EXPERIMENTS ON PSYCHOKINETIC PHENOMENA
by John B. Hasted, Ph.D., Department of Physics,
Birkbeck College, University of London.
David Bohm, Ph.D., Department of Physics,
Birkbeck College, University of London.
Edward W. Bastin, Ph.D., Language Research Unit,
Cambridge University.
Brendan O'Regan, M.S., Institute of Noetic Sciences,
Palo Alto, California.
John B. Hasted is Professor of Experimental Physics and Head
of the Physics Department at Birkbeck College, University of London.
He began his professional training as a chemist and moved into
physics at the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford, during wartime work
on radar. He did pioneering work in opening up the microwave region
of the electromagnetic spectrum in communications, was reader
in physics at the University College of London, and has published
books on atomic collisions and on dielectrics.
David Bohm has been professor of theoretical physics at Birkbeck
College since 1961. He obtained his Ph.D. at the University of
California, Berkeley, and was the last student to study under
the atomic bomb-pioneering physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. Professor
Bohm has worked in the field of plasma physics, extending the
concepts of this field to the many-body system, and he spent several
years at the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey,
during which time he worked with Albert Einstein. Partly through
his discussions with Einstein, Professor Bohm was led to challenge
the orthodox views on quantum mechanics, which he has continued
to expand and refine to this day. He has published books on quantum
theory, relativity, and on the role of causality and chance in
modem physics.
Edward W. Bastin holds doctorate degrees in both physics and
mathematics. He won an Isaac Newton studentship to Cambridge
University, and for a time was Visiting Fellow at Stanford University,
California. Dr. Bastin's current interests are in physics, mathematics,
and parapsychology.
Brendan O'Regan is a member of the Institute of Noetic Sciences,
Palo Alto, California, and a consultant to R. Buckminster Fuller's
Design Science Institute in Philadelphia. He has performed work
in biochemistry and brain research and has written on acupuncture,
Kirlian photography, and various areas of psychic research.
The experiments presented in the following three papers were
designed to investigate Geller's ability to bend metal, deform
crystals, and activate a Geiger counter. The first paper here
presents a summary of the events that took place between Geller
and the Birkbeck team on four different occasions: February 5,
June 21 and 22, and September 10, 1974. The authors' focus is
on the results of their experiments and not necessarily on the
laboratory circumstances that surrounded their research. These
circumstances are, of course of crucial importance in determining
the overall validity of the information reported in the first
paper. This paper, therefore, is followed by two pertinent excerpts
from John Hasted's unpublished manuscript.. "My Geller Notebooks,"
which present a fuller description of the Birkbeck investigation.
The first part of this paper, which gives experimental results,
is published for the first time, with the permission of the authors.
The second part of the paper, an essay on the nature of paranormal
talents, was first published in Nature, Vol. 254, April
10, 1975.
REPORTS of psychokinetic events produced by Uri Geller at the
Stanford Research Institute (see pages 35-66) have prompted us
to investigate the authenticity of such phenomena.
The phenomena fall under the following headings;
1. Bends produced in polycrystalline metal specimens, i.e., spoons
and Yale keys, by gentle handling.
2. Plasticity, similarly produced, in which a part of the metal
specimen becomes soft, and easily fractures.
3. Brittle fractures of metal and cleavages of single crystals,
similarly produced.
4. "Dematerialization." or apparent vanishing of part
of a single crystal of metal.
5. Electromagnetic phenomena.
Table 1 summarizes phenomena of types 1,2,4 recorded by us, mostly
under supervised conditions, at sessions 1-4. Specimens were
previously prepared and in most cases numbered and weighed to
within ñ0.2 mg. "Supervised conditions," under
which the majority of phenomena were observed, signifies that
the gentle handling of weighed specimens by Mr. Geller was carried
out on a tabletop under the close scrutiny of a small number of
seated witnesses, [Witnesses at sessions 2 and 3 included the
authors and Dr. K. Birkinshaw, Dr. J. A. Sarfatti, Messrs. Arthur
Koestler, Arthur C. Clarke, K. A. Appiah, and N. Nikola; at session
1 only the authors; at session 4 only the authors and Mr. N. Nikola.]
with subsequent reweighing of the specimens; written and sometimes
sound records were taken, but there was no video-recording. The
other phenomena were witnessed, but not so closely that the conditions
could be described as supervised. The "gentle handling"
of the specimens consisted of a stroking action by forefinger
and thumb of either hand, or sometimes by forefinger alone, with
the specimen resting on the table and steadied by the thumb.
