Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 5, 1998
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
September 19, 1977
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4.pdf4.24 MB
Approved For Release, 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00022000080055-4 PROCEEDINGS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CYBERNETICS AND SOCIETY September 19-21, 1977 Sponsored by: IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Society With the cooperation of: College of American Pathologists Human Factors Society IEEE Computer Society IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C. Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 ApprovedO"or Release. 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-df87R000200080055-4 IEEE Catalog No: 77CH1259-1 SMC Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 75-28733 Copyright Q 1977 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017 Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 A NOTE FROM THE CHAIRMAN With this conference we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the founding of this Society, even though our current name has been with us only for the past seven years. Our worldwide membership of about 5000 members represent many disciplines all brought together by the unifying thread of the "systems" approach to problem solving. In this regard, we are indeed pleased to present John Warfield with our Outstanding Contribution Award. John spent the past several years grappling with a methodology for coping with complexity. His concepts associated with Interpretive Structural Modeling have been tested and proven as demonstrated by the session organized by Raymond Fitz on this subject. I feel it necessary to note that we have departed slightly from the conventional in this conference and have introduced two sessions which, to some of our readers, may appear controversial. The first is the session, Scientific Studies of Acupuncture. Acupuncture, as you know, originated thousands of years ago in the orient and only recently received serious attention by Western medical scientists. Did you know that acupuncture flourished in the U.S. from 1820 to.1850? According to a researcher at the National Library of Medicine, acupuncture had been introduced to the U.S. from Europe and a substantial number of articles appeared on this subject in the U.S. medical literature of the period; however, interest waned as he found only six articles for the period 1850-1900. Today, the situation has changed. Western medicine now agrees there is something to acupuncture. Its analgesic properties are recognized but not understood. Bruce Pomeranz of the University of Toronto, whose article appears here, recently received international attention on his discovery of a possible mechanism that describes why acupuncture works. Stephen Kim, trained in both Eastern and Western medicine, is a trained acupuncturist. He departs from traditional methods by making use of an electronic device for locating acupuncture points. His paper reports striking success over the traditional methods. The session is rounded out by recent research by other investigators: Lee, Clifford and Mau. Clearly, acupuncture has now become a valid research subject for biocyberneticists. Our second unconventional area is Research in Psychoenergetics, organized by Hal Puthoff of SRI. The presentation of this session is the outgrowth of the spectacular luncheon talk by Hal and Russ Targ at last year's conference for which they received our Franklyn V. Taylor Best Presentation Award. Recognizing that their professional integrity was at stake, they have gone to great lengths to assure impeccability of their work; neverthe- less, a reviewer of their original paper which appeared in the IEEE Proceedings last year stated, "This is the sort of thing I would not believe in even if it were true." Notwithstanding such emotional reactions, psychic phenomena are a reality, and Hal Puthoff's session of first-rate carefully selected papers is worthy of your consideration. Finally, among the unusual presentations, I commend your reading Bill Gevarter's excellent summary, "A Wiring Diagram of the Human Brain as a Model for Artificial. Intelligence." William H. von Alven Chairman Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : Cmp4-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 Approvedr Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-07R000200080055-4 COMMITTEE 'William H. von Alven .......................................................................Chairman Ed Connelly .... ........................................................................ Vice-Chairman Symposium Organizers/Directors: fames D. Palrtier ................................ ................................... Societal Systems C. C. Li .... .................... Biomedical Systems & Biocybernetics Andrew P. Sage ............................................Systems Science, Methodology & Engineering Thomas B. Sheridan ................................ ................. . Man-Machine Systems Hans Oestreiaher ............................................Pattern Recognition & Artificial Intelligence Short Course Organizers: ]Decision Analysis in Medicine: Methods and Applications ............................. E. A. Patrick, MD Societal Systems Methodology ............................................. A. P. Sage and J. N. Warfield Public Presentation: A Scientific View of ESP ................................................ Harold Puthoff & Russell Targ Luncheon Speakers: Society and Technology Assessment ................................................. Gretchen Kohlsrud The Computer Invades the Farm ........................................................ Arthur D. Hall The Computes' Invades the Home ........................................................ Jerald J. Zeger Approved For Release 2002/05/17 , CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 Approved For Relew 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00022000080055-4 with the initial condition that _ 2(k + k') to k5 [1 - e m which is the achived velocity w of the follower during the inspection period totOwe have kS - ?Lk _L k)to - 2(k + k' (t - to) k+k'-[1 -e m ]e m (8) The spiral after-effect (SAF) is the velocity of the stimulus relative to the follower, namely, 2(k+k )to - ? k+k (t-to) SAF=0-w=-'k+k,[1 - e m le ?1 (9) Since k and k' are positive, this equation shows that the SAF is always opposite to the direction of the stimulus S. In equation (1), the mental force F is assumed to be proportional to the difference of S and w, namely, increasing S would increase F; however, at high speed of S, w can not keep pace with S, and F will level off and can not increase unlimitedly with S, thus F would be F = k(1 - e-s - w) (1)' For small S, equation (1)' will transform to equation (1). Also, the total mass is equal to ,rr2d, where d is the density, thus 2 k+k' t SAE k+k {1 - e-s)[l - e nr2d o] e 2(r+dk')(t-to) (9)? 2 Equation (9)' shows that SAE is related to the inspection period to exponentially, also the effect decays with time t exponentially, these are experimentally verified by Eysenck and Holland (1960) and by Stager & Burton (1964). Stager & Burton (1964) also show that the constant, which in this model would correspond to 2(k + k')/,rr2d, increases slightly with lessen the inspection period, this is probabily due to the fact that with a shorter inspection period, only a smaller area of the stimulus may be covered by the field of attention (Chiang, 1973, 1976), thus r is smaller then it should, which increases the constant. Equation (9)' also shows that the SAE increases exponentially with the stimulus angular velocity s, this is confirmed experimentally by Mehling, Collins & Schroeder (1972). For a given angular velocity, the linear speed of eliciting motion in the retina is proportional to the size r or the visual angle. By inspecting equation (9)', it can be deduced that the period of SAE shows a peck with r, indeed, experiments of Mehling, Collins & Schroeder (1972) show this to be the case. It is hoped that future experiments can be conducted in a systematic way according to this equation such that various effects and parameters may be estimated. In summary, a dynamic perceptual model of movement after-effect is proposed, quantitative calculations from this model can be made and agree with the existing data. The awaked state, hyponotic state and the qusi-hyponotic state can also be defined from this model. This model investigates into the working mechanism within the brain and identifies many parameters in a dynamic machinery, which would help not only to the understanding of the brain, but also to diagnosis the pathology of the damaged brain. This model may also be used to build a more inteligent machine which behaviours similarly to human being. REFERENCES 1. Chiang, C. 1973. "A theory of Muller-Lyer illu- sion", Vision Res., 13, 347-353. 2. Chiang, C. 1975. "A theory of Pogendorff illu- sion" Jap. Psychol. Res. 17, 111-118. 3. Chiang, C. 1976. "A theory of ambiguous pattern perception", Bull. Math. Biol. 38, 491-504. 4. Eysenck, H. J. & H. Holland, 1960."Length of spiral after-effect as a function of drive." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 11, 129-130. 5. Mehling, K. D., W. E. Collins'and D. J. Schroeder. 1972. "Some effects of perceived size, retinal size, and retinal speed on duration of spiral after-effect". Perceptual and Motor skills, 34, 247-259. 6. Stager, P. & A. C. Burton. 1964. "Graphic record- ing of the spiral after-effect: a study of its magnitude and rate of decay." Canad. J. Psychol. 