RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTS SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF WAVE VECTOR COLLAPSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 27, 2003
• Sequence Number: 2
• Content Type: RP

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIlk-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1
J. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM
thought of the mind. In fact
the cent
l
,
ra
processor is fl
It is not affected by thought, emotion, pleasure or pai
nature to be able to t
i
est
fy all these changes in mind's a
er .
or Incinn it
s
When a human bei identifieslhimself with the
and all r
l
i
e
at
ve and tem ral changes in mind act
kind of
h
unc
angeable sile a from whence experi
miraculous h
appenings stan ing out from a gro
the same tim
f
e
orming part o an immense an
rel
ti
a
onships. To the question a out the indivi
ce
t
l
n
ra
processor, nobody can gi a final ans
ob
server in each one of us is the O e Observ
One S
lf
e
and the central processo in ea
To conclude, it is possible to postulate tea
abide i
n any space, is atemporal and belon
References
Aurobindo, S., La Vida Divina, Editorial Kier,
Beiser, A., Conceptos de Fisica Moderna, McG
Rnraes r t ci . ~ _ , E_ -_
au field H
.J., r.u Sun, The Application of H,1
Capra_ F The T.,,.
n,_
of
s yioeroaum, J., The retrieval
convergence-divergence theory. J. T,
Grinber-Z
b
y
erbaum, J., El Espacio y la
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Psychophysiolo
unit
J
y.
. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 227-
Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Extraoeular vis
h
a
a.ishi, R., talks with Sri Ramana
1972.
Vivekananda, S., Raya Yoga, Kier, Bue
Wil
son, C., Lo Oculto, Editorial Nogu
bserver of the mind.
ecause it is part of its
tivity without changing
elf, he transcends every
ity and becomes part of a
d of empty fullness, and at
all-encompassing pattern of
ual or collective nature of the
er, but intuition feels that the
r, the self in each one of us the
h one of us the One Central
at the central processor does not
to a non physical reality and has
f learned information. A
, 1981.
avitation and
n. J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 141-158, 19
197n
harishi, Sri Ramanasramam Tiruvannam\
Approved For Release 2003/09/1
Psychoenergetics, 1983, Vol. 5, pp. 243-252
0278-6060/83/0503-0243 $18.50/0
? Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Inc., 1983
Printed in the United Kingdom
Research notes and comments
Scientific explanation of wave vector
collapse
D.F. LAWDEN
In his reply (Villars, 1983) to my research note (Lawden, 1983) on the role of
observing instruments in quantum theory, Villars does little more than argue
that his approach to the problem of wave vector collapse is logically
con-
sistent. He fails to meet my criticism that he has no scientific explanation for
the phenomenon.
Thus, to meet my charge that he fails to provide a principle by which an
observing instrument can be distinguished from all other physical systems, he
states that such an instrument is recognizable by the circumstance that it
functions as required of such an instrument by the axioms of quantum theory.
According to his interpretation of the theory, then, there are two classes of
physical system, (i) a larger class comprising the generality of physical systems
to which the Schrodinger evolution law applies, and (ii) a much smaller class
of observing instruments whose behaviour is governed by other laws. He
admits that he is unable to separate these classes by appeal to any physical
criterion and falls back on the definition that an observing instrument is a
physical system which behaves as an observing instrument. However, such an
instrument only behaves in this manner in very special circumstances, viz.
when it interacts with the specific type of class-(i) system it is designed to
measure - in all other circumstances, it behaves like an orthodox class-(i)
system. Thus, a polarizeris a class-(ii) system when it interacts with photons
belonging to a properly positioned incident beam, but its behaviour in all other
circumstances (e.g. when it is heated) is that of a class-(ii) system. Very
mysterious!
Even though Villars may be able to establish that this interpretation is
logically unassailable, this is not the only requirement of a scientific theory. If
such a theory is to provide an acceptable explanation of the world, it must
eschew occult elements as far as possible. Thus, if it were established that all
CIA-R S607r9 *60a 01ie' dear were more likely to become actors than
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : Cl -RDP96-00792R000400010002-1
244 RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTS
were babies born on other days, a theory which simply accepted this fact as an
axiom would not be acceptable as an explanation of this phenomenon and
science could not permit the matter to rest there. The unique behaviour of an
observing instrument when placed in a specific environment is completely
unexplained on Villars' interpretation of quantum theory and constitutes a
wholly mysterious or occult element. It cries out for explanation, but its author
declines to respond. Instead, he states his opinion that it is "quite possible that
an extended physical theory capable of explaining these events will never be
devised".
This is the nub of the controversy between us - can an explanation be
devised for the apparent differing behaviour patterns of an observing
instrument when it is in the process of measuring and those of the same
instrument in other circumstances or of all other physical systems? Walker
and I are attempting to devise such an explanation. We, also, separate physical
systems into two classes, (a) the generality of systems, including observing
instruments, to which the Schrodinger evolution law applies and (b) systems
generating a psychic field to which new laws (yet to be fully formulated!) are
applicable. A type- (b) system is easily distinguishable by virtue of its possess-
ing characteristics which are thoroughly familiar. If a theory of this type were
to be successful, it would clearly provide a truly scientific explanation of the
reduction of the wave vector effect by placing it in the context of a wider
variety of phenomena. It would not be a mere systematization of the facts, as
Villars' approach essentially is, but would point beyond the phenomenon to
relationships with apparently unconnected phenomena in other areas of
science - this is a feature which must be possessed by any theory aspiring to
the status of a scientific explanation. Thus, Kepler noted that the planets
moved in elliptical orbits and his three laws can be accepted as axioms for a
theory embracing all planetary systems. But how much superior is Newton's
theory of gravitation which provides a truly scientific explanation for the facts
established by Kepler. Villars would freeze us in the Kepler phase of the
phenomenon under discussion. Essentially, he is failing to discriminate
between a description of an effect and a scientific explanation of the effect.
Villars asserts that his view does not claim unique powers for observing
instruments. Nonetheless, it does require that there exist a unique relationship
between a given instrument and all the systems it can observe; it is only a
question of semantics whether we describe this as: "the instrument has unique
powers", or `the instrument-system interaction is unique", or "the systems
respond to the instrument in a unique way", etc., etc. The fact is that the
behaviour of the instrument-plus-measured-system combination is of a
special type not governed by the Schrodinger equation and that this unique
type of interaction arises spontaneously, in an occult manner, at some point in
the assembly of the instrument in the presence of an erv 1 s ste
this cannot be accounted for by the switching on of any known physical field
(all of which are known to obey the evolution law). This, of course, is just one
of the consequences of the failure of the theory as a scientific explanation of
the phenomenon.
The suggestion that interference by a psychic field (already demanded on
other grounds - see Lawden, 1981) may account for the phenomenon of the
collapse of the wave vector can be criticised on the basis that it has not been
fully elaborated and it may even have to be extensively modified or even
abandoned in the light of experiment, but it is a serious attempt at an explana-
tion of the effect. The alternative road taken by Villars is the easy one of the
proliferation of hypotheses. Hiding behind an axiomatic facade, Villars offers
no explanation, opines that one will never be forthcoming and seertis to be
criticising Walker and myself for even trying. The issue is still open and we
shall see!
Lawden, D.F. Separability of psychophysical systems J. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 1-10, 1981.
Lawden, D.F. Observing instruments and quantum theory. J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 73-78, 1983.
Villars, C.N. Reply to Lawden, J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 173-175, 1983.
Approved For Re1e9se=/09/10 : ?IA-RDP96-00792R000400010002-1