Mike Palij wrote: >(A minor note: both Rudin and the RetroComm article use the >same quote from Einstein, that is: |People like us, who believe >in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and >future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. |– Albert Einstein )
I checked for the source of this quote (thanks Wikipedia :-) ). It is from a letter dated 21 March 1955 from Einstein to the sister and son of his lifelong friend Michele Besso, in reply to their informing him of the death of Besso. (Within a month, Einstein himself was dead.) The relevant passage, as translated by Hoffman and Banesh (*Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel*), reads as follows: "And now he has preceded me briefly in bidding farewell to this strange world. This signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent." In other words, the sentence in question is intended to be one of consolation to the recipients, not necessarily to be treated as a precise scientific pronouncement. My immediate sense is that it is an allusion to the relativity of simultaneity: Events A and B may be simultaneous within one reference frame, but in other reference frames A may precede B, or B precede A. See the section "The train-and-platform thought experiment" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [email protected] http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------- From: Mike Palij <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Don't Be Surprised If Your Physics Colleagues Snicker When They Pass You In the Hall Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:25:20 -0500 On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:10:58 -0800, Jim Clark wrote in response to: >>> Ken Steele <[email protected]> 06-Jan-11 10:41:41 AM >>> >>I read the in-press ms that was floating about. Bem's assertion >>(in the in-press ms) that he didn't need to identify the >>mechanism of action permitted him to dodge questions about what I >>saw as an inchoate collection of results. > >JC: >This is the heart of the problem for me. It is not just that no mechanism is >proposed, but that any possible mechanism for the effect as claimed would >violate much that we know about the physical world. Some people make appeals >to the weirdness of quantum effects, but Victor Stenger, a physicist, has >labelled such claims as "quantum quackery." He wrote a book on it, along with >some other pieces, such as the following in Skeptical Inquirer. > http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/ I went to Bem's webpage at http://dbem.ws/ to see if I could get some additional info. Let me make a few points: (1) Bem seems to have a long-standing serious interest in PSI and related phenomena (as Scott L noted in a previous post). Examination of his list of published works (see: http://dbem.ws/pubs.html ) appears to indicate that the first published article by Bem on the subject is a book review he did in 1989 for Contemporary Psychology (today, PsycCritiques) of Stanley Krippner's (Ed.) "Advances in Parapsychological Research, Vol. 5". He ends the review with the following: |And finally, I am impressed by the willingness of the series' editors to invite |contributions and criticisms from non-parapsychologists (e.g., Irvin Child |and self-described "public doubter" Marcello Truzzi). Their openness has |done much to promote the recent peer dialogue. It thus seems ironic that |parapsychologists seem repeatedly to suffer the indignity of being evaluated |solely by outsiders: No Contemporary Psychology review of these "Advances" |volumes has ever been written by an active researcher in the field. |Volumes 1 and 3 were not reviewed at all. Volume 2 was reviewed by Ray |Hyman, and Volume 4 was reviewed by the unfriendly skeptic James Alcock |under the title "Advancement Through Retreat." I may be friendlier, but I am |still a kibitzer. What other branch of psychology would put up with such |chutzpah? Ref: Bem, D. J. (1989). Parapsychological data: A continuing projective test. Review of Stanley Krippner (Ed.) Advances in Parapsychological Research (Vol. 5.) Contemporary Psychology, 34, 649-650. (2) On Bem's website, he has a page that has links to "Related Websites". I found it a little strange that (a) he puts parapsychology (Psi,ESP) website links first and (b) the links and info for parapsychology is about 3-4 times that he provides for social psychology. See: http://dbem.ws/Related_Websites.html (3) I clicked onto the "Boundary Institute's" link which took me to: http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/index.html Of particular interest is the following links near the bottom of the page: |Markov Chain experiment |"Can Causal Influence Propagate Backwards in Time? - a Simple Experiment |in Markov Chains and Causality", Shoup and Etter, 2002 | |Abstract: We describe here a simple experiment in psychic phenomena (Psi) |where the usual target generator is replaced by a cascade of randomly |controlled stages of a Markov Chain. If the experiment is successful, |examination of the intermediate stages of the chain will indicate whether, |and how, backward causation plays a role in some forms of Psi functioning. |[Implemented as the “Card Draw Test” at www.gotpsi.org, and operational |since February 2004.] | |RetroComm experiment |"The RetroComm Experiment - Using Quantum Randomness to Send a |Message Back in Time", proposal by Shoup and Etter, 2004 | |Abstract: In a simple electro-optical system, an agent attempts to influence |a random number generator (RNG) based on quantum phenomena, and to |use that influence to perform retrocausal signaling. [Operational in simplified |prototype form, seeking further funding.] A pdf is available that describes the Markov chain experiment; see: http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/BIPlans/markov_psi_exp.pdf A pdf is vailable that describes the "RetroComm" experiment: http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/BIPlans/RetroComm_exp.pdf A search of scholar.google.com for Shoup and Etter turns up a variety of articles in parapsychology and psychic research including one article by Dean Rudin published (somewhere) in 2000 that would appear to provide a theoretical basis to explain backward temporal causation; see: http://www.emergentmind.org/PDF_files.htm/timereversed.pdf (A minor note: both Rudin and the RetroComm article use the same quote from Einstein, that is: |People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction |between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. |– Albert Einstein ) So, there seems to be a community of researchers who share similar beliefs and assumptions and seem to have little/no problem with the concept of backward temporal causation. I think that if Bem wanted to, he could have provided a theoretical mechanism for how backward causation operates. Perhaps he thought that people who are unfamiliar with such concepts would have thought the theoretical explanations outlandish and it would be better to leave that out and focus on what seems to be solid empirical results. Then again, I wonder if our physics colleagues would take the notions presented by Shoup, Etter, Rudin, and related folks seriously? -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=7732 or send a blank email to leave-7732-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
