the kind predicted by Schmidt could be explained by merely making
a small change in the Schrodinger equation that would produce no
observable effects in any purely physical experiment heretofore
performed by physicists. Because of the existence of this model
we cannot rationally rule out the possibility that the "Schmidt
effect" exists merely on the grounds that this effect is
incompatible with what we already know about the laws of nature.
I believe it would now be useful to perform additional
experiments of the kind described here to resolve the discrepancy
between the null result that I obtained and the positive combined
result of the five experiments reported by Schmidt. From the
physicist's point of view the entire system of human beings and
physical devices that are producing the cardboard sheets is simply a
black box, and no assumptions about its properties are required
to draw the conclusion, if the positive bias predicted by Schmidt
were to occur systematically, that some aspect of our orthodox
understanding of the laws of physics is seriously incorrect.
Hence if a significant number of physicists of established high
repute were to obtain results in line with the combined results
reported by Schmidt, and the effect were to hold up, a finding
of first magnitude importance in physics would be obtained. On
the other hand, a negative result would provide direct empirical
evidence in support of the widespread view among scientists that
experiments that purport to show the existence of "psi" phenomena
will fail when sufficiently rigorous conditions are
enforced. Reference 1. D. L. Radin, R. D. Nelson, Found. Phys.
19, 1499 ( 1989). HENRY P. STAPP Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory Berkeley, California Physics Today, July
1995
3. Theoretical Model This section describes a
relatively simply theoretical model that could account for the
reported phenomena. In order to retain the mathematical structure
of quantum theory almost intact, I shall exploit the ideas of
von Neumann (9) and Pauli (10), according to which the von
Neumann process number 1 (reduction of the wave packet) is
physically associated with the mental process of the
observer. Sarfatti Commentary Henry uses the traditional
Copenhagen interpretation. Is his identification of mental
process with collapse of the wave function stuck to that
interpretation? It would appear so because there is no collapse
in the manyworlds interpretation and also it is not in the Bohm
nonlocal hidden variable interpretation. If Stapp is right , his
idea provides a test of the
Copenhagen interpretation. My own idea is different. My
idea is stuck in the Bohm interpretation. It says that mental
process is beyond quantum mechanics and requires the very kind
of violation of the statistical predictions of orthodox quantum
mechanics that Stapp actually models for "intention" below. In
Bohm's picture, this violation is caused by a feedbackcontrol
loop between living matter and its quantum wave function. Dead
matter does not have this loop which is a kind of
nonlocal quantum "elanvital" or "the Ghost in the Machine" sort
of idea. The difference is that it is not a supernatural idea but
is part of "postmodern physics". It is interesting that two of
our most rigorousminded mathematical physicists should both be
inclined to favor an idea that is so contrary to our commonsense
idea of the nature of the physical world. Most physicists have,
I think, preferred to accept the commonsense idea that the world
of macroscopic material properties is factual: e.g., that the
Geiger counter either fires or not fire independently of whether
any observer has witnessed it; and that the mark on the
photographic plate is either there or not there, whether or
not anyone observes it. Yet it is difficult to reconcile this
commonsense intuition with the mathematical formalism of quantum
theory. For there is in that mathematical representation no
natural breakpoint in the chain of events that leads from the
atomic event that initiates the chain to the eventual brain event
that corresponds to the resulting conscious experience. From
the perspective of the mathematical physicist any imposition of a
breakpoint at any purely physical level is arbitrary and awkward:
it breaks the close connection between mathematics and the
physical world in a way that is mathematically unnatural, and
that moreover lacks any empirical or scientific justification.
From a purely mathematical perspective it seems preferable
to trust more the uniformity of nature's link between mathematics
and the physical world than to inject, without any logical
reason, our notoriously fallible intuitions about the nature of
physical reality. Following, then, the mathematics, instead of
intuition, I shall adopt the assumption that the Schroedinger
equation holds uniformly in the physical world. That is, I shall
adopt the view that the physical universe, represented by the
quantum state of the universe, consists merely of a set of
tendencies that entail statistical links between mental
events. This point of view is, in fact, not incompatible with the
Copenhagen interpretation, which, although epistemological in
character rather than ontological,(11) rests on the central fact
that in science we deal, perforce, with connections between human
observations: the rest of science is a theoretical imagery whose
connection to reality must remain forever
uncertain.
According to this point of view, expressed however
in ontological terms, the various possibilities, in regard to the
detections of the radioactive decays, remain in a state of
"possibility", or "potentiality", even after the results are
recorded on magnetic tape, and the numbers are typed onto the sheets
of cardboard: no reduction of the wave packet occurs until some
pertinent mental event occurs. Adopting this
noncommonsense pointofview shifts the problem from that
of accounting for an influence of willful thoughts occurring at
one time upon radioactive decays occurring months earlier to the
simpler problem of explaining a biasing of the probabilities for
the occurrence of the willful thoughts themselves, i.e., a
biasing relative to the probabilities predicted by orthodox
quantum theory. Sarfatti Commentary The above paragraph is
very important. I do not understand it very well. But it appears
that Henry is trying to save Einstein causality. I thought the claim
is that the irreversible records of the actual radio active
decays do not obey the standard exponential decay statistics. Is
Henry's idea that due to the limited sample we are seeing
fluctuations away from the mean exponential and that somehow
these fluctuations in the present capture or entrain or "correlate"
the probability for the observer to "will" a +1 or a 1 or a
particular color etc., whatever the protocol may be? In this case
free will is an illusion and the observerparticipator is a
passive terminal channeling, so to speak in New Age terms,
external causes. This latter problem is quite manageable:
Weinberg (5) has devised a nonlinear quantum mechanics that is
very similar to quantum theory, but that can
produce probabilities that are biased, relative to the
probabilities predicted by linear quantum mechanics. Gisin (6)
has already pointed out that Weinberg's theory can lead to causal
anomalies. According to our interpretation of quantum theory the
mechanical registrations of the detections of the radioactive
decays produces a separation of the physical world into a
collection of superposed "channels" or "branches": the physical
world, as represented by the wavefunction of the universe,
divides into a superposition of channels, one for each of the
different possible recorded (but unobserved) results. When the
skeptic observes the control sequence {Cn^ = Cn sigma n} there is
a projection onto those channels that are compatible with these
observations. But, contrary to commonsense, the typed numbers
under the remaining pieces of black tape are not yet fixed. Later
on, when the "observer" looks at the device, the state of his
brain will separate into a superposition of channels
corresponding to the various alternative macroscopic
possibilities, in the way already described by von
Neumann.(9) Eventually, the state of the universe will be reduced
by a projection onto those brain states that are compatible with
the conscious experience of the observer. (12) If the
probabilities associated with the various alternative possibilities
for the brain state are those given by orthodox quantum theory
then there can be no systematic positive bias of the reported
kind: the probabilities will necessarily, according to von
Neumann's theory, agree with those that were determined earlier
from the probabilities of the alternative possible detections of
ratioactive decays, and there could therefore be no biasing
of those probabilities due to the willful intent of the
observer. A generalization of Weinberg's nonlinear quantum
mechanics allows the probabilities for the possible reductions in
the brain state to be biased by the will of the conscious
observer. Indeed, it allows part of the total probability to be
shifted away from those possibilities to which the
observer assigns negative "desire" or "value" and toward the
possibilities to which he assigns positive "desire" or "value".
We turn, therefore, to a description of Weinberg's theory, in the
context of the present problem of the shifting of the
probabilities away from those predicted by orthodox quantum theory,
and toward those defined by a "desire" represented physically in
the brain of the observer. Sarfatti
Commentary Stapp now makes a profound seemingly simple remark. He
is not simply saying that any free field can be decomposed into
independent simply oscillating normal modes. He uses the term "a
general quantum system". Is this Stapp's original contribution or
is it Steven Weinberg's? I think it is Weinberg's from my
dim memory of glancing at his papers. It as novel and surprising
a way of looking at quantum mechanics as was Richard Feynman's
with the amplitude equal to the exponential of the classical
action along the path and all indistinguishable paths adding
coherently. This is about to become selfevident
below. Weinberg's nonlinear quantum is rooted in the fact that
the quantum mechanical equations of motion for a general quantum
system are just the classical equations of motion for a very
simple kind of classical system, namely a collection of classical
simple harmonic oscillators. Thus a natural way to generalize
quantum theory is to generalize this simple classical system. To
describe this connection of quantum theory to classical simple
harmonic oscillators let pn and qn, for n = 1,2..., be the
classical canonical variables for a collection of simply harmonic
oscillators. Define the dimensionless parameters xn =
qn(mw/2hbar)^1/2 (1.a) and yn = pn(1/2hbarmw)^1/2
(1.b) Then the collection of pairs zn = xn +
iyn and zn* = xn  iyn is an equivalent set of
variables, and the classical Hamiltonian can be written (with
hbar =1) as h(z,z*) = zn*Hnmzm = (zHz) (3) ...
repeated indices are .. summed. The function h(z,z*) is bilinear: it is
a linear function of each of its two (vector) arguments z and z*.
The matrix Hnm is independent of z and z*: it is a diagonal
matrix with positive elements, in the original basis. However (3)
is written in a basisindependent way, and in the general
representation Hmn is Hermitian, Hnm = (Hmn)*.
The basisindependent quantity h is real: Sarfatti
Commentary The elegant notation looks quantum mechanical, but
Henry, at first at least appears to be doing classical
Hamiltonian theory here. So it should be possible to rewrite it
as a HamiltonJacobi theory. Quantum mechanics is suddenly
slipped in eq. (8) by what appears at first to be a Magician's
trick. The canonical classical equation of motion for a function
f(z,z*) is df/dt = {f,h}PB (5) Here the righthand side
{..}PB is the classical Poisson bracket, which can be written in
the form {f,h}PB = i(&f/&zn &h/&zn* 
&h/&zn &f/&zn*) (6) To obtain quantum mechanics
as a special case one restricts the observables to bilinear
forms: f(z,z*) = zn*Fnm zm = (zFz) (7) where F is
independent of z and z*. Them df(z,z*)/dt = {f,h} = i(z[F,H]z)
(8) where [F,H] is the commutator. The variables zn and zn* can
then be identified with the components PSIn = and PSIn* = of the
general quantum system. To pass to Weinberg's nonlinear quantum
theory one allows the observables including the Hamiltonian to be
real nonbilinear functions of z and z*, i.e., of PSI and PSI*,
but imposes the condition that every observable be homogeneous of
degree one in each of the variables z and z*: zn&f/&zn =
zn*&f/&zn = f (9) This condition allows one to
write f(z,z*) = zn* &^2f(z,z*)/&zn*&zm zm = zn* Fnm
zm = (zFz) (10) where the Fnm are now no longer necessarily
independent of z and z*. Sarfatti Commentary When this theory
is written in HamiltonJacobi form, maybe what happens is
that the dependence of Fnm on z and z* causes a nonunitary
source term in the conservation of current equation that
accompanies the HamiltonJacobi equation with the quantum
potential. The source term should explicitly depend upon
the actual nonlocal hidden variable "n'" of the Bohm theory. For
example, if we are doing nonrelativistic nonlinear quantum
mechanics of a single particle, n' is x' the actual position of
the actual particle, where z = . This source term
is "backreaction" of the actual hidden variable on the quantum
potential. That is, the nonlocal quantum potential not only
"pilots" the particle but is also affected directly by the motion
of the particle in a selfconsistent feedbackcontrol loop which
causes deviations away from the statistical predictions of the
linear theory. In other words, is Weinberg's nonlinearity in the
Copenhagen interpretation equivalent to Bohm's back reaction? This may
a wrong approach because at the end of Stapp's paper it becomes
clear that nonHermiticity of the Hamiltonian is what really
matters. The reality condition f(z,z*) = f(z,z*)* is equivalent
to Fnm = (Fmn)* (11) The matrix elements Hnm are defined
in an analogous way, and df/dt =  i(z[F,H]z)
(12) This equation looks the same as the orthodox equation (3).
Now, however, the operator parts cannot be separated from the
statevector parts, z and z*, because F and H can depend upon z
and z*. Sarfatti Commentary Is this where the "strange loop" of
Godelian selfreference comes in? The clean separation between
the active transformer and the passive transformed is mended. No
longer is the state vector the passive victim. It fights back.
:) Is this fusion between the operator and the state
vector completes the selfreferential feedback control circuit
and is the mechanism of free will? We now apply this
formalism to our situation. Let the general wave function PSI be
written as PSI = Sum(i) ai PHIi CHIi (13) where the CHIi
denote states of the brain, and the PHIi are a set of
mutually orthogonal states of the rest of the universe. Suppose,
for simplicity, that at t = 0 the state PSI has the form PSI = (a
PHI+ + b PHI) CHIo (14) where PHI+ and PHI are two
macroscopically different states: suppose PHI+ corresponds to a
world in which the recorded numbers have a positive bias,
and PHI corresponds to a state in which the recorded numbers
have a negative bias. Suppose the state CHIo is represented for
simplicity, by a compactly supported wave function in momentum
space (say in one variable p) and that the interaction
Hamiltonian is H = (PHI+> where Xop is the generator of
translations in the variable p. Under the action of this
Hamiltonian the state (14) evolves into PSI(t) = aPHI+ CHI+(t) +
bPHI CHI(t), (16) where the states CHI+(t) and CHI(t),
expressed in momentum space, are displaced in opposite directions
by an amount proportional to t. Note that if F+ =
PHI+><(PHI+ and F =
PHI><(PHI then f+(t)
= and f(t) = are both independent of t: the
probability of finding the system in the positively (or
negatively) biased state is not influenced by the action of
the "measurement" process generated by the H specified in
(15). This constancy of f+(t) and f_(t) is a general consequence
of the fact that the evolution is generated by a hermitian H that
has no matrix elements connecting the states PHI+> and
PHI> More generally, if the Fi, i = 1,...,N, are a set of
projection operators onto orthogonal states PHIi> in PHI
space, and H has no diagonal elements connecting any two different
states PHIi>, and if PSI = Sum (i = 1 to N) aiPHIi
CHIi then dfi(t)/dt = = 0 the probabilities
fi(t) remain constant. If the different states PHIi>
represent macroscopically different configurations (e.g., states
in which different numbers are typed onto cardboard sheets) then
it would be unreasonable to allow H to have any (significantly)
nonzero matrix elements connecting them. This argument is not
altered by passing over to the nonlinear version of the equation
of motion represented by (12). As long as H has no matrix
elements connecting the macroscopically distinct states PHIi>
there will be no transitions between these states, and hence no
change in the associated probabilities fi(t). This
argument apparently shows that Weinberg's theory by itself is
not sufficient to produce the reported phenomena. To model this
effect we take h(z,z*) = h'(z,z*) + ih"(z,z*), with h' and h"
real. This generalization of Weinberg's theory is examined
next. From the homogeneity condition (9) one obtains, as before
(see (10)), h(z,z*) = zn*Hnmzm (17) but now
with Hnm = Hnm' + iHnm" where Hnm' = (Hmn')*
(18a) and Hnm" = (Hmn")* (18b) Weinberg's equation of
motion for zn is dzn/dt = i (&^2h/&zn*&zm) zm =
iHnm zm (19) Hence dzn*/dt = iz*(Hmn'  iHmn")
(20) Consequently, the equation of motion for a real function
f(z,z*) becomes df/dt = (d/dt) = I + (21) Where {F,H"}
is the quantum anticommutator FH" + H"F. This
anticommutator term can contribute to df/dt even if H" is
diagonal in (PHI+, PHI). Sarfatti Commentary Here is Stapp's original
contribution beyond Weinberg's nonlinear theory. It is not the
nonlinearity of Weinberg's theory that is the mechanism of
"intentional" PK(i.e., psychokinetic) distortion of the
statistical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics, but,
rather it is the new unorthodox anticommutator {F,H"} in the
equation of motion (in addition to the orthodox commutator
[F,H']) of the quantum probabilities that comes from an
explicit breaking of the symmetry of unitarity. No longer can we
assume that the transition probabilities are frameindependent in
