Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Helmut Schmidt's PSI experiment and others
Message-ID: <660@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Jan-84 16:32:06 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.660
Posted: Sun Jan 29 16:32:06 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Jan-84 18:24:07 EST
References: <15910@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 19

John Aspinall warns against interpretations of experiments in which the
experimenter introduces noise, presumably on the grounds that the
noise will inevitably mask what is expected to be a small effect.
He worries that the random data will be interpreted (perhaps inadvertently)
as real effects, and perhaps that a real effect may be masked.

There is another way to look at the question: the introduced noise
serves the same function as "dither" in a quantized measurement.
Dither can render audible signals that are smaller than the smallest
quantization step. It can also allow small forces to move a balanced
object that might otherwise be stuck by friction. Since there are both
physical and psychological possibilities of analogues to quantization
and friction in a psychokinesis experiment, the introduction of noise
is quite proper.  Naturally, it must be given proper allowance in
the interpretation of the experiments.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt