Psychokinesis (PK) is the ability of a human being to affect objects, events, or people without using the usual intervention by the muscular system. It is often described today as the direct influence of consciousness on physical systems (i.e. 'mind over matter'). ² However, PK is a much less frequently reported phenomena than ESP and hardly every occurs spontaneously (aside from poltergeist activity).

Most contemporary research into PK involves examining the "direct influence of consciousness on finely balanced electronic devices (PK on atomic particles)" ² and this has become known as micro-PK (or "a subtle effect measurable only against the laws of chance" ³, or the ability to change the probability of random events). The traditional PK, such as object movements, is now frequently called macro-PK (or an observable effect on an object).

Such a radical differences between micro-PK and macro-PK definitions leads to the question of whether or not micro-PK and macro-PK are the same phenomena. As of yet, parapsychologists are not sure. A micro-PK ability, however, is being considered more and more likely by physicists experimenting in quantum mechanics.

One of the most famous macro-PK subjects in recent years is a Russian woman by the name of Nina Kulagina. Kulagina has mainly been studied by Soviet scientists in the late 1960's (though a select few American parapsychologists have been able to conduct brief experiments with her), and her abilities include being able to move various small items. To address the issue of fraud, Kulagina had been investigated by several committees and individuals from impartial scientific and medical institutes, and these investigations confirmed the genuineness of her abilities.

One interesting note regarding Kulagina's PK ability is that it seemed to use up a large amount of physical energy. "Her heartbeat sometimes reached 240 beats per minute...after a session her blood sugar would be elevated and her weight reduced by as much as three pounds. In any sustained investigation it was necessary to allow rest periods for Kulagina to recover." ²

In the United States, a hematologist by the name of Felicia Parise experimented with moving objects in her own home after viewing some tapes of Kulagina. Her technique was simply to try and move the object out of sheer concentration. After a while, Parise discovered that "if she worked herself up to a level of concentration that involved a truly intense physical effort, she could actually will the [object] to move." However, in these experiments, Parise, like Kulagina, seemed to use up a large amount of physical energy. ²

One example of an ambitious attempt to study such macro-PK phenomena involved a group of the Toronto Society for Psychical Research. The eight members of this group created a fictitious ghost by the name of "Philip" who would be given responsibility for any PK movement that occurred. After several months of practice, they group was finally able to levitate the table.

Again, while this study could never be quoted in the laboratory, it did offer some useful insights into the facilitation of PK effects. For example, it was noted that PK effects were more likely to occur when everyone participating sincerely believed that something would happen. PK effects were also facilitated by the removal of responsibility from any one person in the group: any results achieved were due to a combined effort (or, in the case of the Toronto group, Philip's efforts).

While the experiments of the Toronto group, as well as those with Kulagina and Parise, were able to revive the parapsychological interest in PK (mainly by removing it from association with mediumship), macro-PK would still remain a field of study outside of the laboratory.

Why this is so depends in part on the fact that macro-PK will always simply be anecdotes of what was observed by whom. Although the technology to measure such effects has rapidly increased, macro-PK cannot be quantified and measured statistically, as are the results of micro-PK.

Today, micro-PK comprises a large part of parapsychology research, since it is beginning to look like micro-PK plays a large part in the theories revolving around quantum physics and the "role of human consciousness in determining reality at the subatomic level." ² If this turns out to be true, micro-PK may be just the thing to bring parapsychology into the mainstream of scientific acceptance.

Experimentation into PK was first developed by J.B. Rhine in the 1930's when a young many walked into the Duke University Parapsychology Laboratory and claimed that he could influence the fall of dice by sheer will power.

Rhine decided to test his abilities and eventually found them to be genuine, thus giving rise to a whole new field of study: micro-PK. While Rhine and other parapsychologists continued to conduct standardized micro-PK research, it wasn't until the 1960's that PK research was revolutionized by Helmut Schmidt.

Previously, results obtained by many PK tests were ridiculed by the scientific community as being prone to experimental faults or chance. However, Schmidt began using more advanced methods, namely emerging technology, in his experiments to rule out these criticisms.

One of Schmidt's earlier experiments involved an electronic coin flipper controlled by the random decay of radioactive particles, as in his random number generators. In this experiment, Schmidt asked his subjects to attempt to influence the fall of the coins (heads or tails), and a significant statistical deviation from chance was observed.

Later experiments involved a more advanced version of Schmidt's random number generators, this time geared more towards PK than precognition. This RNG used the same decaying of strontium-90 to ensure a truly random outcome, but consisted of a ring of nine lights that would light randomly in any direction. The goal of the experiment was to try and use PK to influence the direction the lights appeared: either continually clockwise or counterclockwise.

Many of Schmidt's experiments revealed that PK may be a "goal-oriented process." Schmidt, after substituting his technologically simple RNG's with a more complex design, attempted to see if there was any difference in PK ability. The results were about the same, thus Schmidt concluded that the internal workings of the system--as long as it was a truly random process--did not matter. ²

With the advent of computers, PK experiments became even more highly controlled. For example, a later experiment conducted by the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (PEAR, which has been the largest contributor to PK research) involved a subject who was seated in front of a computer screen which displayed a moving line: the graph of the outputs of the RNG (either 0 or 1). If the RNG produced a 0, the graph moved upwards; if it produced a 1, it moved downwards. With a 50-50 chance outcome, one would expect the graph to fluctuate slightly, but remain more or less near the center horizontal line on the screen. ⁶

The subject's goal would be to try and move the line consistently in one direction, either up or down. Some methods used by subjects included visualization, wishing, or willing. The overall results of these experiments revealed that people were able cause a significant deviation in the RNG output.

However, the PEAR lab differs from Schmidt's experimental approach in quite a few aspects. First, unlike Schmidt, the researchers at the PEAR lab do not preselect subjects with prior demonstrated psi ability.

This difference in methodology once again raises the question of whether psi ability is something everyone has to differing degrees, as the PEAR lab believes, or if it is an ability that only a few "gifted" people possess, as Schmidt seemed to believe. The answer is as yet unknown. ²

Despite the many experiments that have proven that something is happening in micro-PK research, the scientific community is generally unwilling to accept the evidence because of the fact that the effect is so minuscule.

It has been concluded, though, that factors which facilitate PK are a lightened state of mind, a belief that the PK is achievable, and a sense that the effects are achieved by a group as a whole, as opposed to any individual person. Indeed, it seems as if PK effects which are slight in an individual are amplified in a group setting. Perhaps, if groups were able to participate in micro-PK experiments, the results would become statistically large enough for the scientific community to take notice. ³

However, no presentation of information on PK is complete without a brief note regarding the famed psychic Uri Geller, known for his metal bending tricks. Geller's claims launched a new area of PK research (much of which was contributed to by several "Geller clones" who came forward immediately after Geller's rise to fame, claiming that they, too, could bend spoons and other small metal objects).

John Hasted of London did several experiments with metal bending, in one of which he was able to record signals of possible PK being focused on metal objects through the use of electronic strain gauges. Hasted also noted that some metal benders actually changed the structure of the metal itself, making it "as soft as chewing gum." Further studies have shown that the changes in composition of the metal is not the result of external forces, but rather of internal metal stress. ³

Other investigations with Geller included remote viewing experiments conducted at the Stanford Research Institute which proved extremely successful. ²

One of Geller's staunchest critics, magician James Randi, claims that Geller performs his abilities with sleight-of-hand tricks that are common to any conjurer. However, extensive investigations have been conducted with Geller, some by other experienced conjurers, and no viable methods of fraud have yet been determined.