Introduction The hardware The experiment Results. Random Busters. Bernd Ulmann 31-DEC Random Busters

Transcription

1 Bernd Ulmann 31-DEC-2006

2 In 1998 I stumbled accross a paper written by Dr. Walter von Lucadou, one of the few people interested in parapsychological research who does not seem to be a complete weirdo 1. In this paper he described a rather famous experiment involving a true random number generator and a simple display unit which showed a moving spot of light controlled by the random number generator. A number of test persons were asked to try to affect the movement of the light spot by the sheer force of their minds. Dr. Lucadou states that he found statistically significant evidence for the fact that some test persons were indeed able to influence the movement of the light and thus the behaviour of the true random number generator. 1 Maybe Mr. Radin isn t a weirdo, too, so [3] might be worth reading.

3 People knowing me can guess what happened: I did not believe a single word of what I read! The solution was clear repeat the experiment and look if there is any effect which might be interpreted as evidence of actual psychokinetic forces.

4 The display unit The following sections will introduce the overall setup of the experiment conducted in setup consisted of a true random number generator, a display unit showing a circle made from light emitting diodes as the interface to the test person and, finally, a computer gathering the random numbers generated during each trial of the experiment.

5 The display unit There are only a few physical effects which may serve well in the construction of a true random number generator: Radioactive decay (this needs a radioactive material, a detector and in most cases a high voltage power supply), photon detection (this will need a laser, a photomultiplier and a high voltage supply, too), and, finally, the noise generated on a PN-junction in a semiconductor (this is simple to build, but is very sensitive to temperature changes, which complicates the construction again). Finally I decided to use a radioactive source, a Geiger-Mueller counter, a high voltage supply and a microcontroller to build a true random number generator being as capable as the one described by Dr. Lucadou et al.

6 The display unit

7 The display unit shown on the previous slide is built into a standard 19-inch drawer which contains all of the necessary electronics and the radioactive source. The left hand side of the drawer contains the Thorium radiation source, the high voltage generator, the Geiger-Mueller counter and the first signal processing stage. The right hand side contains a 68HC11 microcontroller which takes care of the raw data generated by the counter. The output of the random number generator can be switched between raw bytes containing the number of detected Thorium decays or bytes where every bit is the result of a mod 2-operation on the content of the counter after a fixed time frame.

8 The radiation source containment The display unit

9 The display unit The display unit The display unit is the interface to the test person. It consists of a circle of 16 light emitting diodes, one of which is switched on at every moment. Depending on the output of the random number generator (i.e. the least significant bit of the counter after a fixed counting interval) the LED to the left or to the right of the currently active LED will be lit. This creates the impression of a light moving in a circle. The test person shall try to enforce a clockwise movement of the light instead of the random walk it performs.

10 The display unit The display unit

11 Construction The display unit The radioactive source consists of 5g of Th(NO 3 ) 4 which were mixed with an expoxy glue to prevent the inhalation of any of the material. The source was donated by the institute for nuclear chemistry. The Geiger-Mueller counter was kindly donated from the institute for nuclear chemistry, too. The 19-inch drawer was found in the junk of the institute for organic chemistry, the display unit was made from a small box found in the cellar of the institute of psychology.

12 Structure of a trial Structure of a trial 1. First, the test person was shown the overall setup of the experiment. The person also received some information about the hardware and the basic problem of psychokinesis. 2. Then the test person had to fill out a questionnaire to gather some background information. The most interesting point was a question about his relation to pychokinetic phenomena. 3. Afterwards the test person was seated in a quiet area in front of the display unit. lasted for 10 minutes and the test person was asked to try to influence the movement of the moving light spot in a way that it was moving in a clockwise direction instead of a pure random walk. 4. After performing this task, the test person was asked to fill in the questionnaire again!

13 Interpretation Conclusion The results of the experiment were rather astonishing if not even shocking: Nearly all of our test persons stated prior to the actual experiment that the did not believe in the existence of psychokinetic effects... After staring for 10 minutes on the display unit, the majority of the test persons took it for granted that they had been able to influence the random generator! No test person was actually able to cause any measurable effect on the sequence of random numbers generated during the trial!

14 Interpretation Interpretation Conclusion Obviously not a single test person could cause any effect on the random number generator that was statistically significant (all in all we tested several dozen people). The fact that most of them changed their minds about the possibility of psychokinetic effects is a good example for selective perception: Every time the light moves in a clockwise direction the test person has the impression of causing an effect while every time the light moves in the opposite direction the observation will be dismissed as being irrelevant. The data gathered during the experiment showed that the movement of the light spot on the display unit was a true random walk!

15 Conclusion Interpretation Conclusion The outcome of this experiment is quite interesting and rather informative. The following conclusions have to be stated: Do not believe in anything you did not measure yourself! Do not trust your perception it will foul you! Beware of charlatans! Be sceptic!

16 Bibliography Interpretation Conclusion The following list contains some interesting material on the topic of psychokinetic influences on random number generators: D. J. Bierman, J. M. Houtkooper, Exploratory PK Tets with a Programmable High Speed Random Number Generator, in European Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1975 R. D. Nelson et al., FieldREG Anomalies in Group Situations, in Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), , 1996 Dean I. Radin, Roger D. Nelson, Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems, in Foundations of Physics, Vol. 19, No. 12, Dezember 1989

17 Bibliography Interpretation Conclusion Helmut Schmidt, PK effect on Pre-Recorded Targets, in The Journal for the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 70, July 1976 Helmut Schmidt, Comparison of PK Action on two different Random Number Generators, in Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 38, p Helmut Schmidt, Comparison of a Telelogical Model with a Quantum Collapse Model of Psi, in Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 48, No. 4, Dec Ulrich Timm, Zur Problematik des Lucadouschen PK-Experiments und andere komplexer Psi-Experimente