Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Psychokinesis possible?

  1. Aug 21, 2004 #1
    I was bored surfing the web one night a while back and I stumbled across some information discussing how to basically move things with your mind, among other things.

    It gave a quick exercise you could do yourself for practicing this. You basically just put a little piece of paper in the shape of a pinwheel on a little needle ( to reduce the friction so it's easier to move) and then basically try to move it following their instructions which is basically just visualizations and trying to relax your conscious and what not.

    Well, much to my suprise on the third night of practice the paper wheel actually began to spin on the needle. Being the little scientist that I am I immediately began to try and close off as many variables as I could.. I moved my hand away and watched for it to stop to see if it was a draft in the room.. I leaned back and had my arm fully extended to it with my face turned to the side to make sure I wasn't breathing on it. I moved my hand up to it slowly to make sure I wasn't creating a draft in that way also. I tried just putting my arm close to it to see if it was just an electrical charge of some kind, and no movement was seen.

    Basically what I discovered was that the darn thing would actually spin whenever and however I put my hand close enough to it, and it would stop when my hand wasn't close to it.

    Personally I still don't think I was doing it with my mind and I've come to these physics forums to try and see if there is some law of nature unknown to me that is the real cause of the paper moving.. Any theories on why the paper reacts would be greatly appreciated.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 21, 2004 #2
    my guess is static electricity.cold dry air and carpet.you can rub your hand through your hair and the paper will move.
  4. Aug 21, 2004 #3
    You did not do it although it is possible and quite a bit more. You can do more....
  5. Aug 21, 2004 #4
    It is admirable that you actually applied the scientific method to this concept instead of pseudo-scientifically dismissing it without further thought.

    Last edited: Aug 21, 2004
  6. Aug 21, 2004 #5
    What we know as psychokinesis will not be proven as a fact until a science is developed that takes into account Quantum Physics, Biophysics and specifically Neurophysics.

    As for the strange spining phenomenon? I agree with Merak, static electricity is perhaps the only logical reason for the incident, with the creator of the program using it as a placebo to cause you to believe that maybe you have this ability.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

    Though I have to say that I do believe that psychokinesis is present; it just hasn't been proven yet.

    And if you know scientists like I do then even the possiblity of proving it down the road is good enough.

    We just don't have the scientific or technological means to do it yet.

    Good luck with trying to prove it. I'm rooting for you.
  7. Aug 21, 2004 #6
    The problem that I have been battling with both in this physics forum and elsewhere on the internet is how human beings understand 'CAUSAL RELATION' in a logically and quantitativelly sensible form.

    The first problem is how we define and understand terms such as 'Physical', non-physical', 'existence', non-existence', 'Nothing', 'something', 'normal' and a whole host of others. These terms, unless someone out there is prepared to take a painful effort to look at them more clearly, they always seem to manifest into pure vagueness. That is why have I always asked these questions about some of these terms:

    1) When something is invisible or unobservable, are we to understand it as being non-physical?

    2) When something is invisible or unobservable, are we to understand it as being non-existent?

    3) When a moving object is too fast so as not to see and track it, are we to treat it as non-material (such as we think of ghosts, souls, and supernatural beings)?

    4) When a physical event is too fast so as to see and track it (see and track how it started, how it occured through time, and how it ended), are we to conclude and call it a 'miracle' or 'magic'?

    5) When something changes from observable physical state to a non-observable 'non-physical' state, are we to declare that thing as changing from somthing to nothing?

    And one of the things that amazes me up till this day is that we totally seem to forget that we are by our original design visually limited. Our visual organs are naturally suspended within a clearly quantifiable visual scale of reference. That is, we only see what is within our own preset visual time scale of reference. That is why it would be quantitatively and logically absurd to talk of such concept as continuity of an uccurring event or a moving object in different time scales and visual frames of reference in the very same way that we understand it within the human context. The fundamental truth is that time scales fluctuate. It is almost absurd to declare that a thing or an event enveloped in an infinitely brief micro-second is continuing. Or that at the cosmologicaly time scale, a cosmological object or event which takes millions of years to complete a single cycle of its function is within the human visual frame of reference continuing. These are hard-headed quantitative and logical issues that are often being muddled up at casual conversational level. At least flue viruses, cancer viruses, and AIDS viruses and many other notoriously clever viruses in the human body have taught medical scientists a completely new way to understand the notion of continuity.

    Please, dizzy world stop let me get out!

    Proper multidisciplinary conduct must help us now or in the nearest future disentangle this muddle!
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2004
  8. Aug 21, 2004 #7
    On the issue of the possibility of Psychokinesis, my own examination of it and other supersensitive phenomena show that human bodies (though still at a very primitive stage) are already able to physically communicate with each without conscious-level visual attention in a purely two-way conversational basis. In nearly all such notions as being able to relate in certain way to other people, convince people to do things, fall in love, condole someone, thinking what someone else thinks, and a huge catolgue of other interactive activities, the physical human bodies involved do almost 93% of the talking,,,,,,and when we do the remaining 7% of the job via the crude mechanism of oral and written language, we claim victory and pride ourselves to have done everything in the process.

    When you do fail to score in any of such interactive ways so mentioned, don't cry yourself to sleep, your physical bodies have innitiated and sensed somehting at the physical level that makes both of you incompatible or unable to bond or cope with one anotther........it's not something you should go to war over.

    On the issue of influencing objects at a short or long distance, why should we involve the immaterial supersensitive or unaccountable superforce? I am not against the notion that phsical functional states may approach critical thresholds or states, but that does not suddenly turn them into unaccountable superstates, unless you the observer is willing to gracefully admit your own visual or observational limititations within the context of your original human form and the physical configuration of your body parts, inclduing your visual organs. Physics and any other related science must either explain such physical influences or effects, or simply admit and settle confidently that they are not part of science. Or simply that the whole physical human form needs to be structurally and functionally re-engineered to eliminate all these inexplicable intervening phantoms.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2004
  9. Aug 22, 2004 #8
    Psychon919 wrote:

    Thanks for rooting for me..(?)... but I do not believe in psychokinesis until there is enough evidence to convince me otherwise.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook