Talk:Harold E. Puthoff

Scientology
I cited the (scurrilious?) allegation that Puthoff outranks Cruise within Scientology. After a casual search of various websites, I can't find this repeated elsewhere. Can anyone confirm his involvement in Scientology? Does anyone know if there is a large Scientology presence in Austin, TX?---CH 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Puthoff's own edit, he was involved in scientology in the 70s but is no longer. Puddytang 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can confirm Puthoff's involvement at Scientology's Celebrity Centre in Los Angeles in the early 70's, as I worked there as an auditor and case supervisor. Both he and Ingo Swann came in for auditing on a regular basis during the SRI experiments.

Past biocruft
For the record: I just found out that User:Infrogmation deleted a previous wikibio, Hal Puthoff, on 24 June 2004; see this log. The current article was apparently created by User:GangofOne on 2 October 2005, probably w/out knowing about the earlier version. ---CH 07:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is kinda weird: User:RickK deleted yet another article, Harald Puthoff, on 2 Nov 2003, noting that the entire content of the article read "Harold PuthoffCriminal at large!". ---CH 07:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Students beware
I have extensively edited previous verson and had been monitoring this for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. This article concerns a controversial topic. Given past edits by the subject of this biography, who is a highly controversial figure who mainstream physicists regard as a fringe physicist (at best), and who has a wide following among laypersons with more enthusiasm than good scientific judgement, interested in topics including I have reason to believe that at least some future versions of this article are likely to contain slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation. Beware also of external links to other websites, which may attempt to portray pseudoscience or fringe science topics as notions regarded by mainstream physicists as scientific, which is often not the case.
 * any of dozens of "low to no cost energy from the vacuum schemes" which would violate the laws of thermodynamics and consitute a perpetual motion machine,
 * any of dozens of proposed spacecraft propulsion schemes, ranging from highly speculative fringe speculations to outright pseudoscience,
 * devotees of various conspiracy theories and paranormal topics

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Puthoff's doctorate and research for the CIA and stuff is based on more than just his word isn't it?   I'm using him as a reference in remote viewing, It's not a hoax is it.  Can anyone add references to the actual (alleged?) FOIA documents?  Puddytang 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tone/Puthoff's actual beliefs
I was just reading the experiments page(on the long un-updated earthtech site, where many broken links on this page lead) and in the the reports for both the LENR and ZPE devices he never comes to a definitive conclusion of over-unity operation or a confirmation of polarizable vacuum theory/stochastic electrodynamics in any of them. In fact on the fusor page(http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/fusor/bigsys3.html) he states, "Counting the heat power generated by this experiment, the observed ratio of Pout/Pin is therefore about 1.0000000001. Yes, EarthTech has finally observed the excess heat phenomenon!". You probably need a sense of humour in order to do the work he does and it makes you wonder how seriously he takes it. Maybe the article should be written a bit to reflect this. 98.154.22.134 (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PhD
A user has raised concerns that Puthoff might not have a PhD. According to these references he does and "Dr. Puthoff holds bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Florida and in 1967 was awarded a Ph.D. from Stanford University." Goblin Face (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I found another reference:

Jack David, ‎Michael Park. (1978). Playback: Canadian Selections. McClelland and Stewart. p. 68. "Hal Puthoff, has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University. He worked for the Naval Security Group in Washington and then for the National Security Agency." Goblin Face (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And another:

Hugh Urban. (2013). The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. Princeton University Press. p. 113. "A physicist with a PhD from Stanford University, Harold Puthoff joined Scientology in the late 1960s and quickly advanced to the OT VII level by 1971." Goblin Face (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I too wondered about his PhD, as the sources given in the present article (as at March 23 2021) don't seem definitive. Whether or not someone has a PhD from a named university is surely a matter of public record at the university itself.  In searching for 'Stanford, Puthoff' I found a webpage at stanford.academia.edu which describes him with the rubric 'Stanford University, Electrical Engineering, Alumnus' which appears to confirm a connection with the university, but does not specify a PhD. I did a few more searches but couldn't find anything definitive, i.e. demonstrably not derived from Hal Puthoff's own claims.  I would be surprised if they are false, as public figures don't usually make false claims that can be easily exposed, but it would be desirable to give a better source if one exists.  I don't know enough about American university records to do this myself.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:9559:88CB:6D2F:31FD (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PhD Thesis: The stimulated Raman effect and its application as a tunable laser https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/775683 Not publicly accessible, but requestable from offsite through Stanford.Naraht (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Involvement with Anti-Gravity and NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program
Puthoff has ongoing involvements with members of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program that ought to be mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program#Hal_Puthoff.27s_involvement

Neuroscience325 (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments On Puthoff Patent and Curl Free Potential
I added a short paragraph with references about the controversy and resolution of claims and counter claims in Puthoff's patent for information transmitted through a curl free potential. A much longer story is left out concerning the underlying science and disputes for or against the claims. The law school reference makes a firm statement that the patent appeal process was concluded in Puthoff's favor, and the topic is too advanced for most reviewers. Editors wanting more information can refer to the topic of Magnetic Potential which gets very technical. Puthoff's patent leaves a serious question unanswered about what form of energy is transmitted without electric or magnetic fields. It would make an interesting essay by suitable experts, but doesn't belong on this page. Astrojed (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Before Puthoff's patent on curl free potential, an unrelated inventor Raymond C. Gelinas working for Honeywell received 11 patents in six years 1980 to 1986 using the same principles as Puthoff' patent, but with different claims for different inventions.

Readers are advised to be cautious when looking at claims and counter claims about Harold Puthoff. With years (1972 to 1985) in secret government agencies, and other years in speculative and futuristic organizations, compared to a list of patents as evidence of technical accomplishments, there seems to be a blending of science and guess work.

-- Astrojed (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

All of the above information on 'granted' patents is untrue. The patents were merely published. Many incredibly worthless patents are published. To be meaningful and 'money-making', the patent has to be granted. It is very simple to tell the difference: if the patent number is followed by an 'A', it has merely been published. If it is followed by a 'B', then it has been granted. This is a trick (implying that mere published patents are valid) that is widely used by the lunatic fringe ... and is fallen-for by gullible laymen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.21.100 (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

While the A, B patent designation described by IP 86.191.21.100 is correct, it is necessary to view the original document because the European Patent server espace.net does not always update the suffix in a patent title although the original document is updated. With the Puthoff patent US5845220 the suffix has been removed. Also in the USPTO reference page the indication is that the patent was applied for in 1993 and granted in 1998.

The referenced university law school explains the situation that a review board examined the Puthoff appeal and decided in his favor after years of delay.

Compared to the related Gelinas patent, the patent title still has (A) while the original document on the same server has been updated and shows the patent was applied for in 1980 and issued in 1984.

Astrojed (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Massimo Pigliucci viewpoint due or not?
"Massimo Pigliucci has written Puthoff's research into zero-point energy is considered to be a pseudoscience." I don't understand the apparently changing rationale of the ip that has been edit-warring over this. Anyone have ideas? Is the material due weight in the article or not?

--Ronz (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get it either. Pigliucci is relevant, whether the IP agrees with him or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the claim. The claim is in conflict with the Wikipedia article on zero-point energy. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if it were in conflict with that, it would not matter. But it is not. I have reverted the removal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm I get your point, but this statement seems off. The zero-point article seems to indicate that this is a minority view, and should be worded to reflect as much. If needed, would a statement by someone else that Pigliucci is wrong be enough? It would keep Pigliucci and also point out his view is a minority view and conflicts with the state of the art. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment from ip claiming to be Puthoff
(From my talk page --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)): "Harold E. Puthoff here.  I continue to attempt to remove the false statement at the end of the Wikipedia article on me in which author Massimo Pigliucci reports that my research on vacuum energy physics (zero-point energy physics)"is considered to be a pseudoscience." Unsubstantiated & false opinion by author of a book for the public does not trump several peer-reviewed publications in Tier 1 physics journals like Physical Review, such as:

H. E. Puthoff, "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D 35, 3266 (1987);

H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev A 47, 3454 (1993).

H. E. Puthoff, "On the source of vacuum electromagnetic zero-point Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989);

D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum," Phys. Rev. E 48,1562 (1993);

B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point field Lorentz force," Phys. Rev. A 49, 678 (1994).

Please remove the last false and unsubstantiated statement by author Massimo Pigliucci and permit me to offer edits again (it appears that through your edit refusals I've been banned for attempting to correct the record with documentation)."


 * Thanks for contacting me about this. I hope you don't mind my moving it here to the article talk page.
 * Are there any publications not by you that show this as a promising area of research, or that show a wide acceptance of the claims?
 * As far as Pibliucci's opinions on the matter, are there any publications not by you that share your concerns? --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(From my talk page --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)): After I submitted to you evidence that the entry that my research into vacuum zero-point energy, considered pseudoscience by a popular book author, was absolutely false, I provided to you a list of publications in Physical Review, one of the top Tier 1 physics journals, on my work. You challenged me to cite any reference where my work was lauded by others. I can hardly do better than to reference the laudatory article in Science on my work that came out right after I and my colleagues published an article on vacuum energy being a source of inertia for an accelerated particle. See Science, 4 February 1994, vol 263, Issue 5147, pp. 612-613: "Inertia: Does Empty Space Put Up the Resistance?" (We were even nominated for a very prestigious prize for that work.)

Unfortunately, whoever was responsible for constructing the wikipedia article on me apparently has the power to gather false accusations without an avenue for recourse by the individual to be able to correct the record. Though valiantly attempting to correct the record with facts, my ability to even use the edit button has been removed, having been accused of "edit wars." I now realize that wikipedia is a very flawed source of information, my own case being an example of the first water. If that falsehood on my work (last sentence in the entry on me) is not removed given the evidence I have provided, I give up.
 * http://science.sciencemag.org/content/263/5147/612 - I'm not clear what this is. Independent commentary on the research? It certainly was a long time ago. What came of it? --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "evidence that the entry that my research into vacuum zero-point energy, considered pseudoscience by a popular book author, was absolutely false"
 * I can't even. Is he saying that Pigliucci didn't say it? He probably means that Pigliucci is wrong. But that's not the point. We quote what reliable sources say, and Pigliucci is one. What other RS say about Puthoff could be quoted too but the linked article does not really say much - it sounds like the usual "scientist say they found out that..." stuff. Meh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have simplified Pigliucci's claim to more closely follow what Pigliucci said, to more clearly identify Pigliucci as the source of the assertion that the Wikipedia article (and everyone cited within) is wrong. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Harold is indeed allowed permitted to offer edits within bounds of the English Wikipedia policies, and always has been. Have at it, take care. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Jahn ref
Content cited to the Jahn reference has been added
 * here at 17:32, 14 March 2017
 * here at 16:27, 15 March 2017
 * here at 17:52, 16 March 2017