A phenomenon generally took several minutes to complete. The
bends in the Yale keys occurred gradually, sometimes continuing
after the stroking had ceased; the specimen would then rest on
the table with one end appearing to rise very slowly. Being made
of rolled metal, the keys are probably under internal stress.
It is not improbable that manual forces play a part in assisting
some alleged psychokinetic bending phenomena, since it is not
always easy to ensure that these forces are negligible. However,
we are confident that they can be neglected in phenomena 1, 2,
3, 7, and 8.
The mean grain size and grain orientation at the bent Yale key
surfaces has been compared with those in mechanically bent parts
of the same specimens, using x-ray reflection; no significant
differences were noted. Thus the hypothesis that the grains coalesce
and produce internal stress is untenable, so far as the relatively
small (ten- to thirty-degree) bends in these keys are concerned.
The plasticization, by handling, of about 2 cm of the neck of
a stainless steel teaspoon (phenomenon 7) took place in the course
of informal conversation around a desk. The teaspoon, which had
previously been handled and bent through about thirty degrees
by a child who also displays PK ability, was taken by Mr. Geller
for a few seconds, when the center became floppy. A witness was
able to take from Mr. Geller the two ends of the spoon in either
hand while the center was still plastic. It was then handled
very much as a heated glass tube is when it is bent to a desired
angle in the laboratory. In this way the plasticity could be
clearly verified by movement of the hands of the witness. The
witness attempted to set the spoon at an acute angle, and to put
it down on the table; it retained itself in one piece on the table
for a few minutes, but due, presumably, to thinning of the neck
by the flow of metal, its strength was so small that a slight
disturbance fractured it. The weight loss of the fractured spoon
was almost within the estimated experimental error. Electron
micrographs of this fracture are under preparation; the procedures
used are similar to those used in another study of a similar fracture
obtained in the experiments of Professor J. G. Taylor. (See pages
213-217.)
No conventional physical or chemical explanation of the bending
and plasticization phenomena is readily apparent. Chemical corrosion
is ruled out by the constancy of weight, and by, the absence of
change of appearance of the metal surfaces; neutron activation
and electron-probe microanalysis are in progress as an additional
cheek.
Similar phenomena were observed by one author (J. B. H.) in the
course of work carried out on several children by a larger group
of researchers. These phenomena included a .0001 axis cleavage
of a 7.0 cm x 0.635 cm diameter cylindrical crystal of zinc that
was being gently handled by a child under supervised conditions.
Such a crystal requires symmetrical three-point loading with
a weight of about 4 kg to produce a cleavage at laboratory temperature
20 degrees C so that it might be broken by hand by exercise of
strength. One advantage of using an expensive crystal is that
the unexpected cleavage could reveal, as the usual gradual bending
does not, the presence of excessive manual forces; their presence
was not noted in the observation of the cleavage phenomenon.
The important "dematerialization" event 8 was observed
by us in session 4 with Mr. Geller. Two encapsulated vanadium
carbide V6C5 electron microscope foils had been provided by Dr.
A. Lee; these are single crystal discs about 2.0 mm in diameter
and 0.4 mm thick, with central orifices surrounded by thinned
sections. They had been examined by electron microscope. Each
had been placed by Dr. Lee in a plastic pharmaceutical capsule
about 1 cm long; the capsules were not opened by us until they
were returned to Dr. Lee; the discs were not weighed. Vanadium
carbide is a very hard material, but a fracture of these discs
by hand, with a tool, would be possible, although it would require
dexterity. A number of metal objects of various sizes were then
placed randomly on a metal surface plate, some encapsulated and
some not; the vanadium carbide crystals were among the former.
Under scrutiny of three witnesses, one witness covered the group
of objects lightly with his open hand, on which Mr. Geller's hand
rested for a few seconds. Mr. Geller then clasped both hands
together above the witness's hand. One capsule was seen to move
by a few millimeters, rather like a jumping bean.
On examination, about one half of the vanadium carbide disc was
seen to be missing. (See Plate 52.) Next day the capsule was unsealed
and examined by Dr. Lee, who identified the disc and confirmed
that half of it was missing; electron micrographs showed that
the missing part included most of the thinned section. A brittle
fracture, with a small amount of conchoidal fracture, had taken
place in the 100 plane; a very low density of dislocations was
found, which is typical of mechanical failure. A search for vanadium
in the surroundings of the experiments is in progress. (Ed.'s
note: See Excerpt Two from "My Geller Notebooks," by
Dr. J. B. Hasted, which follows this report.)
The bending of the disc of molybdenum crystal, also provided
by Dr. Lee, occurred, following very much the same procedure,
at session 2. A sudden bend, possibly accompanied by slight movement,
took place. (See Plate 53.) Mild physical sensations were experienced
in the hands of both witnesses.
The disc was of 1 cm diameter and 0.22 mm thickness, so it could
just about be bent by hand. Such crystals are unusual in that
they become more brittle with increasing temperature; our laboratory
temperature was 20 degrees C. The bend induced apparently psychokinetically
was through an angle of twenty-one degrees.
At sessions 2, and 3 Mr. Geller attempted to produce counts on
a nuclear radiation monitor held in his hands. The monitor consists
of a Geiger counter partly surrounded by a stainless steel screen,
which acts as return path for the electrical circuit. It is sensitive
to gamma radiation, for which the background count rate in the
laboratory was about 0.5 counts per second.
The counter is connected by screened cable to an amplifier, whose
output was fed to a Harwell 2000 series ratemeter and chart recorder.
During a total period of about fifty minutes, eight count-rate
pulses of duration of the order of a second were recorded, some
of them of magnitudes corresponding to more than fifty counts/sec.
(See Plate 54.) However, the radiation monitor loudspeaker clicking,
which was recorded on magnetic tape, did not always accelerate
during the chart-
recorded pulses, nor did a second radiation monitor record clicks
consistently. Moreover, two of the largest chart-recorded pulses
corresponded in time to recorded pulses of a magnetic field (about
1 mG) at a fluxgate magnetometer about 1 m distant from the counter.
[In another experiment Mr. Geller was able to deflect a compass
needle held in his hand, at the same time producing a chart-recorded
pulse of magnetic field at the magnetometer head. However, magnetic
field experiments are notoriously sensitive to bodily movements.]
Mr. Geller held the Geiger counter screen continuously in his
hands during the recordings; the recorded count-rate pulses were
not associated with any appreciable bodily movement, nor, of course,
could pulses be produced by witnesses. Although Mr. Geller has
informally indicated that there has been some learning in producing
psychokinetic phenomena, attempts to use the chart recorder readings
as biological feedback were unsuccessful in this case.
The least unorthodox hypothesis with which these Geiger counter
observations are consistent is that Mr. Geller produced through
his hands occasional unpredictable pulses of electromotive force
across metal conductors. These pulses are apparently much larger
than normal body static electricity. The particular model of
radiation monitor used will respond in a similar manner when a
90-volt battery is shorted along the stainless steel screen that
surrounds the Geiger counter and forms the return path of the
electrical circuit. A current of several amps will then flow
through the screen, whose resistance is about 3 Ohms. It appears
that a Geiger counter connected in this way is a sensitive detector
of voltage transients, since they force it off the plateau of
its characteristic.
Table 1
Phenom- Phenom- Number Weight
Session enon enon Condi- of Wit- differ-
number number Specimen type tions nesses ence (mg)
1 1 2 Yale 1 Super- 4 -0.1 ñ 0.2
keys vised -0.1
simul-
taneous)
2 2 Molyb- 1 Super- 8 Unknown
denum vised
single
crystal
2 3 Yale key 1 Super- 8 -1.1 ñ 1.0
vised
2 4 Stainless 1 Not 2 Unknown
steel super-
paper knife vised
2 5 Yale key 1 Not 3 Unknown
super-
vised
3 6 Yale key 1 Super- 4 Unknown
vised
4 7 Stainless 2 Super- 3 +0.4 ñ 0.2
steel vised
spoon
4 8 Vanadium 4 Super- 4 Unknown
carbide vised
single crys-
tal disc
The Approach to Experimentation
We have come to reaise that in certain ways the traditional ideal
of the completely impersonal approach of the natural sciences
to experimentation will not be adequate in this domain. Rather,
there is a personal aspect that has to be taken into account in
a way that is somewhat similar to that needed in the disciplines
of psychology and medicine. This does not mean, of course, that
it is not possible to establish facts on which we can count securely.
Rather, it means that we have to be sensitive and observant,
to discover what is a right approach, which will properly allow
for the subjective element and yet permit us to draw reliable
inferences.
One of the first things that reveals itself as one observes is
that psychokinetic phenomena cannot in general be produced unless
all who participate are in a relaxed state. A feeling of tension,
fear, or hostility on the part of any of those present generally
communicates itself to the whole group. The entire process goes
most easily when all those present actively want things to work
well. In addition, matters seem to be greatly facilitated when
the experimental arrangement is aesthetically or imaginatively
appealing to the person with apparent psychokinetic powers.
