Schmidt, H., Collapse of the State Vector and Psychokinetic Effect, Foundations of Physics, 12, 1982, pp 565-581.
Psychokinesis - the effect of the mind upon matter - is a well-studied phenomenon. Most studies of psychokinesis (PK) use random or quasi-random systems, as these systems are thought to be easier to influence with the mind than larger objects. Once you are dealing with random systems, it's not too much of a leap to the problem of state selection in quantum physics. This article attempts to bring together what was known about PK and what was known (or thought to be known) about the crux of quantum physics - the collapse of the state vector (and the selection of a single state from many possible states) by the observer.
The stated purpose of this article is to introduce equations for the collapse of the state vector that allow for the type of mental influence that PK represents, and the first part of the article rehashes some of the basic point of quantum physics and the role of the observer. I'm not really going to dwell on this, as the idea of a permanent collapse caused by a conscious observer is not the best model for understanding Smearland. What you do want from this article are the pieces of information about successful PK efforts that will help you understand what an inhabitant of Smearland needs to do in order to successfully select the outcome s/he wants.
Schmidt accepts the premise that "human will can under certain conditions affect the outcome of random processes", as do I (obviously) as this has repeatedly been shown to be true by many laboratory studies. Schmidt also acknowledges the major obstacles with this type of research - small effect sizes and the decline in subjects' interest in and motivation to complete the task. (More about overcoming these obstacles in future posts.)
The fact that decreasing interest in the task is a problem when studying these effects should indicate that mechanisms involved in attentional focus have a role to play in selecting the outcome... Keep this in mind.
Schmidt introduces two variables that he feels represent critical aspects of the PK effect - K, "the alertness parameter", which represents the idea that "a highly alert observer might produce a faster collapse of the state vector than a sleepy one"; and E, "the PK coefficient", which measures "the strength of the associated psychokinetic effect". The variable K has no corresponding role in Navigating. The difference between an alert observer and a sleepy observer is not the speed with which a state vector collapse is achieved, but the relevant level of encoding of the observation into memory. The strength of the memory will determine its influence in subsequent observations. The variable E needs to be recast as well; the strength of a psychokinetic effect can only truly be measured when the expectations and prior knowledge involved are measured as well. In summary, these variables, as defined by Schmidt, attempt to quantify key factors for achieving PK effects, but they fall short of capturing exactly what is going on.
Another point worth noting in this article is that "the combined PK effect from the two observers cannot be stronger than the effect from the 'better' PK subject alone." (More on the effects of multiple observers in future posts.)
And finally, Schmidt approaches the idea that an observation does not completely collapse the state vector when he hypothesizes about "incomplete reductions" and "half asleep or inattentive" observers. However he stills suggests that a permanent reduction takes place somewhere along the way, with speculations about cats and cockroaches as effective observers.
We'll end with Schmidt's question - "Could the singular role of the human subject as source of the PK effect be related to the controversial role of the observer in quantum theory, and does the reported PK effect on quantum jumps indicate some incompleteness in the current quantum formalism?" Yes, and yes.