18, (2), 118-125. FIGURE LEGEND Fig. 1. A flow chart of perception mechanism of periodic movement. Recognized Signals Subjective Controller Periodic Signals Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : C IIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 507 Approver Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-87R000200080055-4 0. Costa ce Beauregard Institut Henri Poincare, Paris, France Intrinsic time symmetry plus (wavelike) addition of partial amplitiudes herald the advent of a new para- digm, where advanced waves and information as orga- nizing power are o less operational than retarded waves and information as gain in knowledge. I. Introduction According to all dictionaries the meaning n?l, or fundamental, of the word Paradox is: a surprising but (perhaps) true statement.Copernicus' heliocen- trism has been a "paradox". Such a paradox was also contained in Einstein's Special Relativity. What Einstein did in 1905 was neither discuss tie mechanical theories of the ether, nor elaborate newmathematics, but rather taylor the conceptual frame after the (group property) of the Lorentz-Poincar6 formulas 1 faithfully expressing the phenomenon of;no ether wind. Today the situation is much the same, except that the paradox shows up at the end of the story rather than at its beginning. In 1927 Einstein, at the 5th Solvay Council 2, that is, over the very cradle of the "New Quantum Mechanics", cast the mali- gnant spell it is my duty to discuss today. Neither he 3, nor later Schrodinger, nor de Broglie 5, nor others, did believe the paradox to be the true, Copernican one, as we know now through experimen- tat:Lon 6. In imitation; of Einstein's 1905 approach I will today neither discuss hidden variables theories and Bell's theorem, nor will I fiddle with the mathe- matics. No: just using the plain; well known mathe- matics of the neoquantal mechanics of 1924-1927, and purposely doing so in the simplest conceivable form, as I deem appropriate for expressing a new paradigm - for "unveiling the Sense of the Scriptures" - I will show which ingrained natural belief is unambiguously excluded by the experimental results on photon pairs issuing from a cascade transition - very much like the belief in an ether wind has been excluded by the Michelson experiment. I will then proceed by unrave- ling the statement written since long ago in the accepted formulas, where nobody took the care to read it, but where the;experiments now require us to do so. The Sense of the Scriptures (as I will show) is that the elementary stochastic event of quantum mechanics, the transition, or collapse of the wave function, does possess an intrinsic time symmetry - as also did the coll. ision in classical statistical mechanics, where it gave rise to the famous Loschmidt and Zermelo paradoxes. However, the Einstein 2 1927 Paradox (better known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen7 1935 paradox) is made much more severe than the old ones through Born's replacement of the law of addition of partial probabilities by the wavelike law of addition of partial amplitudes, entailing the "neo- quantal" correction expressed by the off diagonal terms. It is this combination of intrinsic time sym- metry with a wavelike probability calculus which causes the sting of the paradox, and which heralds the advent of an ominous paradigm, where advanced waves, and information as an organizing power, are de jure symmetrical to retarded waves, and to infor- mation as a gain in knowledge. II. Correlation Pe,larizations in Atomic Cascades: A Dramatic Experimental Result. The "neoquantal" mechanical expression for the probabilities of answers (yes, yes) and (no, no), (yes, no) and (no, yes),when photon pairs issuing from a cascade transition at C and propagating in opposite directions along an axis x meet linear polarizers L and N of relative angle a is, for the 0-1-0 type cascade _ = 2 cos ot, = = 2sin2a, and, for the 1-1-0 type, t a. (2) = = 2 sin' = = 2 cos Experimental verifications are excellent 6 Had these experiments been performed in the days of the old "paleoquantal" mechanics, they certainly would have produced the same sort of commotion as did the Michelson experiment. They do require, in de Broglies 6 words, a radical revision of"our familiar notions concerning space and time". Consider for instance the case where a= TT/2 with the 0-1-0 cascades. The neoquantal prediction = 0 means that all the photon pairs are found with linear polarizations parallel to either of the two orthogonal directions y and z of the polarizers L and N. This would have stupefied the paleoquantal physicists, who thought of the photons of each pair leaving the source C as possessing a polarization, compatible of course with the dynamics of the system, but essentially independent of the orientations A and B of the polarizers and even of their presence or absence). In the 0-1-0 case these could have been parallel linear polarizations with random directions, or also,possibly, circular polarizations of equal helicities. In any case the paleoquantal prediction was, for a = 7r/2, that a large number of (yes, yes) answers should occur. As a corollary, the sub-ensemble of photon pairs with(parallel) linear polarizations along y or z was thought to be of measure zero. The experimental fact is just opposite:all the observed photon pairs display this property, whence necessarily the three following statements, heralding the advent of a new paradigm: 1) The photons in each pair issuing from the source C do not possess polarizations of their own, but borrow one later, by interacting with the measuring devices L and N. This of course is a specification of a well known general statement in the neoquantal mechanics, of which perhaps there is no more direct experimental proof than this one. 2) In the chance game which is played,the dice are not cast at C when shaken in the cup, but later, when rolling on the table, at L and N. They are, however, correlated, and this is the Einstein 2 paradox, rejected by him 3, Schrodinger 4, de Broglie 5, but now experimen ally demonstrated 6 3) The correlation existing between the distant measurements at L and N is not tied, in space-time, along the spacelike vector IN, which is physically empty, but along the Feynman style zigzag LCN made Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 508 Approved For Release, 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 of the two timelike vectors which are physically oc- cupied. In other words, the two measurements at L and N do produce the same wave collapse - in their common past. Again in other words, Einstein's prohibition to telegraph into the past does not hold at the level of the quantal stochastic event, the wave collapse, so this statement is of a "factlike"8, or macroscopic nature. The quantal transition per se is essentially time symmetric, just as was the collision in classical statistical mechanics. However, the Einstein paradox is much more severe than the "corresponding" Loschmidt and Zermelo paradoxes, due to the wavelike character of the neoquantal probability calculus, as will be shown right now. III. Neoquantal and Paleoquantal Calculations for Atomic Cascades. From the two (orthogonal) pure helicity states La Lb and Ra Rb of a photon pair a, b, we build the two (orthogonal) P-invariant states 2(L Lb + Ra Rb) = 2(Ya Yb + Z. Zb) corrections. Incidentally, neither of these contribu- tions is rotation invariant around x. Thus the paleo- quantal plysicist would have randomized his result, which can be done most easily by writing 2 sin 2A sin 2B = cos.2a - cos2(A + B), whence = = 1 + cos 2a = = 1 - 8 cos 2a instead of (5) and (6). So, while the neoquantal transition probabilities are basis invariant, the paleoquantal ones are not. The difference is due to the off diagonal terms, that is, it stems from the wavelike nature of the neo- quantal probability calculus. All this is well known in general. So, the Einstein paradox is just one more of the neoquantal extravagances. IV. Neoguantal and Paleoquantal Correlations in General The typical system under consideration is des- cribed as a pure state Y' expanded as a sum of partial amplitudes 2(La Lb - R. Rb) = 2 [Za Yb - Ya ZbJ (4) where Y and Z denote the linear polarizations along orthogonal axes y and z. A and B denoting the angles with (say) y of the linear polarizers L and N, and setting a = A - B, we calculate now, using the neoquantal "golden rule" of adding partial amplitudes and squaring their absolute sum, the transition probabilities, first in terms of circular, second of linear polarizations. Turning analyzer L by AA'and N by AB will shift the relative phase of the La Lb pair by (say) +Aa~ and then that of the Na Rb pair by -Aa. Thus the partial amplitudes are, in terms of circular polari- zations, eta and e-1a, whence (for the 0-1-0 cascades) _ = 1 ia+e-ial2 = 2(1 + cos 2a), (5) = = 2leia-e-ial2 - 2(l - cos 2a), (6) Second, we use as orthogonal states the linear polarizations Y and Z. The transition amplitudes towards the (yes, yes) answer is cos A cos B for the Ya Yb state, sin A sin B for the Za Zb state, cos A sin B for the Ya Zb state, and sin A cos B for the Za Yb state. Using the "golden rule" we recover formulas (1) and (2) in the form _ = 2(cos A cos B + sin A sin B)2 = -(cos2A cos2B + sin2A sin2B) + 2sin 2A sin 2B = _ (sin A cos B - cos A sin B)2 1 2 2 2 2 1 = 2(sin A cos B+ cos A sin B) - 4sin 2A sin 2B, In these formulas the contributions ( )/2 are the paleoquantal predictions, assuming that the photon pairs do leave the source as a statistical mixture with(parallel) linear polarizations along y or z. The contributions ?(sin,2A sin,2B)/4 are the neoquantal IT> = Ecjl$j>~j> (10) where and ~i span independent Hilbert spaces. The subsystems ~j and ~j are thus coupledjalthough this ooupling may not be a "present" one - as in the case we are discussing. By definition Wj _ c~ cj and EWj=1. A and B denoting the Hermitean operators of mea- surements performed on ~ and i, the (basis invariant) correlated mean value is off diagonal terms are respectively o = E Wi + C.C. (14) = EE c c. (11) where, setting _ , _ , (12) the (non invariant) contributions of the diagonal and (13) is the paleoquantal expression, implying separate statistics on the subsystems, and (14) the neoquantal, or wavelike, correction. A = 0 in representations diagonalizing either A or B, and then assumes the expression 0 of a mixture. But this is a semblance "relative" to the frame - except of course if the corresponding measurement is performed. Formulas of Section III are specifications of these. V. The Essence of the Paradox A little fable will help understand matters: At midnight GMT two travellers leave the Calcutta airport C, one for London L, one for Nagasaki N, each carrying a closed box which contains, or not, the one ball which a third man, in Calcutta, has enclosed, behind a veil. Having landed at 6 GMT each traveller opens his box, and immediately learns what the other man finds. The point is that, when made explicit, the logical inference is not drawn along the spacelike vector IN, but along the Feynman style zigzag LCN made of the timelike vectors CL and CN. Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : Csb&-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 Approved0pr Release 2002/05/17: CIA-RDP96-Q ,87R000200080055-4 There is no paradox in this because we have a "local hidden variable" with value 1 in one box and 0 in the other.. The die is cast at C, and we have between L and N pure telediction with no teleaction. This is the very point which is changed in the "wavelike probability calculus". Observers at L and N may wait until the very last moment before deciding which of two"inc:ompatible magnitudes" they will measure - for instance, the linear polarization of a photon along one of two directions of angle a. Therefore it is at L and N that the die is cast and, as there is a correlation, what we have between L and some port of telediction plus teleaction. Vi.Relativistic Spinless Particles Here is a short resume of a fully relativistic formalism I have presented elsewhere 9. Units such that c = 1 and4- 1 are used; ? = 1,2,3,4; x4 = it. The space-time ta(x) and 4-frequency e (k) repre- sentations of square integrable solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation are associated with the Hermitean scalar'product = 2ka""2j>Ubd4' neaebe(k)dn ? (15) The invariant a integral is over an arbitrary spacelike surface a of (4-vector) element daa;[ 9, denotes the Schrodinger or Gordon current operator (difference of partial derivatives tothe.right and the lef9t. The Ti integral is over both sheets of the mass shell kX kA + k2 = 0, dr) denoting the length of d111k(kXdrl = kdnA); e(k) +1, -1, 0 according as kX ends on the positive or negative frequency sheet, or off shell. In Dirac's 10 nbtatx.on _ = , the double bar recalling that we are using a second order equation. As usual, the condition =6(a,b) defines orthonormality. Introducingthe Fourier nucleus = * =(2ff)-3/2 exp(ikX xX) (17) if kA ends on the mass shell, 0 otherwise, we write the reciprocal Fourier transforms as = , = . (18) Introducing the Jordan-Pauli propagator axl Ix'> = . (21) This formula expands the wave function and are Fourier reciprocal, the position operator ih this formalism} is (given a) xX, and is faithfully represented by x. Two well known expressions of 2 = D+- D = Dret- Dadv ? (22) The preceding reasoning shows that completeness of the are related to each other, and that the presence of both positive and negative frequencies in (18), and both retarded and advanced waves in (21), are not independent from each other, VII. Relativistic Spinning Particles An integrally equivalent`( expression of (15) is = i S0amX t~bd0~` = i55neaax abe(k)dr1X (23) with aX = yX in the Dirac, =S, in the Petiau-Duffin- Kemmer theory, etc... The simple bar recalls that we are using a system of first order equations. Modulo this change all equations are formall the same as in Section VI. The Fourier nucleus now imply the projec- tor projecting any solution of the Klein-Gordon equation as a solution of the spinning particle equation. VIII. Intrinsic Time Symmetry of the Wave Collapse. A New Paradigm. The preceding formalism yields a fully relati- vistiq description of a position plus spin measure- ment performed on a quantal particle, and one very well suited for discussing the recent measurements of correlations 6. I will avoid inessential wording by conferring a very small rest mass to the photon, so that it isatrue spinning particle, and that the measurements performed at L and N are position plus spin measurements. The relativistic position measurement performed "at an arbitrary spacelike surface a" (rather than "at time t") consists in asking "does the particle cross a given element daX of a" (rather than" is it inside dx dy dz"? The corresponding eigenfunction, according to formula (21)1 is the Jordan-Pauli pro- pagator in a position-plus spin measurement, which means that if the particle is found "at x" (in the above sense) it certainly has come inside the past, and will go inside the future light cone. This, of course, is known since Minkowski - except that the measurement at x does collapse the wave. And this collapse, due to the very formalism, affects neces- saril both future (which is trivial) and past which, due to prejudice of macroscopic origin, was overlooked). This is the Einstein 2 paradox and a truly Copernican one indeed, as it is written down in the very scriptures of the wavelike probability calculus (especially in its explicitely relativistic 11 form) and is experimentally verified 6. This neither Einstein 3, nor SchrSdinger 4, nor de Broglie 5, were ready to believe, when stating respectively that it would "imply telepathy", or "be magic", or upset our "familiar conception of space and time". It turns out that a measurement performed around the point-instant x is potentially tied to the whole universe - to the inside of the future and the past light cones; also, to the outside of the light cone via pairs of timelike vectors. Approved For Release 2002/05/'70: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 Approved For Relea 2002/05/17: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 VVV Einstein's prohibition to "telegraph into the past" was thus only of a factlike, or macroscopic character. And his prohibition to telegraph