I found that paper and read it, and it is.. fascinating and carefully written. One of the things it pounds home is that these studies cannot be replicated. The content being added that is cited to this source, misrepresents and dishonors the source. Not happy. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harold E. Puthoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925131935/http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2006-4/rislove.pdf to http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2006-4/rislove.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Navbox
Parapsychology contains no link to this article. Could someone please remove it? Thanks.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harold E. Puthoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150811083616/http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html to http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Zero-point energy
New discussion since discussions above are from a decade ago and hard to follow. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Since I am trying to catch up here, I think a recap may be in order. What's the cusp of this disagreement as it stands? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't edit-war. See WP:BRD.
 * Don't ping me, I have a watchlist.
 * Hm I get your point, but this statement seems off. The zero-point article seems to indicate that this is a minority view, and should be worded to reflect as much. If needed, would a statement by someone else that Pigliucci is wrong be enough? It would keep Pigliucci and also point out his view is a minority view and conflicts with the state of the art This is bullshit. Puthoff's ideas are far-out, and Pigliucci is mainstream. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia.
 * You cannot just have a look at two Wikipedia articles, conclude they contradict each other, and then decide which one is wrong and "correct" it. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on itself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied by your addition of "extracting energy from" in reference to zero-point energy, which more accurately reflects the ZPE article. Before it had mentioned ZPE and immediately made the claim "that this is considered to be a pseudoscience", which contradicted the ZPE article. And not to be too abrasive, but yes, I can so conclude and decide, and I think you corrected this article. The first paragraph on this talk page clearly states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article". int21h (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Zero point energy is the lowest energy there is. If you could extract an energy E from it, the result would be zero point energy minus E, which would be a lower energy and which does not exist. So, zero point energy is a scientific concept, and extracting energy from it is not. I will remove that new irrelevant unsourced part from the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with extracting energy. Please read the peer-reviewed articles. ZPE is being explained in advance of summarizing said articles. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do those sources mention Puthoff? If not, they are invalid for this article.
 * This is silly. WP:UNDUE is not about deleting stuff, it is about adding undue stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's calm down. We appreciate the work you do, but you've been at this a while, maybe you should take a break. It is indeed relevant to explain the basic subject being discussed. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Being patronizing is not a replacement for addressing the items. How is WP:UNDUE a reason for adding stuff? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the third time: How is WP:UNDUE a reason for adding stuff? "Let's calm down" is not a response to that, and neither is "Indeed". Read WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The upshot of all this is that Puthoff advocates for ZPE ideas that are firmly pseudoscientific. There is no reason to have a separate section on this, we can include a sentence in the section on the paranormal and pseudoscience. jps (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Puthoff's claims regarding ZPE could be easily added under a subheading in Parapsychology and pseudoscience, after removing the preamble and clarifying what the 1987 paper was trying to demonstrate, and would follow the formula of the rest of that section if immediately after the refutation from Piglucci is included. Recon  rabbit  18:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am trying to incorporate there. I have not found any sources which document carefully the 1987 paper as a meaningful touchstone in the field. It looks to me that most of the citations are to either comrades-in-arms or compendiums. Not much in the way of establishing any serious interest on the part of the mainstream in this approach. jps (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral point of view: the work listed under Peer reviews.
The biographical text here ends with the controversial work of the 70s and 80s. Then work from the 80s and 90s is listed without text. To me that makes the bio lopsided. The work under peer reviews seems notable and thus should be treated in the same manner as the other material. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh? Can you specify exactly what you want as an edit? jps (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is tagged for POV, but there is no discussion topic. So I took a quick look and noted the thing that stuck out to me.
 * Rather than a list of "Peer-reviewed papers" which do not overlap the content of the article (AFAICT), these papers, if notable, should be discussed in the article. Conversely, the article mentions but does not cite "Targ and Puthoff's Nature paper" while citing two nature papers by other authors. Consequently the Peer Review section is adopting a POV to exclude that notable entry. These are the POV issues I noticed. I have no idea what the editor who added the tag was thinking as they did not post here.
 * (I would have attempted to contribute a fix, but the papers in the peer review section are all Physical Review and thus not accessible to the hoi-polloi. I did find Levin, Yefim S. "Inertia as a zero-point-field force: critical analysis of the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff inertia theory." Physical Review A 79.1 (2009): 012114 but again it is inaccessiable. In Davies, Paul CW, Tevian Dray, and Corinne A. Manogue. "Detecting the rotating quantum vacuum." Physical Review D 53.8 (1996): 4382. they cite the interial theory article as #8 thus: "In recent years there has been an attempt to revive a type of aether concept by appealing to the quantum vacuum [6,7], and even to link this quantum vacuum with Machian effects [8].") Johnjbarton (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources at Bernard Haisch may be appropriate, think i have Levin, anyway if you'll list what you need at WP:RX there a bunch of helpful editors who will mail these resources. fiveby(zero) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip about RX!
 * The Haisch page lists two works coauthored with Puthoff, one listed in this article and one, "Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation", which is peer reviewed. That this second paper was published in a journal is simply amazing to me. It has no content related to "inflation theory"; it's basically an opinion. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * More notes on secondary sources:
 * Gillies, George T. "The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related studies." Reports on Progress in Physics 60.2 (1997): 151.
 * Page 162 has a paragraph on Puthoff (1989), describing dispute with Carlip.
 * Millis, Marc G. (2005). "Assessing potential propulsion breakthroughs" (PDF). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1065: 441–461.
 * Summarizes several papers in the "Peer reviewed" list in a paragraph.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have converted all of the notable works previous listed under publications into text descriptions and removed the section. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I am happy this is getting off the ground. To be clear, I removed these papers previously because I did not find a tremendous citation rate for them, and there don't seem to be any lasting impact of these ideas that I can see. However, if anyone reading can summarize the situation better, I'd be thrilled. Stochastic electrodynamics is an obvious tagalong to this discussions. Whatever we can do to get this stuff into shape would be appreciated.

Note also that there is strong circumstantial evidence that the raison d'etre for this series of papers was to argue for an engineering approach to extract zero-point energy, an idea roundly criticized by essentially everyone who is not a member of that team who comes across it. Nevertheless, there are other less outlandish claims made in some of these Physical Review papers (not surprising -- unlikely that peer reviewers would have let complete rubbish slide) which may have had lasting impact especially, I suspect, in the way textbooks might treat certain physical phenomena while avoiding quantum mechanics. Try as I might, I cannot find any sources that show that this is the case, so it may also simply be something that is being actively ignored and we might want to invoke WP:UNDUE or WP:NFRINGE to excise the papers.

jps (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Notable?
Is there a consensus that Harold E. Puthoff is notable? I don't want to spend hours reading sources and writing a section in the article only to discover that it will be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would argue, contra others, that he is actually most notable for his fringe claims especially the remote viewing stuff. jps (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Remote viewing yes. I might argue some for "Inertia as a zero-point-field force" for a bit of scifi trivia, pop sci, and a news item in Science. But less so the more i look, Sturrock is providing the complimentary quotes in the news items, and i initially took Levin as some continuing interest, but after looking at the paper and author i'm not so sure. Also unsure about Paul S. Wesson's criticism for which they invoke Sakharov, i see cosmological constant and 1994 and don't know what to say about that now. fiveby(zero) 17:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As a biography this page should reflect all significant aspects of the subject, not limited to those we endorse and may include aspects which would not be notable on their own. IMO 5 publications in Physical Review are notable aspects that should be included in the article, if there is an article at all. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow this argument. Physical Review papers are certainly interesting things to consider and report on, but these particular papers are pretty thinly cited and lacking independent notice seems to me that we may not have enough written about these papers to discuss them properly. Still, I look forward to any workshopping. jps (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All content is subject to the same guidelines. My point is that are no extra guidelines involving our opinions once we agree that the subject itself is notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Pigliucci again
The article contains a quote from a book by Massimo Pigliucci. The quote raises more questions than answers.

The quote refers to unspecified work by Puthoff as disputed by anonymous "credentialed" physicists. Puthoff and his collaborators are "credentialed" and they have published work in peer reviewed physics journals. Have Pigliucci's physicists? Which papers did they read? Are they expert in the field? To me this quote is essential gossip.

For balance I added content related to Puthoff's published work on the thermodynamics of hypothetical Casimir devices. This work is broadly similar to other work in the field. Puthoff may have made extravagant claims elsewhere as alleged by Pigliucci, but Pigliucci does not tell us.

Consequently I would like to group the Pigliucci quote with the paragraph on Puthoff's thermodynamics paper.

(I find the arguments either way puzzling. The Casimir effect is mainstream physics but a tiny effect. Using it is not unconventional, but it's wildly impractical). Johnjbarton (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll defer this for a bit until I get my hands on the book again (I had to request it from the library). I believe, but cannot confirm, that the discussion was on a particular device. Related, I had another query. The new text states:


 * multiple layers of charged conductors sufficiently close for the short range Casimir force to compress the structure and store electrical energy; external electricity would be needed to recharge the device


 * I agree with everything up until the words beyond "...compress the structure..." but after this I think this is incorrect. The Casimir effect does not store electrical energy at all. The statement that "external electricity would be needed to recharge the device" I believe just says that some sort of hypothetical "Casimir battery" would require energy to separate the plates after they were forced together. In short, the amount of extracted energy (such that it is) will have to be reapplied to separate the Casimir plates. This is a good point (you cannot extract energy from the vacuum using the Casimir Effect unless you allow all Casimir batteries to remain collapsed for all time), but it doesn't appear to me to be clear from the presented text.

