Remote View­ing Sci­en­tific Proof and Evi­dence Remote View­ing & Quan­tum Mechanics

The essence of con­scious­ness and its place in the uni­verse remain a mys­tery. Clas­si­cal mod­els view con­scious­ness as com­pu­ta­tion among the brain’s neu­rons yet they fail to address its enig­matic nature.

At the same time quan­tum processes (super­po­si­tion of states, non-locality, entan­gle­ment) also remain mys­te­ri­ous, yet are being har­nessed in rev­o­lu­tion­ary infor­ma­tion tech­nolo­gies (quan­tum com­pu­ta­tion, quan­tum cryp­tog­ra­phy and quan­tum teleportation).

In order to com­pre­hend events in the phe­nom­e­nal world, one needed to intro­duce a major vari­able that had until then been ignored: The con­scious­ness (self reflec­tive thought) of the observer. With­out the per­cep­tion of a mate­r­ial world by a con­scious entity, there were great doubts as to the exis­tence of that mate­r­ial real­ity inde­pen­dently of its observation

“A rela­tion between con­scious­ness and quan­tum effects has been pon­dered for nearly a cen­tury, and in the past decades quan­tum processes in the brain have been invoked as expla­na­tions for con­scious­ness and its enig­matic fea­tures. Crit­ics deride this com­par­i­son as a mere “min­i­miza­tion of mys­ter­ies” and quickly point out that the brain is too warm for quan­tum com­pu­ta­tion which in the tech­no­log­i­cal realm requires extreme cold to avoid “deco­her­ence”, loss of seem­ingly del­i­cate quan­tum states by inter­ac­tion with the envi­ron­ment. How­ever quan­tum com­pu­ta­tion would surely be advan­ta­geous from an evo­lu­tion­ary per­spec­tive, and biol­ogy has had 4 bil­lion years to solve the deco­her­ence prob­lem and evolve quan­tum mech­a­nisms.”

Fur­ther­more, quan­tum non-locality occur­ring in con­scious and sub­con­scious brain func­tion has been dis­cov­ered in recent exper­i­ments. What is becom­ing even more appar­ent are spe­cific func­tional quan­tum processes in mol­e­c­u­lar biology.

What Quan­tum Mechan­ics (QM) and Remote View­ing (RV) have in com­mon is that they both involve entan­gle­ment– where in QM it refers to par­ti­cle entan­gle­ment and in RV to con­scious­ness entanglement.

• “QM deals with par­ti­cles such as elec­trons and par­ti­cles of light, called pho­tons. Par­ti­cle entan­gle­ment means that local mea­sure­ments by an exper­i­menter on a par­ti­cle will instan­ta­neously inter­act with an entan­gled par­ti­cle — no mat­ter how far apart the par­ti­cles are.  Einstein’s famous insight that mass can­not travel faster than the speed of light (this is the “local” envi­ron­ment) does not extend to infor­ma­tion about entan­gled particles…some infor­ma­tion trans­fer does occur instantaneously.
• RV deals with tar­get infor­ma­tion processed by human con­scious­ness such as sights, sounds, smells, feel­ings, tastes and con­cepts.  Con­scious­ness entan­gle­ment means that local inten­tions by a viewer on tar­get infor­ma­tion will instan­ta­neously inter­act with entan­gled tar­get infor­ma­tion — no mat­ter how far apart the viewer and tar­get are.  Infor­ma­tion from entan­gled con­scious­ness appears avail­able all the time.”

Stan­ford Ency­clo­pe­dia of Phi­los­o­phy states:

“Quantum entan­gle­ment is a phys­i­cal resource, like energy, asso­ci­ated with the pecu­liar non­clas­si­cal cor­re­la­tions that are pos­si­ble between sep­a­rated quan­tum sys­tems. Entan­gle­ment can be mea­sured, trans­formed, and purified.

Infor­ma­tion from the Future and the Trans­ac­tional Model of QM

Remote View­ing deals directly with infor­ma­tion processed by con­scious­ness.  If you take your mem­ory as an exam­ple — “take as your tar­get a time and place in your child­hood bed­room — do that now.  Look around the room, be aware of your con­scious expe­ri­ence.  You are con­sciously pro­cess­ing pre­vi­ously entangled/stored infor­ma­tion about your direct expe­ri­ence as a child.  You are the viewer and your entan­gled expe­ri­ence is the tar­get.  Mem­ory fits very nicely with the sim­ple lin­ear model of time that we have come to accept as the only real­ity based on our expe­ri­ence.”

