Abstract : It is generally assumed that experiments involving statistical processes can always be designed in such a way that the outcome is independent of the experimenter. In order to test this basic assumption a series of experiments was performed with carefully designed apparatus whose central feature is a device utilizing a quantum process to generate random numbers modulo 4. The random number generator is connected to four lamps and four corresponding pushbuttons. Pressing any one of the four buttons triggers a quantum process and produces a random number, which is indicated by the lighting of one of the four lamps. The system is designed such that there should be no correlation between the number (1..4) of the button pressed and the number (1..4) of the lamp lighted, and furthermore, no correlation between successively generated random numbers. A large number of human subjects were asked to press the buttons manually with the objective in mind of obtaining a high number of coincidences (hits), i.e., events where the lamp next to the pressed button lights. From the results, it is tentatively concluded that there exists a weak but significant correlation between the statistical processes operative in these experiments and the experimenter who initiates the processes.
Abstract : It is generally assumed that experiments involving statistical processes can always be designed in such a way that the outcome is independent of the experimenter. In order to test this basic assumption a series of experiments was performed with carefully designed apparatus whose central feature is a device utilizing a quantum process to generate random numbers modulo 4. The random number generator is connected to four lamps and four corresponding pushbuttons. Pressing any one of the four buttons triggers a quantum process and produces a random number, which is indicated by the lighting of one of the four lamps. The system is designed such that there should be no correlation between the number (1..4) of the button pressed and the number (1..4) of the lamp lighted, and furthermore, no correlation between successively generated random numbers. A large number of human subjects were asked to press the buttons manually with the objective in mind of obtaining a high number of coincidences (hits), i.e., events where the lamp next to the pressed button lights. From the results, it is tentatively concluded that there exists a weak but significant correlation between the statistical processes operative in these experiments and the experimenter who initiates the processes.
In two precognition experiments, the subjects were faced with four colored lamps which were lit in random sequence.Their objective was to guess which of the four lamps would light up next and to press the corresponding button.In the first experiment, there were three subjects, who carried out a total of 63,066 trials.Their combined results were highly significant (p < 2 x 10 -9 ).In the second experiment, two of the same subjects plus a third had their choice of trying to predict, as before, which lamp would light up next (to try for high score) or to choose one which would not light next (low score).In a total of 20,000 trials, the subjects were again successful in achieving their aim to a highly significant extent (p < 10 -10 ).For providing the random target sequence, use was made of single quantum processes which may represent nature's most elementary source of randomness.A practical advantage of the device is that it works fast and that the randomness can be easily computer tested.The author is a physicist who is particularly interested in statistical physics and the foundations of quantum theory.After teaching at universities in Germany, Canada, and the U.S. he has joined Boeing Scientific Research Laboratories.---[Original]Ed.
In two precognition experiments, the subjects were faced with four colored lamps which were lit in random sequence.Their objective was to guess which of the four lamps would light up next and to press the corresponding button.In the first experiment, there were three subjects, who carried out a total of 63,066 trials.Their combined results were highly significant (p < 2 x 10 -9 ).In the second experiment, two of the same subjects plus a third had their choice of trying to predict, as before, which lamp would light up next (to try for high score) or to choose one which would not light next (low score).In a total of 20,000 trials, the subjects were again successful in achieving their aim to a highly significant extent (p < 10 -10 ).For providing the random target sequence, use was made of single quantum processes which may represent nature's most elementary source of randomness.A practical advantage of the device is that it works fast and that the randomness can be easily computer tested.The author is a physicist who is particularly interested in statistical physics and the foundations of quantum theory.After teaching at universities in Germany, Canada, and the U.S. he has joined Boeing Scientific Research Laboratories.---[Original]Ed.
For generating the numbers 1, 2, … M in random sequence, an electronic modulo-M counter is used, driven by the pulses from a high-frequency pulse generator. If the pulse train is interrupted at a random time, then the counter stops at random in one of its M possible states, producing thus a random-number modulo M. The random time is the time at which a Geiger-Mueller tube registers an electron from a 90Sr source. The electronic circuitry is designed such that variations in the characteristics of the components do not impair the randomness. Due to the simplicity of the circuit, the degree of randomness obtainable can be discussed in detail. The randomness of the primarily generated ``basic sequence'' is limited by the finite value of the quotient (pulse-generator frequency) / (number-generation frequency). An extremely high degree of randomness can be realized by ``contracting'' the basic sequence, i.e., by adding (modulo M) strings of k (k=2, 3, 4, or even higher) successive numbers of the basic sequence, to form one number of the final sequence. This contraction can be achieved very easily by interrupting the pulse train only after exactly k electrons have been recorded by the Geiger-Mueller tube. The performance of a generator was tested by recording a basic sequence of generated numbers on paper tape. For probing the long-time reliability of the generator these recordings were made over an 18 months period, and the randomness tests were designed to discover also temporary malfunctions. In accord with the theoretical expectation, these tests did not indicate any deviation from randomness.
Even if the output of a Random Number Generator (RNG) is perfectly uniformly distributed, it may be correlated to pre-existing information and therefore be predictable. Statistical tests are thus not sufficient to guarantee that an RNG is usable for applications, e.g., in cryptography or gambling, where unpredictability is important. To enable such applications a stronger notion of randomness, termed "true randomness", is required, which includes independence from prior information. Quantum systems are particularly suitable for true randomness generation, as their unpredictability can be proved based on physical principles. Practical implementations of Quantum RNGs (QRNGs) are however always subject to noise, i.e., influences which are not fully controlled. This reduces the quality of the raw randomness generated by the device, making it necessary to post-process it. Here we provide a framework to analyse realistic QRNGs and to determine the post-processing that is necessary to turn their raw output into true randomness.
People often see meaning in stimuli that are typically considered meaningless. According to Von Lucadou’s idea of Generalized Quantum Teory (GQT), such perceived coincidences, or examples of synchronicity, may be the result of entanglement between a conscious observer and the physical world. Here we test this idea by means of a ‘coincidence detection task’. Participants were shown a series of 150 randomly generated stimuli (here, a set of three numbers between 0 and 255), and had to indicate per stimulus whether that set of numbers held any meaning to them. Critically, the random source could either be a quantum event generator, or a pseudo random number generator. If ‘coincidences’ are indeed the result of quantum entanglement, or a process like it, we would expect an increased number of reported coincidences for quantum versus pseudo- random generated events. A preliminary data analysis shows that this indeed is the case: over 150 random pseudo-randomly generated numbers; this increased signifcantly to 12% for quantum generated random numbers. This result seems to suggest that synchronicities may indeed be interpreted as non-local correlations between an observer and the physical world.
PK experiments with prerecorded targets (Schmidt, 1976) are interesting because they suggest a variety of new test arrangements to study the basic PK mechanism. In addition, they permit the inclusion of independent observers who, with little time investment, can obtain first-hand evidence of any anomalous effects that may occur. Four such experiments with different independent observers, different subject populations, and minor variations have been performed previously (Schmidt & Braud, 1993; Schmidt, Morris, & Hardin, 1990; Schmidt, Morris, & Rudolph, 1986; Schmidt & Schlitz, 1988) with the first author as main experimenter and the other one or two authors acting as independent observers. The results of PK experiments with prerecorded random events appear most interesting and most puzzling because the subject's mental effort is made long after the random events to be affected have occurred. One tentative viewpoint (Schmidt, 1978; Walker, 1979) is that the subject's mental effort could act backward to the time when the random events were generated and recorded. This would imply a noncausal mechanism in the sense that the effect (the biasing of the random events) occurs before the cause (the mental effort). It might be this element of noncausality that makes psychic phenomena so intuitively implausible and at odds with the known principles of physics. Another viewpoint (Schmidt, 1982) is based on the quantum theoretical notion that there is no if there is no observer. Thus, the decisions of the random generator might become reality only when the subject observes the outcome during the test session. The subject's effort would not have to act into the past because the decision on the outcome would not yet be made until the subject received feedback during the PK test session. In this case, a preobservation of the recorded events should inhibit the subject's success, because the preobservation would make the random decisions real so that the subject's subsequent mental effort would come too late. For this reason it seemed particularly interesting to conduct an experiment in which half of the prerecorded random events had been preinspected so that one could compare the possible PK effects on the preobserved and not-observed events. One previous study (Schmidt, 1985) has indicated an inhibition of the PK effect by preobservation. In view of the central role of the question, however, further studies of the preobservation effect seem most important. In this and the four previous studies, the question of highest priority was whether a PK effect could be demonstrated under tightly controlled conditions. Because preobservation might inhibit the PK effect, we decided in advance to base the possible evidence for the existence of PK only on the results from the not-preobserved events. Although the independent observer was somewhat skeptical about the existence of PK, he was very interested in a possible preobservation effect because of its possible implications for quantum theory. Our subject pool consisted primarily of martial arts students as a matter of practical convenience. This population was relatively easily accessible and one that the experimenter had not yet explored. No attempt was made, however, to compare martial arts training and skill with PK performance systematically. METHOD The study was structured into 20 units such that a unit could be considered as a mini-experiment. Each unit was subdivided into 100 blocks of binary data. The sequence of binary data in each block determined two partial results, an even result and an odd result, arising from the even- or odd-numbered bits in the sequence. The partial results were defined so that by inverting the bits in the sequence (interchanging 1s and 0s) the signs of the partial results were inverted. In following the procedure for each unit, the experimenter used a true random generator to record the random bit-sequences for the 100 blocks on floppy disk. …