Hilbert space because the generator of time evolution is not
Hermitian. The historical transformations for living matter are,
in this postmodern view of physics, essentially nonunitary. This
lack of conservation of total probability is the quantitative measure
of creative intelligence. Unitarity restricts us to less than
monkeys typing random word salad on the keyboard of the cosmic
computer. Stapp gives an explicit example in equations (23) to
(24) in which the nonunitarity (i.e., H") causes df+/dt to be
positive. ... Hence the probability associated with the state
PHI+> will build up, relative to the value a^2 prescribed
by orthodox quantum theory. This example shows that the reported
phenomena, although contrary to orthodox ideas about causality,
can be modeled within a Weinbergtype of nonlinear quantum theory
if the Hamiltonian function h(PSI,PSI*) is allowed to
be nonreal. If there are in nature nonlinear
contributions of the kind indicated in Eq. (23) then it seems
likely that biological systems would develop in such a way as to
exploit the biasing action. The biasing states, illustrated in the
model by the state CHI+>, could become tied, in the course of
biological evolution, to biological desiderata, so that the
statistical tendencies specified by the basic dynamics would be
shifted in a way that would enhance the survival of the
organism. Sarfatti Commentary The above remark is precisely the
position advocated by Brian Josephson in his MindMatter
Unification Project at Cambridge University. Like Stapp,
Josephson has also been attacked for his unorthodox ideas. The
Weinberg nonlinearities were initially introduced in the present
context because of Gisin's result, which showed that these
nonlinearities could lead to causal anomalies of the EPR kind.
However, the considerations given above indicate that those
nonlinearities alone cannot produce anomalies of the
kind reported in ref. 8: a nonreal h is apparently needed to
obtain an effect of that kind. Sarfatti
Commentary This is strange. Weinberg's nonlinearity, according to
Gisin, is sufficient to allow causal anomalies on the nonlocal
quantum connection, but it is not enough to permit the controlled
intentional PK distortion of quantum statistics. What does Gisin
mean by "causal anomalies"? Weinberg, says his theory permits use
of the nonlocal quantum connection as a communication channel
which is why he rejected it. The fact that an atomic physics
experiment did not show the nonlinearity is not relevant because
the present claim is that the new effects can only be seen in
living matter. How can there be such violation of
Eberhard's theorem without nonunitarity of the type modelled by
Stapp? Because the nonlinear aspect is not obviously needed, one
could try to revert to a linear theory. Yet it is important to
recognize that in the modeling of acausal effects one has
available the more general nonlinear framework. If the purported
acausal phenomena is a real physical effect and is explainable
in terms of a nonreal h that arises solely in conjunction with
nonlinear terms, as in the model given above, then orthodox
quantum theory could become simply the linear approximation to a
more adequate nonlinear theory. References l. A.
Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777780
(1935). 2. J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195200 (1964). 3. H.P.
Stapp, Phys. Rev. A47, 847853 (1993); Phys. Rev. A46,
68606868 (1992); Bell's theorem in an indeterministic universe,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL29836 (1993) (with D.
Bedford) Submitted to Synthese. 4. P. Eberhard, Nuovo Cim. 46B,
392418 (1978). 5. S. Weinberg Ann. Phys. (NY) 194, 336386
(1989). 6. N. Gisin, Phys. Lett. A 143, 12 (1990). 7.
H. Schmidt, J. Am. Soc. Psy. Res. 38, 267291 (1976). R. Jahn, Y.
Dobyns, and B. Dunne, Soc. of Sci. Expl. 5, 20S232
(1991). 8. H. Schmidt, Observation of a psychoScinetic effect
under highly controlled conditions, Soc. of Sci. Exp. 9.
J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,
Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1955. Ch EII. 10. W.
Pauli, quoted in Mind, Matter and Pauli, Chap. 7 of ref. 12. 11
H. P. Stapp, Amer. J. Phys. 40, 10981116, (1985). 12. H.P.
Stapp, Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, SpringerVerlag,
Berlin and Heidelberg,
1993.
