by Davis Plunkett and Kristen
from FranklinPierceCollege Website
A simple definition of psychokinesis (PK), is the apparent ability of a human being to affect objects, events or even people around him or her without using the usual intervention by the muscular system (Broughton 1991).
of physical matter that can be attained by using only mind inducing
techniques would be considered as a form of psychokinesis.
They are called macro-PK and micro-PK.
Micro-PK concentrates more on the mind’s direct influence on atomic particles or electronic devices, and macro- PK involves more of the direct movement of large objects such as bending metal.
The distinction is
largely based upon whether one can simply see the effect (macro-PK)
or whether one needs a statistical evaluation to determine if
something unusual happened (micro-PK) (Broughton.1991).
What we really see in the results of
micro-PK research is not the exact movement of an object, but the
changing of probabilities in instances based on pure chance.
Therefore, micro-PK subjects are not as much shifting around
objects, but shifting the odds of the events that are occurring.
Most of these experiments performed are usually done
with instruments that involve using magnetic fields, or machines
that have electrically charged generators. These types of machines
have been proven to be the most effective instruments used in the
field of micro-PK.
What Ingo Swann’s
purpose was, to affect a small magnetic probe that was located in a
vault below the floor of the building. It was strongly shielded by a mu-metal magnetic shield, an aluminum container, copper shielding,
and most important, a superconducting shield, the most effective
type of shield known (Targ and Puthoff, 1977).
The target was a torsion pendulum suspended by a metal fiber inside a sealed glass bell jar in a lab some distance from the subject. The position of the pendulum was monitored by a laser beam reflected from a small mirror on the pendulum onto a position-sensing detector.
The output from the detector was monitored by a chart recorder. The subject was provided feedback at the remote location either by closed circuit video or by a second chart recorder connected to the recorder in the enclosed target lab. Pat was to try to increase or decrease the oscillation of the pendulum during one minute intervals determined by a random number table.
Although there appeared to be some evidence in pilot studies
that Pat could, by concentration, influence the motion of the
pendulum, data taken in controlled experiments, although showing a
trend in the desired direction, did not reach statistical
significance (Targ and Puthoff, 1977).
Although the scores in the competitive condition were higher than chance, they were not significantly so, nor were they significantly different from the noncompetitive scores. In the noncompetitive game, there was no relationship between the game scores and the subjects anxiety.
For the competitive game, however, there
was a significant negative relationship. This meant that subjects
who were more relaxed and at ease with the competition game got
higher scores and were more likely to win the game. The subjects
that were more anxious, were in fact more likely to lose (Broughton,
1991). This just proves that in fact, PK effects are definitely
influenced by the subjects attitude and mood.
This definition, however, fails to present accurate accounts of psychokinesis, or PK, in a laboratory setting.
There have been numerous studies performed in an
attempt to study this most interesting phenomena yet gaining further
insight is necessary in determining sufficient evidence. As a group
we have compiled descriptive and factual assessments based on
information gathered on psychokinesis.
In fact, 77% stated that they believe that it "does occur" but still remain a bit skeptical about the phenomena. In contrast, 19% voiced no opinion on the matter, while only 2% stated that they were true believers of the phenomena. What makes it so difficult to believe in psychokinesis or microkinesis?
There have been numerous experiments
done over the years in an attempt to prove once and for all that it
does occur but regardless, the skeptics remain strong in their
opinions. Does psychokinesis exist? From the experiments conducted
decades ago to the present research in the phenomena, I think it is
clearly apparent that it does in fact occur.
Rhine was determined to discover if,
The actual research began with a young gambler who stated that he had the ability to make dice fall at will to the perceived number of intention.
Rhine found this attribute to be crucial in proving the existence of psychokinesis so he, in turn, brought the research to Duke for further study. Rhine asked ESP students to be subjects in the research.
What he discovered was that the subjects found considerable success in dice rolling (Rhine, 1967). On a six sided cube, or die, an individual has a one choice in six of having it fall on a desired face. The dice thrown by the students averaged considerably more on average of a successful result.
