mathematics paper predicts telepathy?

[davidsmith73]

Apologies to those without access to this paper.

I'm unsure about the copyright rules here so I'll tentatively quote this small passage from:

" E.A. Novikov. Modeling of consciousness. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (article in press)"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d9babaa70b5dd0ad5f39e181428&ie=/sdarticle.pdf


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, wp(t,x) signifies the presence of imaginary components of EM field in the brain. Let us assume, as an
adventure, that such field can exist (at least, for a short time) in empty space (perhaps in a brane [8], which encloses
our ordinary 4D spacetime). Than, it seems natural, that such field can propagate. According to the described model,
real and imaginary components of EM field interact in the presence of healthy neuron system (NS). This interaction, apparently, is symbiotic and stable. However, in special circumstances, when NS is strongly disturbed, we can expect shedding of a part of imaginary EM field from this NS, propagating and attracting to another NS (up-effect in the model). In this way we can interpret observed effects of telepathy and instances of reincarnation (‘‘past life memory’’ connected with fatal accidents).
Interaction between NS
s by means of the field up(t,x) requires more general modeling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I was wondering if there are any mathematicians out there who take a look at the paper and tell us what they think?

 

[RussDill]

Generally, wp(t,x) signifies the presence of imaginary components of EM field in the brain.

aka, it is an EM field, and thus describing the propagation requirs real and imaginary parts.

Let us assume, as an adventure, that such field can exist (at least, for a short time) in empty space (perhaps in a brane [8], which encloses our ordinary 4D spacetime).

Holy woo-woo ganja batman! electromagnetic waves propagating through empty space, what an adventure indeed. Oh wait, that isn't obfuscated enough, lets through in brane and 4D spacetime.

Than, it seems natural, that such field can propagate.

Electromagnetic fields propagating, wowzer!

According to the described model,
real and imaginary components of EM field interact in the presence of healthy neuron system (NS).

Interact how? At what strengths, etc? This would be important since any EM fields emitted by the brain are *extremely* weak.

This interaction, apparently, is symbiotic and stable.

By what study? I'm looking for a rat brain neuron in a pitre dish here.

However, in special circumstances, when NS is strongly disturbed, we can expect shedding of a part of imaginary EM field from this NS,

What is a NS (persons brain) that is "strongly disturbed"? Does that mean they are about to go postal? BTW, EM waves are described using complex numbers. There is no shedding of the imaginary part.

propagating and attracting to another NS (up-effect in the model).

Is this even proper english?

In this way we can interpret observed effects of telepathy and instances of reincarnation (‘‘past life memory’’ connected with fatal accidents).
Interaction between NS
s by means of the field up(t,x) requires more general modeling.

He could of just said that he thinks that the EM fields emitted by somebodies brain contains usefull information and is transmitted to someone elses brain. Instead, he had to add in a bunch of obfuscation. Interestingly enough, after talking about two people communicating with EM waves, he brings up past life memory, and reincarnation, which involves brains that no longer exist.

 

[Anders]

Reading this abstract a couple of things strike me:

"assume, as an adventure", "perhaps in a brane...", "...it seems natural"

And finally :

"...interpret observed effects of telepathy and instances of reincarnation.."

Well, a lot of assumes, perhapses and seemses lead to a "observed effect of telepathy".

I would say, that this writer is trying to blend modern physics, perhaps string-theory, with nonproven and very theoretic and in no way "observed effect" of telepathy.

I can say that the EM field generated by our brain is although very well measurable not very strong, and is very very small just a cm away from the head.

Telling from the very brief abstract, this article assumes a lot, including non proven pseudoscientific theories.

Unless he can show some experimental proofs, it's nothing but a theory, perhaps, or not, worth looking into.

 

[aerocontrols]

Now, now...

Nice critique, except for one part:

Is this even proper english?

I've seen some good engineering research done in very bad English.

My favorite was a paper I reviewed where the (German) authors kept writing "about his emphasis". Totally mind-numbing to try to read, but the math was good. It turns out that "about his emphasis" is a literal translation of "about its* center of mass", if I recall correctly.

Of course, one would hope that the English would get fixed prior to publication...

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Telling from the very brief abstract, this article assumes a lot, including non proven pseudoscientific theories.

Unless he can show some experimental proofs, it's nothing but a theory, perhaps, or not, worth looking into.

While I agree with your sentiment Anders, one could also say the same about String Theory. i.e. a legitimate scientific theory, albeit one that has yet to yield any experimentally testable results using current technology.

From a physics point of view, this paper makes a certain amount of sense, but not much. The conclusion that imaginary EM fields can somehow create consciousness is far-fetched at best. While it's certainly true that complex math (meaning math using imaginary numbers) is very helpful in working with EM field equations, it's a huge stretch to suggest that some imaginary component of the field could exist, even for a short time. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is so, and it would probably lead to other, more obvious, observable effects if it were.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Now, now...