Pre­cog­ni­tive Remote Per­cep­tion III: 
Com­plete Binary Data Base with Ana­lyt­i­cal Refinements

Tech­ni­cal Note PEAR 8900

Within the con­stel­la­tion of activ­i­ties com­pris­ing the Prince­ton Engi­neer­ing Anom­alies Research lab­o­ra­tory, a pro­gram address­ing pre­cog­ni­tive remote per­cep­tion (PRP) exper­i­ments and ana­lyt­i­cal method­ol­ogy pro­vides impor­tant indi­ca­tors of the basic nature of the consciousness-related phe­nom­ena under study. As the project has evolved, the binary scor­ing tech­niques used to quan­tify the PRP results have been refined to pre­clude a hier­ar­chy of pos­si­ble strate­gic or com­pu­ta­tional arti­facts, thereby per­mit­ting more dis­crim­i­nat­ing assess­ment of the exper­i­men­tal data, the design of more effec­tive exper­i­ments, and the for­mu­la­tion of more appro­pri­ate the­o­ret­i­cal models.

In this report are pre­sented a com­plete update of the PRP data, descrip­tions of the ana­lyt­i­cal refine­ments, and a sum­mary of the salient results. In brief, the PRP pro­to­col con­tin­ues to prove a viable means for achieve­ment of anom­alous infor­ma­tion acqui­si­tion about remote phys­i­cal tar­gets by a broad range of vol­un­teer par­tic­i­pants. The full data base con­sists of 411 tri­als, 336 of which meet the cri­te­ria for for­mal data, gen­er­ated by 48 indi­vid­u­als over a period of approx­i­mately ten years. Effects are found to com­pound incre­men­tally over a large num­ber of exper­i­ments, rather than being dom­i­nated by a few out­stand­ing efforts or a few excep­tional par­tic­i­pants. The yield is sta­tis­ti­cally insen­si­tive to the mode of tar­get selec­tion, to the num­ber of per­cip­i­ents address­ing a given tar­get, and, over the ranges tested, to the spa­tial sep­a­ra­tion of the per­cip­i­ent from the tar­get and even to the tem­po­ral sep­a­ra­tion of the per­cep­tion effort from the time of tar­get vis­i­ta­tion. Over­all results are unlikely by chance to the order of 10E-10.

Remote View­ing exper­i­men­tal result from Prince­ton Uni­ver­sity show that non­lo­cal pre­cog­ni­tive (future infor­ma­tion) con­nec­tions are, in fact, also part of our reality.

Here is an extract from John Cramer’s paper, The Trans­ac­tional Inter­pre­ta­tion of Quan­tum Mechan­ics, where his Trans­ac­tional Quan­tum Mechan­ics Model inter­pre­ta­tion sup­ports the idea about precognition.

“A new inter­pre­ta­tion of the for­mal­ism of quan­tum mechanics,the Trans­ac­tional Inter­pre­ta­tion (TI), is pre­sented. The basic ele­ment of TI is the trans­ac­tion describ­ing a quan­tum event as an exchange of advanced {back­ward in time} and retarded {for­ward in time} waves, as implied by the work of Wheeler and Feyn­man, Dirac, and others.

The TI is explic­itly non­lo­cal and thereby con­sis­tent with recent tests of the Bell Inequal­ity, yet is rel­a­tivis­ti­cally invari­ant and fully causal. The TI per­mits quan­tum mechan­i­cal wave func­tions to be inter­preted as real waves phys­i­cally present in space rather than as “math­e­mat­i­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tions of knowl­edge”. The TI is shown to pro­vide insight into the com­plex char­ac­ter of the quan­tum mechan­i­cal state vec­tor and the mech­a­nism asso­ci­ated with its “collapse”. The TI also leads in a nat­ural way to jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of the Heisen­berg uncer­tainty principle.“4 This model is dif­fer­ent from other mod­els in a way that it employs a two-way exchange, a “hand­shake”, between waves trav­el­ing for­ward and back­ward in space-time.

Infor­ma­tion from the Future and the Trans­ac­tional Model of QM
Remote View­ing deals directly with infor­ma­tion processed by con­scious­ness.  If you take your mem­ory as an exam­ple — “take as your tar­get a time and place in your child­hood bed­room — do that now.  Look around the room, be aware of your con­scious expe­ri­ence.  You are con­sciously pro­cess­ing pre­vi­ously entangled/stored infor­ma­tion about your direct expe­ri­ence as a child.  You are the viewer and your entan­gled expe­ri­ence is the tar­get.  Mem­ory fits very nicely with the sim­ple lin­ear model of time that we have come to accept as the only real­ity based on our experience.”

Later on Cramer pub­lished An Overview of the Trans­ac­tional Inter­pre­ta­tion where he explains the nature of a “handshake”:

“This advanced-retarded hand­shake is the basis for the trans­ac­tional inter­pre­ta­tion of quan­tum mechan­ics. It is a two-way con­tract between the future and the past for the pur­pose of trans­fer­ring energy, momen­tum, etc, while observ­ing all of the con­ser­va­tion laws and quan­ti­za­tion con­di­tions imposed at the emitter/absorber ter­mi­nat­ing “bound­aries” of the trans­ac­tion. The trans­ac­tion is explic­itly non­lo­cal because the future is, in a lim­ited way, affect­ing the past (at the level of enforc­ing cor­re­la­tions). It also alters the way in which we must look at phys­i­cal phe­nom­ena. When we stand in the dark and look at a star a hun­dred light years away, not only have the retarded light waves {for­ward in time from E in sketch} from the star been trav­el­ing for a hun­dred years to reach our eyes, but the advanced waves {back­ward in time from A in sketch}  gen­er­ated by absorp­tion processes within our eyes have reached a hun­dred years into the past, com­plet­ing the trans­ac­tion that per­mit­ted the star to shine in our direction.”

The sketch below is a rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the waves where the ver­ti­cal axis is time and the hor­i­zon­tal direc­tion rep­re­sents space.  Note that the cur­rent QM for­mu­la­tion does have an exact can­cel­la­tion of waves that lim­its any usual faster than the speed of light (super­lu­mi­nal) communication.

Also, Cramer in a paper enti­tled Quan­tum Non-locality and the Pos­si­bil­ity of Super­lu­mi­nal Effects in a sec­tion enti­tled Non­lin­ear Quan­tum Mechan­ics And Super­lu­mi­nal Loop­holes, says:

“How­ever, this pro­hi­bi­tion is bro­ken if quan­tum mechan­ics is allowed to be slightly “non-linear”,a tech­ni­cal term mean­ing that when quan­tum waves are super­im­posed they may gen­er­ate a small cross-term not present in the stan­dard formalism.

Steven Wein­berg, Nobel lau­re­ate for his the­o­ret­i­cal work in uni­fy­ing the elec­tro­mag­netic and weak inter­ac­tions, inves­ti­gated a the­ory which intro­duces small non-linear cor­rec­tions to stan­dard quan­tum mechan­ics [13]. The onset of non-linear behav­ior is seen in other areas of physics, e.g., laser light in cer­tain media, and, he sug­gested, might also be present but unno­ticed in quan­tum mechan­ics. … Two years after Weinberg’s non-linear QM the­ory was pub­lished, Joseph Polchin­ski pub­lished a paper demon­strat­ing that … 

Through the new non-linear effects, sep­a­rated mea­sure­ments on the same quan­tum sys­tem begin to ‘talk’ to each other and faster-than-light and/or backward-in-time sig­nal­ing becomes possible.”

Even though the non-linear Quan­tum Mechan­ics model has not been exper­i­men­tally ver­i­fied in physics lab­o­ra­to­ries as yet, RV pre­cog­ni­tion exper­i­men­tal data sup­port the notion of backward-in-time signaling.

“Sci­ence does seem to be mak­ing progress toward com­pre­hend­ing the real­ity of pre­cog­ni­tion and maybe con­scious­ness will be the link for the very small and the very large.”

Ger­ald O’Donnel, one of the most expe­ri­enced experts in Remote View­ing states on his web­site: “This is not magic: black nor white. The spir­i­tual aspect and the com­pre­hen­sion of what is hap­pen­ing is within every human being. Each and every­one has access to it. Quan­tum physics has only brushed exper­i­men­tally the big ques­tion: has mat­ter cre­ated mind or mind cre­ated mat­ter? Even though the later is strongly hinted at, the real proof is within the lab­o­ra­tory of one’s own mind. Not within an exter­nal tech­no­log­i­cal lab­o­ra­tory appa­ra­tus. Although time and space have been exper­i­men­tally bridged within major research physics labs recently, the impli­ca­tions have yet to seep through mankind’s psyche.

In one famous lab­o­ra­tory exper­i­ment of mod­ern quan­tum physics called “the delayed choice exper­i­ment” even the past was changed in order to fit the present. Which means that instead of the nor­mal cause-and-effect logic that we are accus­tomed to, in that case the effect cho­sen caused the cause to change accord­ingly. This means that our present choices changes the mem­ory of our past. This orig­i­nal exper­i­ment first pro­posed by the physi­cist John A. Wheeler in 1978 as a thought exper­i­ment, was con­firmed exper­i­men­tally in 1988 under strict lab­o­ra­tory con­di­tions using elec­tronic, ultra-fast pocket cells, by two groups of physi­cists work­ing at the Uni­ver­sity of Mary­land and at the Uni­ver­sity of Munich.”