A two year long experimental dataset in which authors of Radin, et al., 2016 claim to find evidence of mind-matter interaction is independently re-analyzed. In this experiment, participants are asked to periodically shift their attention towards or away from a double-slit optical apparatus. Shifts in fringe visibility of the interference pattern are monitored and tested against the common sense null hypothesis that such shifts should not correlate with the participant's attention state. We propose a deeper analysis of the dataset, identifying all the necessary arbitrary pre-analysis choices one needs to make, and carefully assessing the results' robustness regarding these choices. Results are twofold. Firstly, even with a conservative correction for the multiple statistical tests the analysis calls for, we confirm the existence of significant although small anomalies in the direction predicted by the mind-matter interaction hypothesis. On the other hand, and unlike Radin, et al., 2016, we also report significant although even smaller anomalies in the control dataset. This leads us to conclude that this particular dataset does not provide strong evidence of mind-matter interaction, yet certainly contains inexplicable anomalies that should motivate replication attempts in highly controlled environments.
A two year long experimental dataset in which authors of Radin, et al., 2016 claim to find evidence of mind-matter interaction is independently re-analyzed. In this experiment, participants are asked to periodically shift their attention towards or away from a double-slit optical apparatus. Shifts in fringe visibility of the interference pattern are monitored and tested against the common sense null hypothesis that such shifts should not correlate with the participant's attention state. We propose a deeper analysis of the dataset, identifying all the necessary arbitrary pre-analysis choices one needs to make, and carefully assessing the results' robustness regarding these choices. Results are twofold. Firstly, even with a conservative correction for the multiple statistical tests the analysis calls for, we confirm the existence of significant although small anomalies in the direction predicted by the mind-matter interaction hypothesis. On the other hand, and unlike Radin, et al., 2016, we also report significant although even smaller anomalies in the control dataset. This leads us to conclude that this particular dataset does not provide strong evidence of mind-matter interaction, yet certainly contains inexplicable anomalies that should motivate replication attempts in highly controlled environments.
An experiment we conducted from 2012 to 2013, which had not been previously reported, was designed to explore possible psychophysical effects resulting from the interaction of a human mind with a quantum system. Participants focused their attention toward or away from the slits in a double-slit optical system to see if the interference pattern would be affected. Data were collected from 25 people in individual half-hour sessions; each person repeated the test ten times for a total of 250 planned sessions. “Sham” sessions designed to mimic the experimental sessions without observers present were run immediately before and after as controls. Based on the planned analysis, no evidence for a psychophysical effect was found. Because this experiment differed in two essential ways from similar, previously reported double-slit experiments, two exploratory analyses were developed, one based on a simple spectral analysis of the interference pattern and the other based on fringe visibility. For the experimental data, the outcome supported a pattern of results predicted by a causal psychophysical effect, with the spectral metric resulting in a 3.4 sigma effect (p = 0.0003), and the fringe visibility metric resulting in 7 of 22 fringes tested above 2.3 sigma after adjustment for type I error inflation, with one of those fringes at 4.3 sigma above chance (p = 0.00001). The same analyses applied to the sham data showed uniformly null outcomes. Other analyses exploring the potential that these results were due to mundane artifacts, such as fluctuations in temperature or vibration, showed no evidence of such influences. Future studies using the same protocols and analytical methods will be required to determine if these exploratory results are idiosyncratic or reflect a genuine psychophysical influence.
Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind-matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study con- sisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or -away from a double-slit system located 3 m away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention condi- tions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction (effect size ¼� 0.73 6 0.14, p ¼ 2.4 � 10 � 7 ). One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect (effect size ¼ 0.04 6 0.10, p ¼ 0.71). A Fraunhofer diffraction model was used to explore various interpretations of this outcome. This analysis suggested that the distribution of light between the two slits and the horizontal stability of the laser beam were the principle components of the optical system that were perturbed. The sec- ond experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants' web browsers. Some 685 people from six conti- nents contributed 2089 experimental sessions. Results were similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude (effect size ¼� 0.09 6 0.02, p ¼ 2.6 � 10 � 6 ). Data from 2303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 h using the same equipment but without observ- ers showed no effect (effect size ¼� 0.01 6 0.02, p ¼ 0.61). Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size. The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies (effect size ¼� 0.62 6 0.22, p ¼ 0.006). V C 2013 Physics Essays Publication .( http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-26.4.553) Resume´: Des experiences realisees precedemment suggerent que des franges d'interferences generees par un systeme de double fente optique peuvent etre perturbees par des interactions psycho-physiques (c'est-a `-dire des interactions entre conscience et matiere). Trois nouvelles expe ´- riences ont emenees pour etudier ce phenomene. Dans la premiere e au cours de 50 seances d'une demi heure chacune, des participants ont concentreleurs attentions soit pour influencer un systeme de double fente situee a` 3 m de distance, soit pour ignorer ce meme systeme. L'ampleur et la phase spectrale associee aux franges d'interference ont ecompares entre les deux conditions de focalisation de l'attention, et les resultats combines sont compatibles avec l'hypothese d'une inter- action entre conscience et matiere (taille d'effet ¼� 0.73 6 0.14, p ¼ 2.4 � 10 � 7 ). De plus, l'effet n'est pas present quand la meme analyse est effectuee sur cents sessions controles utilisant le meme equipement et le meme protocole, mais fonctionnant en l'absence de participants (taille d'effet ¼ 0.04 6 0.10, p ¼ 0.71). Un modele de diffraction de Fraunhofer utilisepour explorer dif- ferentes interpretations de ce resultat suggere que la distribution de la lumiere entre les deux fentes et la stabilitehorizontale du faisceau laser sont les principaux composants du systeme optique qui ont eperturbes. La seconde experience utilise un systeme de double fente et un protocole de test similaire, mais elle a etemenee sur Internet en envoyant en temps reel les donnees du systeme de double fente aux navigateurs Web des participants. 685 personnes provenant de six continents ont contribue ´ 2089 sessions experimentales. Les resultats sont similaires ala premiere experience mais la taille d'effet est de plus faible amplitude (taille d'effet ¼� 0.09 6 0.02, p ¼ 2.6 � 10 � 6 ). Les don- nees de 2303 sessions de controle, realiseautomatiquement toutes les deux heures en utilisant le meme e mais sans observateurs n'ont montreaucun effet (taille d'effet ¼� 0.01 6 0.02, p ¼ 0.61). La distance entre les participants et le systeme optique, qui va de 1 km a ` 18,000 km, n'est pas correlee avec la taille de l'effet experimental. La troisieme experience utilise un systeme
An experiment was conducted to explore possible psychophysical influences on interference patterns generated by an optical double-slit system. The experiment was motivated by a proposed explanation of the quantum measurement problem by John von Neumann and others, namely that consciousness collapses the quantum wavefunction. The study design generated a single database partitioned into eight differential tests, four in experimental conditions where participants alternately directed their attention toward and away from the optical system, and four in sham conditions when no one was present. The planned analysis was comparison of means in attention-toward vs. attention-away conditions; a secondary analysis added later, but before the data were examined, was comparison of variances. After adjusting the eight mean comparisons for multiple testing, none were statistically significant, but one of the eight variance differences was suggestively significant.To date, 11 of 28 conceptual replications of this experiment, reported by four independent teams, have reported statistically significant outcomes (p < 0.05, two-tail), where only one would be expected by chance. Given the implications of psychophysical effects on our understanding of the role of consciousness in the physical world, we encourage others to attempt to replicate this experiment.
Prior work by Radin et al. (2012, 2016) reported the astonishing claim that an anomalous effect on double-slit (DS) light-interference intensity had been measured as a function of quantum-based observer consciousness. Given the radical implications, could there exist an alternative explanation, other than an anomalous consciousness effect, such as artefacts including systematic methodological error (SME)? To address this question, a conceptual replication study involving 10,000 test trials was commissioned to be performed blindly by the same investigator who had reported the original results. The commissioned study performed confirmatory and strictly predictive tests with the advanced meta-experimental protocol (AMP), including with systematic negative controls and the concept of the sham-experiment. Whereas the replication study was unable to confirm the original results, the AMP was able to identify an unacceptably low true-negative detection rate with the sham-experiment in the absence of test subjects. The false-positive detection rate reached 50%, whereby the false-positive effect, which would be indistinguishable from the predicted true-positive effect, was significant at p = 0.021 (σ = -2.02; N = 1,250 test trials). The false-positive effect size was about 0.01%, which is within an-order-of-magnitude of the claimed consciousness effect (0.001%; Radin et al., 2016). The false-positive effect, which indicates the presence of significant SME in the Radin DS-experiment, suggests that skepticism should replace optimism concerning the radical claim that an anomalous quantum consciousness effect has been observed in a controlled laboratory setting.
Objective: A two-year online experiment tested the hypothesis that focused human attention alternatively directed toward or away from a double-slit optical system would affect the interference pattern in a predictable, unidirectional fashion. A control condition was employed by having a web server periodically simulate a human observer. Method: Based on the results of an independent reanalysis of these data and the outcome of an independent conceptual replication, we revisited the original directional hypothesis to explore the possibility that mind-wandering and other distractions might have caused attention or intention to unpredictably fluctuate. That in turn might have caused the hypothesized psychophysical influence to be more readily detected as a bidirectional effect (i.e., a shift in variance) rather than as unidirectional effect (a shift in mean). To test this idea, we developed a variance-based analysis using data collected during the first year of the experiment and applied it to data from the second year. Results: The first year’s data showed that experimental sessions conducted by humans resulted in significant variance differences as compared to control sessions conducted by a computer, z = 4.16, p = .00002. The same analysis applied to the second year’s data resulted in z = 3.14, p = .0008. Examination of environmental and apparatus variables indicated that those factors were not responsible for the observed changes in variance. Conclusion: The results suggest that a variance analysis may be more sensitive to psychophysical effects in this type of experiment.
The validity of the assertion that some recent double-slit interference experiments, conducted by Radin et al., would have tested the possible role of the experimenter's mind in the collapse of the quantum wave function, is questioned. It is emphasized that quantum mechanics doesn't need any psychophysical ingredient to explain the measurement processes, and therefore parapsychologists shouldn't resort to the latter to support the possibility of psychokinesis, but search for more convincing explanations.