Pritchard apparently chaired some kind of "Abduction Study Conference" in 1992. fiveby(zero) 03:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * jps (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (@ජපස Please use different Talk page Topics to discuss different...topics. Otherwise we get spaghetti)
 * I reworded the sentence. please check. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Much better. I'll let you know when I get the Pigliucci book. jps (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonsense on Stilts? It's just a short aside in discussion of this WaPo article, JSE put the panel together and Puthoff and David Pritchard were chairs. "Harold Puthoff is the director of Austin’s Institute for Advanced Studies, but is also a well-known parapsychologist and conducts research on so-called zero point energy, the idea that one can extract energy from empty space&mdash;a proposition, I should add, that violates basic principles of thermodynamics and that is considered pseudoscience by credentialed physicists."
 * Thanks for the quote. It seems there is another mention of Puthoff on page 112 as well? jps (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoted first edition p. 90 above. i missed seeing the second edition earlier but that is basically the same on page 112. Changes the quote from "I should add" to "I should note" is all. I see Shermer in Philosophy of Pseudoscience which Pigliucci edited cited in remote viewing, see if i can find that and check for Puthoff content. fiveby(zero) 16:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yam
. I think this source should be used. Provides some good context. jps (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Gardner
Used to be in the discussion, is now not included. Let's get it back. jps (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

