This registration is the confirmatory analysis plan and full protocol for The Silence Experiment, a multi-participant Phase 0 investigation of whether specific, EEG-verified states of consciousness can systematically modulate the decoherence time (T₂) of a shielded room-temperature NV-center diamond quantum sensor. The protocol is documented in three companion Zenodo papers: The Silence Paradigm v11 — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20326258 The Silence Experiment v13 — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20325967 Design Specifications for a Five-Layer Shielded Chamber (TSP-ENG-001 V5) — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20326311 The design places experienced meditators inside a 3.0 m cubic five-layer shielded chamber (acoustic/thermal, hydrogen-annealed mu-metal magnetic, welded OFHC copper RF, pneumatic vibration isolation, aluminum structural Faraday cage). Cognitive state is the independent variable, operationalised as seven EEG-verified conditions C1–C7 ordered by descending cognitive excitation — C1 active cognition, C2 ordinary resting, C3 focused attention (Shamatha), C4 open monitoring (Vipassana), C5 non-directed openness, C6 Minimal Phenomenal Experience / luminous bare awareness, C7 cessation / objectless awareness — plus an empty-chamber instrumental baseline run as separate sessions. Real-time 64-channel wireless EEG verifies state attainment (EEG signature is the primary inclusion criterion for C6 and C7). Comprehensive synchronous environmental monitoring (SQUID magnetometers, fluxgate magnetometer, 3-axis accelerometer, Pt100 RTDs to ±0.001 K, RF, humidity, barometric pressure, acoustic SPL) is recorded via GPS-disciplined 10 MHz common time base for artifact-correlation analysis. The pre-registered primary analysis is a family of three tests: a Jonckheere–Terpstra ordered test on the C1 → C7 ordering, plus two orthogonal planned contrasts — Contrast 1 ([C6, C7] vs. [baseline, C1–C5]) and Contrast 2 (C7 vs. C6) — evaluated at family-wise α = 0.005 one-sided with Bonferroni correction (per-test α ≈ 0.00167), accompanied by a parallel Bayesian analysis with pre-specified Bayes Factor thresholds (BF > 10 strong, BF > 100 decisive). The threshold follows Benjamin et al. (2018) for novel discovery claims. The Phase 0 minimum detectable effect is d ≥ 0.4 on Contrast 1 at n = 50 sessions per condition. Analysis is outcome-blinded and conducted by an independent statistician who does not see condition labels until the locked dataset is delivered. Any positive primary result is subjected to artifact analysis against the full environmental channel set and requires independent replication by a non-affiliated laboratory before being treated as established. No data of any kind have been collected as of this update. All raw data, analysis code, and any deviations will be publicly deposited here with full transparency upon completion. Amendment history is visible in the Updates panel; v1 (April 2026 original), v2 (terminology), v3 (V9-aligned methodology), and v4 (V13-aligned, pending moderator approval) constitute the full version record.
This registration is the confirmatory analysis plan and full protocol for The Silence Experiment, a multi-participant Phase 0 investigation of whether specific, EEG-verified states of consciousness can systematically modulate the decoherence time (T₂) of a shielded room-temperature NV-center diamond quantum sensor. The protocol is documented in three companion Zenodo papers: The Silence Paradigm v11 — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20326258 The Silence Experiment v13 — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20325967 Design Specifications for a Five-Layer Shielded Chamber (TSP-ENG-001 V5) — https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20326311 The design places experienced meditators inside a 3.0 m cubic five-layer shielded chamber (acoustic/thermal, hydrogen-annealed mu-metal magnetic, welded OFHC copper RF, pneumatic vibration isolation, aluminum structural Faraday cage). Cognitive state is the independent variable, operationalised as seven EEG-verified conditions C1–C7 ordered by descending cognitive excitation — C1 active cognition, C2 ordinary resting, C3 focused attention (Shamatha), C4 open monitoring (Vipassana), C5 non-directed openness, C6 Minimal Phenomenal Experience / luminous bare awareness, C7 cessation / objectless awareness — plus an empty-chamber instrumental baseline run as separate sessions. Real-time 64-channel wireless EEG verifies state attainment (EEG signature is the primary inclusion criterion for C6 and C7). Comprehensive synchronous environmental monitoring (SQUID magnetometers, fluxgate magnetometer, 3-axis accelerometer, Pt100 RTDs to ±0.001 K, RF, humidity, barometric pressure, acoustic SPL) is recorded via GPS-disciplined 10 MHz common time base for artifact-correlation analysis. The pre-registered primary analysis is a family of three tests: a Jonckheere–Terpstra ordered test on the C1 → C7 ordering, plus two orthogonal planned contrasts — Contrast 1 ([C6, C7] vs. [baseline, C1–C5]) and Contrast 2 (C7 vs. C6) — evaluated at family-wise α = 0.005 one-sided with Bonferroni correction (per-test α ≈ 0.00167), accompanied by a parallel Bayesian analysis with pre-specified Bayes Factor thresholds (BF > 10 strong, BF > 100 decisive). The threshold follows Benjamin et al. (2018) for novel discovery claims. The Phase 0 minimum detectable effect is d ≥ 0.4 on Contrast 1 at n = 50 sessions per condition. Analysis is outcome-blinded and conducted by an independent statistician who does not see condition labels until the locked dataset is delivered. Any positive primary result is subjected to artifact analysis against the full environmental channel set and requires independent replication by a non-affiliated laboratory before being treated as established. No data of any kind have been collected as of this update. All raw data, analysis code, and any deviations will be publicly deposited here with full transparency upon completion. Amendment history is visible in the Updates panel; v1 (April 2026 original), v2 (terminology), v3 (V9-aligned methodology), and v4 (V13-aligned, pending moderator approval) constitute the full version record.
A controlled experimental protocol for testing the von Neumann–Wigner (VNW) interpretation of quantum mechanics, the hypothesis that consciousness plays a role in quantum state reduction, against the prevailing environmental decoherence framework (Zurek, Zeh, Joos). The experimental platform places a single experienced meditator in EEG-verified cognitive states inside a shielded environment. A quantum coherence sensor measures decoherence rates (T₂) across seven consciousness conditions (C1–C7) spanning the full cognitive-excitation axis, against a separate empty-chamber instrumental baseline. The primary pre-registered hypothesis is that T₂ at C7 (Cessation / Objectless Awareness) and T₂ at C6 (Minimal Phenomenal Experience) will both exceed T₂ at the chamber baseline and at conditions C1–C5, and that T₂ at C7 will further exceed T₂ at C6. This is tested via two pre-registered orthogonal planned contrasts: (i) [C6, C7] vs. [baseline, C1–C5], and (ii) C7 vs. C6, both with directional predictions. All other cross-condition comparisons are treated as exploratory. A secondary experiment uses quantum random number generators with improved shielding, blinding, and instrumentation. The protocol is phased: a Phase 0 foundational test using nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, and a Phase 1 full protocol using superconducting qubits in an underground laboratory, conditional on Phase 0 results and adoption by an institutional host. The protocol employs blinding when feasible and pre-registered statistical thresholds. Null results establish pre-registered upper bounds; positive results require replication. The theoretical basis for this protocol is detailed in the companion paper, The Silence Paradigm.
This document provides the complete engineering specifications for the Phase 0 shielded experimental chamber developed for the Silence Experiment. The chamber is designed to test whether the cognitive state of a conscious observer produces measurable changes in the decoherence time (T₂) of a nearby quantum sensor under conditions of extreme environmental isolation.The design features a precise 3.0 m × 3.0 m × 3.0 m cubic inner volume with a five-layer concentric isolation system that achieves: Electromagnetic attenuation >120 dB (10 Hz–10 GHz) Magnetic field attenuation >60 dB (DC to low-frequency) Acoustic isolation >80 dB (interior ambient <20 dB SPL) Vibration isolation <10⁻⁶ m/s² (1–100 Hz) Thermal stability ±0.01 K over 60-minute sessions Key engineering elements include: East-face dual-door airlock enforcing sequential passage through all five layers with electrical/mechanical interlock Layer stack (innermost to outermost): acoustic/thermal (closed-cell foam + aerogel), mu-metal magnetic shielding (3 mm, hydrogen-annealed), OFHC copper RF shielding (2 mm, welded seams), pneumatic vibration isolation, and aluminum structural shell with integrated copper-mesh Faraday cage Non-magnetic observer platform at geometric center Integrated NV-center diamond quantum sensor array (room-temperature T₂ readout) on optical table 64-channel wireless EEG for real-time cognitive-state verification Comprehensive environmental monitoring suite (SQUID magnetometer, fluxgate, RF power meter, 3-axis accelerometers, Pt100 RTDs, humidity and barometric sensors) Battery-only power, closed-loop HEPA air handling, and fiber-optic feedthroughs via waveguide-below-cutoff tubes The chamber is explicitly pre-construction (concept engineering phase) and includes full mechanical drawing descriptions (TSP-001 through TSP-011), bill of materials, cost estimates, fabrication sequence, and integration notes. This document completes the open technical foundation for the project when paired with the related preprints on the experimental protocol and theoretical framework.Intended to enable CAD modeling, supplier quoting, Micro-Pilot testing, and progression to full Phase 0 deployment.