This was the
first notion of the existence of psychokinesis and once upon
completion of the research the skeptics began to state their
disbelief. One of the early skeptics was William Gatling.
This team believed that "psi" phenomena was a God-given ability and not just characterized by gamblers (Rhine, 1967). The other team created in Gatling’s study were the "four best crapshooters" on the Duke campus.
Though Gatling was not absolutely sure
that they were the top four, they were titled as the best by word of
mouth around the campus community. The mere fact that they accepted
to partake in the contest showed that they felt they were worthy of
the honor as the best the college had to offer. The atmosphere and
competitiveness of the study was not recorded, however, the
mathematical outcome was processed.
The scores recorded were so similar that neither group could be
considered the winner. A total of 540 runs were thrown by the
gamblers with a positive deviation of 282, an average run score of
4.52 per run instead of 4.00 to be expected by chance (Rhine, 1967).
The subject being studied in this highly technological study was Nelya Mikhailova. The researcher who closely monitored the event was Dr. Genady Sergeyev. It was discovered that Mikhailova had the incredible ability to produce electrical energy at free will. During psychokinesis, her pulse would rise to 240 beats per minute (Ostrander, 1970). This enhances polarization in the brain between the front and back cortex. Disturbance of the magnetic fields is done in a frequency of five cycles (Ostrander, 1970).
Heartbeat, brain waves, and force field fluctuation are in ratio to the interruptions. It was discovered that the fields of energy around Mikhailova are stronger further away as opposed to close to the head (Ostrander, 1970). By having this control of energy, she was able to direct it towards a desired area and, thus, altering the object. Mikhailova was able to display light objects of plastic material and metal from 10 to 50 grams.
During this process the EEG indicated an electrostatic fluctuating
Another finding was that not only does the heart rate increase upon the rise of energy but that the brain and heart work together as one unit in the production of the electrostatic energy (Ostrander, 1970).
The Mikhailova experiments
gave the world more hope of the existence of not only psychokinesis,
but the other "psi" phenomena as well. Through the use of an EEG,
Sergeyev was able to document the entire experiment. Regardless of
the accuracy of the study "skeptics" still searched for clues in
how it could have been manipulated.
The result was the completion of a "dice - throwing machine." It consisted of a reticular cylinder rotating around a central axis and was operated by an electric motor (Vasileir, 1965). The experimenter sat on the right of the machine while the subject, who is attempting to influence the dice, sat on the left. Rhine believed that if a subject had a psychokinetic ability they would concentrate on a certain side and that chosen side would repeatedly appear. In one series he’d ask the subject to concentrate on one side while in another series he’d ask the subject to think of various sides.
Though his results were not recorded, another experimenter, R.H Thouless used the same machine technique which resulted in negative outcomes. The chosen side of the die came up 2,809 times out of 16,232 trials, which then has a positive deviation of 104 (Vasileir, 1965). The chances of such a deviation is one time out of 33, which is not very convincing.
to the "dice - throwing machine" was that the results provided no
further proof in the existence of psychokinesis.
Dr. Krmessky is noted for his incredible psychokinesis experiments. He has demonstrated, numerous times, his ability to move mobiles completely sealed under glass and shielded by wood and metal (Ostrander & Schroeder, 1976). The most intriguing mobile is created by attaching a white file card to an inverted test tube and suspending it over a long, upturned needle.
Krmessky, seated a few feet away, gazes instantly at the mobile and slowly the card begins to turn. Soon thereafter a switch is tripped and a lamp lights. Coincidence? The energy that Krmessky gives off is similar to that of Neyla Mikhailova, the Russian who produced incredible electrical heat while monitored in an EEG chamber.
What becomes further evident
through processing past experiments is that energy is the main
source needed in successfully completing research in psychokinesis.
Alla Vinogradova, from Moscow, has the ability to move various objects on a dielectric surface without touching them (Long, 1972). They discovered that there was enough light around the object to light a small neon glow tube. Measurements with extra-sensory field meters indicated potentials of at least 10 to 12 kV meter (Long, 1972).
It was also discovered in this study, as
was also true in Nelya Mikhailova’s research, that the energy field
shifted according to the distance between Alla and the object. This
again shows the intensity required in order to successful alter a
desired object. Due to the numerous, recorded results proving that
energy is responsible for the process of psychokinesis, why are
there 77% of scientist studied who still remain skeptical about psychokinesis?
What he intended to do was look at every object and report on the possibility of altering the object in some way. In relation to dice or cubes, he found that the magnitude of the acceleration acting on the average cube was 15% that of the gravitational acceleration (Long, 1972).
When a force is acting, the object should reveal a more direct demonstration. A ball then should be easy to move by psychokinesis right? Wrong Forwald states "the reason stems from the fact that psychokinesis does not involve any force" (Long, 1972). He goes on to state that "the nature of the phenomenon lies in the allowed quantum mechanical states of the system and the associated probabilities for those states"(Long, 1972).
He based his theory on the question of
the dependence of the magnitude of the cube deflection on cube
material and construction (Long, 1972). Through research, Forwald
was able to defend his theory and develop a strong conclusion to the
study. Despite finding numerous mistakes made in the past study of
psychokinesis, Forwald was able to prove its existence without
intervention or repetitive error.
The display was a ring of nine lights, lit one at a time by the RNG
(Broughton, 1991). If the light stopped in one position, the light
moved one step clock wise and if the light stopped in the other
position, the light moved counterclockwise. The light was,
basically, moving around the ring, in a timed pattern clockwise and
counterclockwise (Broughton, 1991).
This resulted in significantly below what chance would predict. The main experiment consisted of fifteen subjects and 256 runs (Broughton, 1991). These subjects produced a scoring rate of 49%, and though not a strong effect it was statistically significant. The experiment proved not to be a strong support for the existence of psychokinesis, however, Schmidt would continue in an effort to gather proof of the phenomena.
In this experiment, Schmidt used his four button machine.
In the precognition part of the study, the machine worked as usual with the subject pressing one of the buttons and a split second later the internal RNG caused one of the lamps to turn on. In the PK test, everything looked the same to the subject but it was altered. The machine, using the output of RNG, would count over that many lamp positions according to the number pushed.
Through this experiment, Schmidt was able to compare precognitive and PK performance under equivalent psychological conditions. The results produced 30% for the precognition experiment and 31% for the PK experiment (Broughton, 1991). With 25% expected by chance, both proved to be statistically significant. Schmidt chose one selected subject who was able to score 33% for precognition and 30% for PK (Broughton, 1991).
results, once again, were highly significant. Schmidt concluded that
there was no difference between the two conditions, they both
resulted in the same degree of success. Schmidt’s experiment made it
apparent that when dealing with psychokinesis, we may not be able to
distinguish between them operationally ( Broughton, 1991 ).
There are many questions relating to psychokinesis and the way in which it is achieved. The brain has many random, automatic processes (Broughton, 1991). However, there are things that are beyond our control; for example, other people’s random behavior.
If PK is to address these " things " and be able to process the situations,
What becomes apparent by looking at these questions is that more research must be done in determining how psychokinesis is actually transmitted to a focal point.
numerous experiments have found statistical significance in their
results, it is necessary to address how they were reached. Some
experimenters have tried but were unable to determine the actual
methodology behind psychokinesis.
Through amazing performances by psychics such as Nelya Mikhailova and Dr. Julius Krmessky many have been able to question those who remain skeptical about psychokinesis.
However, from a scientific viewpoint there needs to be more clear cut evidence into the phenomena. Since there has not been any clear cut evidence to date is remains a phenomena until there is documentation available to us which will prove how and why psychokinesis is an existing conscious power.
will, unfortunately, require time and with that time we can search
for our own clues into the phenomena of psychokinesis.