outside the light cone, though strictly valid12 in terms of direct signalling, is overthrown nevertheless by the possibility of zigzagging via timelike vectors, some- what like a sailboat uses side wind. IX. Macroscopic Factlike Asymmetry In the Dirac electron theory there is a complete lawlike symmetry between positive and negative energies, that is, between particles and antiparticles. In fact, however, the electron is as common as the positron is exceptional - which, on the whole, is true also of matter and antimatter. Something similar occurs with retarded and advan- ced waves - and, as we have seen, this question is not unconnected with the preceding one. The intrinsic symmetry between retarded and advanced waves is tightly connected with two other ones 13 which should now be mentioned. In quantum mechanics, retarded and advanced waves are respectively used for statistical prediction and retrodiction, which shows that the intrinsic symmetry between them is tied with that between entropy increa- sing and decreasing processes (known as the Loschmidt and Zermelo paradoxes). Then, the factlike preponde- rance of retarded waves is tied with that of entropy increase. As information is another name for negentropy (especially when chance is taken as a primitive concept, as in quantum mechanics) the intrinsic symmetry we are speaking of is also tied with that between information as gain in knowledge (the common, trivial sense) and information as an organizing power (the rare, esoteric sense). Both sides are exemplified in reception and emission of a phone conversation. Now, very much like the esoteric antimatter does make a few incursions inside our familiar world of matter, and we know now where to look for it or how to produce it, so we should inquire if perhaps the esoteric finality, that is, advanced waves, decreasing entropy, information as will, does not perhaps make a few incursions inside our familiar world of causa- lity. Let us call anti-physics the corresponding context, physics obeying by definition the (factlike) Irreversibility Law (Second Law). The point is, as we have seen, that quantum physics does have, essen- tially and symmetrically, one foot in physics and one in antiphysics - just as it has one hand in positive and one in negative frequencies. 3 The antiphysics context is the one which Einstein has termed "telepathy", Schrodinger 4 "magic", de Broglie 5 the upsetting of "our familiar concept of space and time". Parapsychology seems a good name for References (1) These were known already by Larmor in 1898 and, almost exactly, by Voigt in 1887. (2) A. Einstein in Rapports du 5? Conseil Solvay, Gauthier-Villars, 1928, p. 253-256. A. Einstein in Einstein Philosopher Scientist, P.A. Schilpp ed.,The Library of Living Philoso- phers, 1949, p. 85 and p. 683. (4) E. Schrodinger, Naturwiss. 23, 844 (1935).See p. 845. L. de Broglie, Interpretation Causale de la M6canigue Ondulatoire, Gauthier Villars, 1956, p. 73. (6) S.J. Freedman and J.F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938, 1972 ; J.F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1223, 1976; E: Fry and R.L. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 465, 1976. See also M. Lamehi-Raehti and W. Mittig, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2543, 1976; A.R. Wilson, J. Lowe and D.K. Butt, J. Phys. G2. 613, 1976. (7) A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. .~I, 777,-1935. (8) H. Mehlberg's terminology in Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, H. Feigl and G. Maxwell eds.,Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1961. (9) 0. Costa de Beauregard, Precis de M6canique quan- timue relativiste, Dunod, 1967. (10) P.A.M. Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 3rd. edition, Clarendon Press, 1947. (11) For the connection with Feynman's formalism, see 0. Costa de Beauregard, Phys. Lett. 60A, 93, 1977. (12) The discussion of tachyons is outside the scope of this study. (13) For more details, see 0. Costa de Beauregard, Studium Generale 24, 10, 1971 where references to the literature are given. See also Found.Phys. 6, 539, 1976. Approved For Release 2002/05/17 :5tiA-RDP96-00787R000200080055-4 Approved0pr Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96- 87R000200080055-4 J. P. Bisaha and B. J. Dunne* Mundelein College, Chicago, Illinois 60660 An extension of earlier precognitive remote view- ing experiments was conducted with two experimental protocals: 1) using two subjects simultaneously predicting where an experimenter would be 35 minutes in the future, and 2) predicting over 24 hours into the future over a distance of 5,000 miles. In the first experiment seven trials were carried out with a total of seven inexperienced volunteer subjects, tested in pairs, to determine their ability to describe a remote geographical location twenty minutes before the target had been selected and thirty-five minutes before the experimenter arrived at the randomly selected site. Transcripts of subjects' descriptions were compared against the seven targets and against each other by six independent judges in a blind rank ordering procedure. Theresults of this matching were: Group A transcripts against tragets = p