A foundational problem in physics remains unresolved: the role of the conscious observer in quantum measurement. This paper develops a theoretical framework, the Silence Paradigm, that generates testable predictions bearing on that problem. It treats the observer's state of consciousness as a controlled experimental variable rather than as a philosophical assumption, and asks whether the decoherence rate of a nearby quantum system varies with that state. The framework proposes that as a conscious observer approaches minimum cognitive excitation, operationalised by EEG patterns consistent with minimal phenomenal experience and full cessation, the decoherence behaviour of a nearby shielded quantum system changes measurably. The primary prediction is specific and directional: coherence times will exceed the empty-chamber baseline at the two deepest conditions, with the largest effect at cessation. Because the empty-chamber baseline sits inside the comparison group, the prediction commits the framework to a coherence-protective contribution rather than merely to the absence of a decohering one. A reversed sign is pre-registered disconfirmation. The paper surveys the interpretive landscape it is positioned against, including the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, orchestrated objective reduction, QBism, the decoherence programme, and the objective-collapse bound-setting tradition, and states plainly where the framework has a mechanism gap rather than a mechanism. It addresses seven standing objections directly, including unfalsifiability, thermal decoherence in warm wet tissue, the shielding paradox, and the somatic-stillness confound. It sets out the outcome scenarios in advance, including the suppression pattern, which is a distinct result and not a confirmation. The expected outcome is a null. That is the prediction of environmental decoherence theory, it is pre-registered as publishable, and it yields the first point on an exclusion plot rather than a filed-away negative. The scientific value of the work does not depend on the hypothesis being correct. This is the theoretical paper of a four-document programme. The experimental protocol is set out in The Silence Experiment, the chamber specification in the companion engineering blueprint, and the statistical basis in the companion power analysis and study design table. The protocol is pre-registered at OSF. This work is not peer reviewed, no chamber has been built, and no data have been collected. Changes in this version. The previously proposed Phase 1, a superconducting transmon in an underground laboratory conditional on a positive Phase 0 result, is withdrawn, and the reasoning is given in the text rather than removed silently: the sensitivity argument was mistaken, and gating a second experiment on the first succeeding makes the expected outcome terminal. Phase 1 is redefined as an isotopically purified sample in the same chamber, not conditional on any Phase 0 result. Budget figures are corrected following an arithmetic audit of the bill of materials. Session structure is revised to chained conditions. No repository identifiers appear in the document.