not sufficient? fiveby(zero) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the article
 * Gardner, Martin. "Zero-Point Energy and Harold Puthoff." Skeptical Inquirer 22 (1998): 13-15.
 * is one flavor of processed sandwich meat calling another flavor "bolonga". It's full of pop-science myths as seemingly random counterexamples to things Puthoff may have said. It does not supply specific scientific counter evidence to specific verifiable Puthoff claims. Gardner is an entertainer; the article is indeed entertaining. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What? Gardner's piece includes a lot of excellent biographical details for Hal Puthoff. It also deals with the auxilliary claims Puthoff has made about ZPE. Garnder reports, "In Scientific Americans PBS broadcast he predicted that just as this century is known as the nuclear age, so will the next millennium be known as the zeropoint energy age.... Many of Puthoff's recent conjectures are far out on the fringes of physics. He believes that gravity may be caused by ZPE in a manner similar to the way it causes the Casimir effect. He suggests that electrons are kept in their atomic orbits by ZPE, and that if atoms could be "shrunk" to a lower ground state they would radiate ZPE. Inertia, he thinks, may be caused by resistance of ZPE whenever objects are accelerated. If this resistance could be reduced, it would provide a great advance in the rocket propulsion speed of spaceships. In "SETI, the Velocity-of-Light Limitation, and the Alcubierre Warp Drive: An Integrating Overview" (in Physics Essays, Vol. 9, 1996, pp. 156-58), Puthoff defends the possibility that spaceships could travel faster than light if the ZPE could be handled properly." Do you see any "pop-science myths" in that? jps (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Gardner article is an attack piece. More than half of the article covers Puthoff's parapsychology and Scientology. This provides evidence of "crackpot" but nothing about zpe. He then pairs Puthoff's work with perpetual motion with no specific reference. Following that he goes on a truly impressive tour of popularizations of modern physics ideas, almost all of which is "interpretation". These ideas might help one work on physics but despite Gardner's tone they have no exclusive evidence of reality. Finally in the last paragraphs he returns to Puthoff. He then says "In many technical papers and several popularly written articles he has defended the possibility of obtaining unlimited energy from empty space." I have not seen any such technical paper or article. Perhaps they exist, but Gardner does not share them.
 * Gardner points to "Quantum Fluctuations of Empty Space: A New Rosetta Stone of Physics?". Read it, it is an synopsis of Puthoff's technical work. The concluding sentence quoted by Gardner is the only remotely wacky statement, and it is one of those "it can't be wrong" sentences.
 * He cites Puthoff's wacky SETI article but incorrectly reports that it is about ZPE.
 * In my opinion the Gardner piece is not a reliable source. It could be used as evidence that Puthoff is notable because Gardner and the publisher are notable.
 * If you want to evaluate Puthoff as a scientist, then we should use scientific metrics. The evidence is clear: his work is sloppy and has come to nothing. We don't need Gardner to tell us that. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An "attack piece" is an article which makes unfounded accusations. This article makes accusations that, as far as I can tell, are all accurate. Your argument is that because you haven't seen the articles Gardner is referring to that, what, Gardner made them up?! The concluding sentence in the article you then point is indeed wacky. Why are we supposed to discount that?
 * I also think it is important to note that this article is not Scientific arguments made by Hal Puthoff. This is a biography. Puthoff's one-time religion and ongoing devotion to parapsychology are relevant to the biography, obviously. And given that this is the context under which Puthoff is arguing for ZPE (and he has continued to make similar arguments as the one Gardner documents as recently as last November, I am something at a loss for why you seem to be arguing in favor of excising Martin Gardner from our list of acceptable sources.
 * jps (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is specifically an article under Biographies_of_living_persons. Please read at least the nutshell.
 * The title of Gardner's article is "Zero-Point Energy and Harold Puthoff"; thus it has two topics. Note that Zero-point energy is mainstream science. Puthoff's peer-reviewed articles and secondary reports on these to cover this topic. What does Gardner add?
 * AFAICT, the crux of the Gardner article is that that Puthoff proposes unlimited free energy. Before we use this reference we should have evidence of such a proposal. Gardner made up part of the article: as I mentioned above his summary of the Rosetta Stone and SETI articles are biased and incorrect. In view of the Wikipedia guidelines, I am against using the Gardner article.
 * A neutral point of view is vital. I saw nothing in the video you linked as related to Gardner's article and nothing what so ever to do with ZPE.
 * We could use the video, something like "Puthoff recalled his interactions with US government investigations into unidentified aerial phenomena in the Sol Foundation Symposium held at Stanford University School of Engineering." Dull stuff IMO. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of WP:BLP. This strikes me as a WP:CRYBLP-type argument. I hope you have read and familiarized yourself with WP:FRINGEBLP which notes that sources like Gardner are valuable for our purposes. Martin Gardner, in my estimation, has never been impeached as a source prior to this. It is wild to imagine that somehow he's lost his druthers in this evaluation of flim flam. You claim Gardner "made up" part of the article... specifically his summary of the SETI article is "biased and incorrect". Puthoff says in his SETI article: "For the case of propagation between closely spaced conducting boundaries as in discussions of the Casimir effect, we have an increase in the velocity of light which is associated with the reduction of vacuum fluctuation energy between the plates. In short, as emphasized by Wesson, the speed of light c is context-dependent and not as fundamental as widely believed." The second sentence, in particular, is very close to relativity denial, especially as the Scharnhorst effect does not violate causality . I think Gardner's critique is dead on. jps (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a direct quote from Gardner's article:
 * In "SETI, the Velocity-of-Light Limitation, and the Alcubierre Warp Drive: An Integrating Overview" (in Physics Essays, Vol. 9, 1996, pp. 156-58), Puthoff defends the possibility that spaceships could travel faster than light if the ZPE could be handled properly.
 * All I am asking is to be shown in Puthoff's SETI article where he says such a thing. I could not find it.
 * I also said the Gardner distorts the Rosetta Stone article. As you said earlier, context is important. Gardner sets the context as "unlimited free energy from the quantum fluctuations of empty space". But the Rosetta Stone article is just a synopsis of technical work. Flawed, unimportant technical work. But Gardner picks out the last sentence which is simply a unimportant upbeat ending.
 * I think an article that claims Puthoff supports "unlimited free energy from the quantum fluctuations of empty space" should be backed up with a quote from Puthoff to that effect. I don't understand why this is even controversial.
 * BTW I think Martin Gardner is awesome as a popular science writer. The context here however is a WP:BLP. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this:"Therefore, the proper conclusion to be drawn by consideration of engineered metric/vacuum-energy effects is that, with sufficient technological means to appear “magic” at present (to use Arthur C. Clarke's phrase characterizing a highly advanced, technological civilization), travel at speeds exceeding the conventional velocity of light could occur without the violation of fundamental physical laws."
 * Yes that's good, thanks. I guess that lines up with what Gardner said. To me Puthoff reads much more cautious than Gardner makes him out; I read the paragraph as "if we had magic then,...".
 * On the other hand, the entire content of the SETI article is nonsensical. It's beyond my understanding as to why Gardner cares about this. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are people who take a perverse fascination with agnotology. Gardner did so later in life, perhaps by virtue of getting tired of some of the more ridiculous fan mail he received after gaining all that fame with his Scientific American column? Perhaps it was his affinity for stage magic which has always taken a certain glee with debunking pseudoscience ala James Randi. I can't say for certain the motivation, but why should it matter? jps (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, here is a video where Puthoff explains that he is planning on engineering ZPE extraction. . Gardner wasn't making this stuff up. jps (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is another video corroborating. Can we dispense with this argument that it's not willful misinterpretation? jps (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't this WP:SYNTH? I was only going on what Gardner said.
 * Anyway you two seem convinced. I've done what I set out to do here. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like you are shifting goalposts here. First you were contending that Gardner was wrong! Then when we show that there is evidence he is right, you plug your ears because it is synth? I'm not arguing that we use these videos as sources. I'm assuming that you are arguing in good faith that you truly don't know whether what Gardner was saying about Puthoff was accurate or not. jps (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Before investing any time on the "bolonga" question, want to make sure you have read the Yam article linked above? fiveby(zero) 22:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Think about why Gardner and Yam singled out Puthoff. There are thousands of blogs, youtube videos, Physics Essays out there, but no one writes about them. What makes Puthoff stand out? In my opinion it was his multiple publications in peer reviewed articles. This in turn supported Puthoff's grant applications and his professional position. I've tried so summarize those articles that were cited in other peer review publications. In my opinion Gardner and Yan are arguing against these publications (because otherwise they would not take notice) but using non-scientific methods, Ad hominem "He's a Scientologist" or Argument from authority "majority of physicists".
 * But I've made my contribution to the article, more than I think its worth to be honest. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I like to first try and take authors at their word when possible and appropriate. Yam points to an interview for PBS's Scientific American Frontiers. Gardner points to Yam's article and the PBS program. I haven't tried to track down the episode, but in general responses from Scientific American and Skeptical Inquirer i think would be very appropriate. Also, reading the further exchange jps points to below i think is instructive as to what Puthoff takes exception to in Gardner's article and what he does not. Not quite the same as your objections, but sometimes close. I don't think there are any concerns too great that we cannot include Gardner as a source or view him as unreliable. fiveby(zero) 04:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Episode 802 with a printed transcript if you don't want to watch a video and listen to Alan Alda. fiveby(zero) 04:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are interested or not, but Puthoff is far from the only physicist who has been "gone after" in this way. What makes Puthoff stand out is his ability to get an audience. Sure some of that has to do with peer-reviewed articles, but a lot of it also has to do with him saying the things a certain audience wants to hear him say. That's what causes reliable sources to be written about him in this way. As far as grants go, Puthoff's endeavors are almost entirely funded by two specific wealthy individuals who are interested in psychic powers and UFOs. I understand your desire to want to see certain "arguments on the merits" being made vis-a-vis his papers, but that rather misses the context. The argument then becomes that all context is an informal fallacy of one sort or another, but this is a rather blinkered way of approaching science which is a social phenomenon like it or not. Should these papers have been published? I don't know. But I do know that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to give the full picture of topics. We may prefer that all discussion take place in peer reviewed journals and only such discussion should be mentioned on Wikipedia. That's an approach that has been roundly rejected for as long as I've been around, I'm afraid. jps (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also a follow-up exchange between Puthoff and Gardner. jps (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Preterhuman.net Source
Not only does my security software object when I go to Preterhuman.net website, (I went to archive.org's storage of it), but the reference is to a copy of a personal page of Hambone. But that does show where he got the information.Naraht (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some file hosting site, don't need it anyway i'll move the basic bio cites to the two Gale works. Will also nuke the rest of the links when i get a chance. fiveby(zero) 15:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)