Nice critique, except for one part:


My favorite was a paper I reviewed where the (German) authors kept writing "about his emphasis". Totally mind-numbing to try to read, but the math was good. It turns out that "about his emphasis" is a literal translation of "about its* center of mass", if I recall correctly.

My favorite is of course:

"Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass"
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

which everyone here, has no doubt read.

 

[RussDill]

From a physics point of view, this paper makes a certain amount of sense, but not much. The conclusion that imaginary EM fields can somehow create consciousness is far-fetched at best. While it's certainly true that complex math (meaning math using imaginary numbers) is very helpful in working with EM field equations, it's a huge stretch to suggest that some imaginary component of the field could exist, even for a short time. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is so, and it would probably lead to other, more obvious, observable effects if it were.

Actually I think he says that the imaginary component gets stripped, which implies that the real portion of the wave somehow continues along on its own and does the communication....

 

[Anders]

While I agree with your sentiment Anders, one could also say the same about String Theory. i.e. a legitimate scientific theory, albeit one that has yet to yield any experimentally testable results using current technology.

Agree, but the string-physicians does not try to connect physics with unproven theories about telepathy.

From a physics point of view, this paper makes a certain amount of sense, but not much. The conclusion that imaginary EM fields can somehow create consciousness is far-fetched at best. While it's certainly true that complex math (meaning math using imaginary numbers) is very helpful in working with EM field equations, it's a huge stretch to suggest that some imaginary component of the field could exist, even for a short time. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is so, and it would probably lead to other, more obvious, observable effects if it were.

Agree here too. Imaginary fields are purely mathimatical constructs used to make some field calculations a bit easier. But to SF loving people imaginary numbers has always been fascinating. For poor studnents imaginary numbers has always been a drag, in the begining anyway.

 

[CurtC]

Re: Re: Now, now...

A mathematician wouldn't help in debunking this paper - he's talking about physics. Physicists use math in their field, but so do accountants - you wouldn't ask a mathematician to do your taxes.*

My favorite is of course:

"Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass"
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

which everyone here, has no doubt read.

I had not read that, but it's great. I see it's from Wisconsin - isn't that the home of The Onion? This person could easily have gone from his studies in physics to writing faux news.

* Back 25 years ago, I was a math major in my first two years of university. I mentioned this to one of my (East Texas hick) relatives, and they seriously asked me if I planned to be an accountant. In her view, the field of mathematics is learning how to add and subtract, with the occasional multiplication or division.

 

[aerocontrols]

Actually I think he says that the imaginary component gets stripped,

EM (visual spectrum) signals of women sometimes arrive in my brane with their components stripped. One could think of these as their 'imaginary' components - the women in question likely have them, but I must imagine what each specific one looks like based on the relatively small sample of direct observations I have made of these components in the past.

Perhaps the effect the author is describing is similar?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, there are a few things that should set your alarm bells ringing.

(1) He gives his address as the "Institute for Nonlinear Science". "Nonlinear science" is a dead giveaway --- he's a crackpot.

(2) Seven out of his ten references are to his own papers.

(3) The content of the paper has nothing whatsoever to do with the title. No chaos, no solitons, no fractals.

(4) The "theory" has no predictive component whatsoever, and so is untestable. It's just there to give psi a veneer of respectability by giving a pseudoscientific explanation. You can find this stuff on the web by the ton... "Psi is possible because of... quantum theory... no, wait, vibrations... no, wait, I changed my mind again... chaos theory... or hey, how about Mystic Psi Pixies? Eenie, meenie, minie, mo... so anyway, there's my theory proving that psi is possible, so therefore it exists. Ta-da!"

Well, it's easier than finding a genuine psi phenomenon, I guess.

 

[RussDill]

EM (visual spectrum) signals of women sometimes arrive in my brane with their components stripped. One could think of these as their 'imaginary' components - the women in question likely have them, but I must imagine what each specific one looks like based on the relatively small sample of direct observations I have made of these components in the past.

Perhaps the effect the author is describing is similar?

I think in this case it is imaginary as in "never occuring" except in past lives and reincarnation. However, if one of the NS's is strongly distrurbed, ie, by a drug, such as alchohol, he does mention that this possibility may occur.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I was wondering if there are any mathematicians out there who take a look at the paper and tell us what they think?

If I didn't have to register to get the article I'd look at it.

 

[davidsmith73]

The conclusion that imaginary EM fields can somehow create consciousness is far-fetched at best.

Is he not saying that imaginary EM fields can be used to model consciousness rather than create it?

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Now, now...

A mathematician wouldn't help in debunking this paper - he's talking about physics. Physicists use math in their field, but so do accountants - you wouldn't ask a mathematician to do your taxes.*

I'm not asking for someone to debunk the paper as such, although if that is necessary then so be it. I assumed mathematicians would be more interested since the paper is not empirical but more theoretical modeling. Oh well, you say potato...

 

[davidsmith73]

Well, there are a few things that should set your alarm bells ringing.

(1) He gives his address as the "Institute for Nonlinear Science". "Nonlinear science" is a dead giveaway --- he's a crackpot.

The institue looks fairly respectable to me, part of the University of California. Take a look at their website.

(2) Seven out of his ten references are to his own papers.

Yes, he could have given a little more justification for some of his opening remarks such as:

"The Consciousness-processes are subjective and, as far as we know, they cannot be measured directly by the objective methods, which are used for measuring electrochemical (automatic) processes. At the same time, there are reasons to believe that C-processes can interact with the automatic (A) processes."

no backup reference is given for this, and it seems to me that it is the whole notion that the paper is based on.

(3) The content of the paper has nothing whatsoever to do with the title. No chaos, no solitons, no fractals.

"Chaos, Solitions and Fractals" is the name of the journal. Sorry, should have made that clear.

(4) The "theory" has no predictive component whatsoever, and so is untestable. It's just there to give psi a veneer of respectability by giving a pseudoscientific explanation. You can find this stuff on the web by the ton... "Psi is possible because of... quantum theory... no, wait, vibrations... no, wait, I changed my mind again... chaos theory... or hey, how about Mystic Psi Pixies? Eenie, meenie, minie, mo... so anyway, there's my theory proving that psi is possible, so therefore it exists. Ta-da!"

Well, it's easier than finding a genuine psi phenomenon, I guess.

According to the author his model is testable, but not being a mathematician myself I have no idea whether it's true:

"Secondly, presence of wp 5 0 through field h (if not nullified by up) changes the measurable field a, so the model is testable."


I apologise again for people who don't have access to the full paper. If I could post the whole thing I would (it's not very long). Out of interest Dr. Adequate did you make your points after reading the whole paper because I think you're jumping to conclusions a little if you don't mind me saying

 

[RussDill]

According to the author his model is testable, but not being a mathematician myself I have no idea whether it's true:

No, no statement I read was testable, sorry

IOut of interest Dr. Adequate did you make your points after reading the whole paper because I think you're jumping to conclusions a little if you don't mind me saying

I don't need to pay $30 to read the whole paper. The paragraph I read was enough. He stuffed as many meaningless buzzwords in as possible to impress the uneducated reader. As someone who read this, and wondered if it is true, you should feel taken advantage of.

 

[Dr Adequate]

"Chaos, Solitions and Fractals" is the name of the journal. Sorry, should have made that clear.

So why is this paper going in this journal?

My guess: because the author's a woo and it's run by his woo friends.

I'm inclined to this belief by the fact that solitons have nothing to do with chaos or fractals --- apart from being a bit of a buzzword lately. Ten years ago it would have been "catastrophe theory".

According to the author his model is testable, but not being a mathematician myself I have no idea whether it's true:

"Secondly, presence of wp 5 0 through field h (if not nullified by up) changes the measurable field a, so the model is testable."

So the questions that spring to mind are:

(1) What does this mean?
(2) If we introduced the "presence of wp 5 0 through field h", under circumstances, of course, under which it is "not nullified by up", 'cos we wouldn't want to do that, and we found that the "measurable field a" changes (in some way the author chooses not to specify) --- HOW THE HECK WOULD THIS "PREDICT TELEPATHY" AS YOU CLAIM IN YOUR OP?

Out of interest Dr. Adequate did you make your points after reading the whole paper because I think you're jumping to conclusions a little if you don't mind me saying

No. I'm not paying $30 to read gibble in some obscure journal. Of course, let's keep an open mind, the author might not be a crank. He might have made the greatest breakthrough in physics since quantum theory. In which case I'm sure his work will appear in Nature or Science by and by. As my university subscribes to these journals, I'll get to read his Great Insight for free.

Quaternions... how quaint.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

I wouldn't be so quick to try to discredit his qualifications or which institution he is associated with; these things have little to do with the ideas he is presenting, although they can often be a useful indicator of the quality of such. In this case he seems to belong to a reputable institution and publish in reputable journals.

For those without access to the articles, there are several posted on the public Los Alamos archive (but not the one in the OP):

http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/nlin/1/au:+Novikov_E/0/1/0/all/0/1

The guy clearly has at least a reasonable grasp of electrodynamics and fluid dynamics, but some of what he is suggesting should show up in EEG or MRI measurements if he is correct.

However, a couple things trouble me. Firstly, there have been many studies performed on the effect of electromagnetic fields on the brain, and secondly, most of the quoted references in his papers are links to his own previous papers. Generally a bad sign.

The sum of his papers seem to amount to saying: we can model the brain in this way, and in this model such-n-such can be viewed as representing consiousness. Oh, and you can put extra-sensory effects in this model too. If you really believed that, wouldn't you follow through and make some definite predictions based on your model?

The science seems fairly solid, the conclusions less so.