Executive Summary This document presents a testable research framework based on the Bias-Delta Mechanism, a model describing how attention, expectation, and perception shape probability outcomes. The theory proposes that bias (direction) and delta (collapse) operate as measurable components within a system, influencing how potential states become observed states. Rather than treating bias as an error or cognitive flaw, this model frames bias as a directional field, analogous to a small curvature in a probability landscape. Delta represents the transition point - the moment where external input collapses into internal interpretation. Together, they form a minimal, mathematically tractable mechanism that can be tested experimentally. This protocol introduces two core predictions: 1. Attentional Modulation of Probability Distributions A small but measurable deviation from baseline distributions (e.g., Born rule or classical RNG probabilities) correlated with an attentional signal. 2. Interference Pattern Sensitivity Subtle modulation of fringe visibility or phase shift in double-slit-type experiments, dependent on directionality encoded in the attention signal. These predictions require no metaphysical assumptions. They rely exclusively on: • measurable signals (EEG/RAS attention proxies) • standard experimental apparatus (RNG, optical interference) • defined statistical tests • pre-registration and artifact controls This research protocol offers: • a complete theoretical foundation • testable hypotheses • experimental setups • expected effect sizes • statistical analysis plans • reproducibility guidelines • ethical and practical considerations The aim is not to claim dramatic effects, but to detect small, consistent, statistically robust correlations that would indicate a directional influence of attention on probability selection. The protocol is designed for: • university laboratories • interdisciplinary research groups • cognitive science departments • physics departments exploring consciousness models • independent researchers with access to experimental equipment If validated, the Bias-Delta mechanism would offer a novel, minimal explanation for attention-linked effects and open new directions for research at the intersection of consciousness, information, and probability theory. Zenodo: Bias Delta Research Protocol v1.0 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20943847Zenodo: The Synesthetic Black Hole:A Unified Model of Collapse, Cognition and Curvature v1.0 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21269064Zenodo: BIAS, Why so serious? A reflective journey through language, perception and the invisible compass of conviction.(Version 57, Edition 57, p. 738). 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21311344 🔗 https://biaswhysoserious.webnode.nl/
The Newen Quantum Observer Theory (NQOT) and its Observer-Differentiated Collapse (ODC) extension of Orch OR generate falsifiable predictions about quantum mechanical correlates of consciousness. Translation of these predictions into experimental science requires methodological precision, statistical rigor, and ethical safeguards appropriate to a multi-modal research program. This Study Protocol Paper specifies the complete experimental architecture for testing six core predictions of the NQOT framework across three research phases. Each protocol is presented with a priori statistical power calculations, pre-registered analytical plans, ethical protocols following indigenous research methodologies (Smith 2021, OCAP principles, UNDRIP), equipment specifications, phased budget estimates, and quantitative evaluation criteria within a Lakatosian research program framework. Phase A (foundation) validates the C(psi_obs) coherence estimator from 256-channel EEG data and establishes a cross-cultural ZPF baseline across five ancestral traditions. Phase B (core NQOT) tests observer-modulated quantum collapse via QRNG deviation studies and microtubule superradiance under ancestral practice conditions. Phase C (Küpan predictions) tests inter-observer coherence scaling with genealogical distance via dual-EEG hyperscanning, and conducts a randomized clinical trial of the Guardián del Linaje protocol against MBSR controls. Sample sizes range from n=24 to n=240, derived from a priori power calculations targeting effect sizes documented in prior literature (Cohen's d = 0.8 from Ferrarelli et al. 2013) at power 0.80 and alpha 0.05. Total budget USD 1.85M across 36 months, structured for phased fundraising: Phase A USD 525,000 as fundable first stage. Open science commitments include pre-registration on OSF (osf.io/a5me2, DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/A5ME2), code repository on GitHub, and anonymized data on Zenodo under embargoed open access. The framework follows Lakatosian methodology: a hard core of foundational commitments (Newen, Küpan, ZPF substrate) developed through a protective belt of operational predictions that evolve with empirical evidence.
A preregistered Ramsey test (v4.1, job d94hi4lgc6cc73ff4cc0, ibm_fez) of Quantum Resonance Theory's coherence-enhancement prediction (Anson 2024, DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21263717) returned G_A = +2.87% [+2.35%, +3.46%] at the theory's stated parameters (ωr = 10 MHz, R0 = 10⁻³ rad) — QRT-consistent, treated per its registration as an artifact pending escalation. A first escalation arm (v4.2, job d94j866vtlqs73fucnvg, ibm_marrakesh) excluded the amplitude-scaling mechanism class (10× arm: G_scale = +1.07% [−0.18%, +2.24%], DOES_NOT_SCALE) but, by its own declared scope, did not adjudicate the paper's point claim: its 1× replication index was preregistered as descriptive, underpowered (4-point grid), and carries no inferential weight. This study is the confirmatory adjudication of the point claim itself: the v4.1 protocol at full power (12-point delay grid, 6,000 shots, 72 circuits) on a second device (ibm_fez refused in code), with the primary index defined at the paper's stated amplitude and frequency against symmetric neighbor controls (9 and 11 MHz). Secondary arms (10× amplitude, per-pulse phase randomization, undriven reference) ride in the same packed session as declared descriptive vectors. The result will be published regardless of outcome. If the point claim does not replicate here, the v4.1 result is attributed to a device-specific or statistical artifact and the program's adjudication of QRT's coherence prediction closes; if it replicates, the effect survives to independent-party verification.