We have found also that it is generally difficult to produce
a predetermined set of phenomena. Although this may sometimes
be done, what happens is often surprising and unexpected. We
have observed that the attempt to concentrate strongly in order
to obtain a desired result (e.g., the bending of a piece of metal)
tends to interfere with the relaxed state of mind needed to produce
such phenomena. It appears that what is actually done is mainly
an unconscious function of the mind, and that once the intention
to do something has been firmly
established, the conscious functions of the mind, insofar as they
have bearing on the goal, tend to become more of a hindrance than
a help. Indeed, we have sometimes found it useful at this stage
to talk of, or think about, something not closely related to what
is happening, so as to decrease the tendency to excessive conscious
concentration on the intended aim of the experiment. A comparison
might be made with the process of trying to go to sleep, for which
one needs a firm intention, without subsequent efforts.
Many of the conditions described above are also required for
fruitful research in the natural sciences. Thus, if any of those
who participate in a physical experiment are tense or hostile,
and do not really want the experiment to work, the chances of
success are greatly diminished. Likewise, the aesthetic appeal
of the experimental setup often helps to maintain interest and
enthusiasm, but an attitude that consistently tends to damp these
is evidently detrimental to the whole enterprise. In the study
of psychokinetic phenomena, such conditions are much more important
than in the natural sciences, because the person who produces
these phenomena is not an instrument or a machine. Any attempt
to treat him as such will almost certainly lead to failure. Rather,
he must be considered to be one of the group, actively cooperating
in the experiment, and not a "subject" whose behavior
is to he observed "from the outside" in as cold and
impersonal manner as possible.
The following analogy may help to give a more orderly overall
description of the phenomena in the field. Consider a person
whose hand has been paralyzed as a result of destruction of nervous
tissue. If this person is to regain the use of his hand, he must
somehow activate new nervous pathways. As to how he is to do
this, he does not know. All he can do is, with all his energy,
to feel out the possibilities of movement and to observe with
great attention and alertness what movements actually take place.
He cannot describe, or even think about, just what it is that
he does in getting his hand to move. Moreover, he cannot at first
produce controlled movements, which bring about consciously intended
results. Rather, it is clear that the contact between brain and
hand is brought about almost entirely by unconscious functions
of the mind, which tend to be erratic and fortuitous. Of course,
if he works with sustained interest and energy, he will generally
find that his movements do begin to come closer to what he intended
them to be. But it is also clear that if he is surrounded by
people who do not believe that he can move his hand, or who, through
hostility, bring about a state of psychological tension, then
he will he less likely to be able to sustain the interest and
energy needed for learning how to move his hand.
Those who work with such a person (e.g., the physiotherapist)
must evidently share in the confidence that the ability to move
the hand will eventually come
about. The thoughts in the paralyzed person's mind, and those
in the minds of his colleagues, are both important factors in
bringing about success. The necessary confidence about the ultimate
result must be maintained in the minds of all concerned, while
at the same time there is a healthful capacity to be tentative
and open-minded in statements about what particular results may
have been achieved at a certain stage. And so reliable inferences
can be made in physiotherapy, though by methods that are rather
different from those used traditionally in the natural sciences.
The analogy between this field and that of psychokinetic research
is fairly clear. The main difference is this: We can account
for, and to some extent explain, the connection between the brain
and the hand in the case of the paralyzed person (through the
nerves that link them), but we have no way either to account for,
or to explain, the connection between the brain and the object
that is moved, bent, etc., in terms of what is now known to science.
However, if we suppose that there is some at present unknown
force, energy, or mode of connection, then we may also suppose
that psychokinetic power may function in a way that is essentially
similar to the power to move the hand. Thus, one might suggest
that perhaps there is an unconscious "feeling out" of
the connection. In many cases there is a visible "feedback"
that enables a person to recognize that he has done something,
and that permits him to try to go further along the same (indescribable
and undefinable) lines. But there may be other forms of feedback.
Thus, if the metal can respond to the brain in an unknown way,
the brain may similarly respond to the metal. By being sensitively
aware of this response, the person concerned might be able to
tell when something had actually happened, even though the object
in question was not sensually perceptible to him.
It is important, at this point, not to insist on having a potential
theoretical
explanation before one will seriously consider observing the phenomena
themselves. Thus, when magnetic and electrostatic effects were
first observed, it was impossible to account for them in terms
of the then known forces, which were considered to arise only
when bodies are in mechanical contact. Evidently, this did not
prevent their being observed. The main aim of such observation
is to give rise to an orderly account of the phenomena, which
is first qualitative and then quantitative, e.g., first the qualitative
observation that like charges repel, unlike charges attract, and
then the quantitative observation that the force is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance. On the basis of such
an account, current field-theoretical explanations of electromagnetic
phenomena were later developed. We propose a similar approach
to psychokinetic phenomena, and in ways described earlier in this
article, we have begun to carry it out.
In such research an attitude of mutual trust and confidence is
needed; we should not treat the person with psychokinetic powers
as an "object" to be observed with suspicion. Instead,
as indicated earlier, we have to look on him as one who is working
with us. Consider how difficult it would be to do a physical experiment
if each person were constantly watching his colleagues to be sure
that they did not trick him. How, then, are we to avoid the possibility
being tricked? It should be possible to design experimental arrangements
that are beyond any reasonable possibility of trickery, and that
magicians will generally acknowledge to be so. In the first stages
of our work we did, in fact, present Mr. Geller with several such
arrangements, but these proved to be aesthetically unappealing
to him. From our early failures, we learned that Mr. Geller worked
best when presented with many possible objects, all together,
on a metal surface; at least one of these objects might appeal
to him sufficiently to stimulate his energies. In our fourth
session, we had such a setup, which included, as described earlier,
two small plastic capsules, each containing a thin disc of vanadium,
carbide single crystal. A clearly observable change in the disc
within one of the capsules was brought about when Mr. Geller held,
his hands near them.
In discussions with magicians we have learned that the best conditions
for a conjuring trick arise when the happening significantly precedes
the observation. In the above instance we believe that the conditions
were such that the failure to observe and record the precise moment
of change is of no importance, because there is no known way of
producing this effect within the closed capsule and no possibility
of substitution. For this reason we conclude that this was something
that no magician could have done.
Nevertheless, we reaise that conditions such as we have described
in this paper are just those in which a conjuring trick may easily
be carried out. We understand also that we are not conjuring
experts, so if there should be an intention to deceive, we may
be as readily fooled as any person. Moreover, there has been
a great of public criticism, in which the possibility of such
tricks has been strongly suggested. For this reason it has often
been proposed that a skilled magician should be present, to help
to see to it that there will be no possibility of deception.
It is in the nature of the case, however, that no such assurance
can actually be given. For a skilled magician is able to exploit
each new situation as it arises in a different and generally unpredictable
way. The corpus of tricks is not fixed, but rather continually
changes and evolves. A particular magician could therefore say
at most that he knew of no tricks that could have brought about
a given set of observed phenomena. Of course, if several magicians
of recognized proficiency were to conclude that what was done
on a certain occasion did not involve any tricks, this could help
create a presumption in favor of the notion that the phenomena
are genuine. In principle, we would welcome help of this kind
in decreasing the possibility of deception. It has been our observation,
however, that magicians are often hostile to the whole purpose
of this sort of investigation, so they tend to bring about an
atmosphere of tension in which little or nothing can be done.
Indeed, even if some magicians were found who were not disposed
in this way, it does not follow that their testimony will convince
those who are hostile, since the latter can always suppose that
new tricks were involved, beyond the capacity of those particular
magicians to see through them. Because of all of this, it seems
unlikely that significant progress toward clearing up this particular
question could be made by actually having magicians present at
the sessions, though we have found it useful to have their help
in a consultative capacity. We have learned in such consultations
not to stop watching the identified specimen from the first moment
when it reaches the hand of the subject until the bend occurs.
We are familiar with the use of the human hair in producing small
movements, with the use of mercuric salts in alcohol to corrode
metals, and with the weakening in metals produced by continued
bending to and fro. We recognize that there is a genuine difficulty
in obtaining an adequate answer to criticisms concerning the possibility
of tricks, and that a certain healthy skepticism or doubt on the
part of, the reader may be appropriate at this point. Indeed,
it would be inappropriate if the scientific community did not
at first react in such a way. However, we believe that our approach
can adequately meet this situation.
It is essential that in at least some experiments conditions
must be controlled in such a way that the possibility of deception
is insignificant. Metal-bending and cleavage experiments are
particularly suitable for this approach. Encapsulated specimens
can play an important part, although up to the present we have
been able to achieve success with only one such specimen.
We feel that if similar sessions continue to be held, instances
of this kind might accumulate, and there will be no room for reasonable
doubt that some new process is involved here, which cannot be
accounted for, or explained, in terms of the laws of physics at
present known. Indeed, we already feel that we have very nearly
reached this point. We expect, however, to carry out more tests
along these general lines and to report on them when results are
available.
Back to books list.
Back to main index.
Back to Uri Geller's home page.