Does wavefunction collapse require a conscious observer? A preregistered retrocausal interferometer test with human and artificial intelligence observers
The von Neumann‐Wigner framework holds that wavefunction collapse is incomplete until a conscious observer intervenes. Wheeler argued that measurement choices can be deferred until after a photon transits the apparatus. Together, these ideas raise fundamental questions: What is an observer, and when does observation become definite? To investigate, diffraction-grating data recorded months before human observation drove an online animated candle flame across 1000 human and 1000 AI-agent sessions. Sessions alternated ten 30-s intention epochs (intending flame dimming) and ten relax epochs. One first-order diffraction spot drove the display; the other served as an unobserved control. Participants were blind to the control and prerecording; assignments were randomized. The observed sensor was regressed against the unobserved sensor, and slopes compared via label-swapping permutations. Of eight possible outcomes, only the human‐observed‐intention cell was significant after multiple-comparison correction ( p = 0.000 07). AI agents showed no effect. Pre- and post-preregistration windows were statistically equivalent. These results suggest an effect of human consciousness rather than an artifact due to hardware drift or analytical artifacts.
The von Neumann‐Wigner framework holds that wavefunction collapse is incomplete until a conscious observer intervenes. Wheeler argued that measurement choices can be deferred until after a photon transits the apparatus. Together, these ideas raise fundamental questions: What is an observer, and when does observation become definite? To investigate, diffraction-grating data recorded months before human observation drove an online animated candle flame across 1000 human and 1000 AI-agent sessions. Sessions alternated ten 30-s intention epochs (intending flame dimming) and ten relax epochs. One first-order diffraction spot drove the display; the other served as an unobserved control. Participants were blind to the control and prerecording; assignments were randomized. The observed sensor was regressed against the unobserved sensor, and slopes compared via label-swapping permutations. Of eight possible outcomes, only the human‐observed‐intention cell was significant after multiple-comparison correction ( p = 0.000 07). AI agents showed no effect. Pre- and post-preregistration windows were statistically equivalent. These results suggest an effect of human consciousness rather than an artifact due to hardware drift or analytical artifacts.
The von Neumann‐Wigner consciousness-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics was explored by testing if human observation of interference in an optical interferometer might act like a weak quantum measurement effect. Forty-seven participants selected via a worldwide search for individuals with experience in focusing their attention were each provided with a custom-made optical apparatus. Using this device, they ran a preassigned series of test sessions to see if illumination recorded in a portion of the interference pattern would be affected when a feedback signal based on that measure was observed versus unobserved. Another portion of the interference pattern was recorded simultaneously but never observed to provide control data. Environmental sensors and real-time encryption of the illumination data were among the methods included in the design of the experiment to help ensure data integrity. With all data combined the results did not support three preregistered hypotheses, but for one of those hypotheses participants selected for experience in an outward versus an inward focus of attention achieved significantly better results in reducing interference (p = 0.008). An exploratory analysis found a progressive decline in interference while participants observed a portion of the interference pattern, as compared to data recorded simultaneously from an unobserved portion (p = 5.9 × 10−14). By comparison, applying the same analysis during no-observation periods found no differences in trends (p = 0.77). Control data run with no observers present and subjected again to this same trend analysis showed uniformly nonsignificant results. Alternative explanations, including possible environmental influences that might have caused these outcomes, as well as recommendations for future studies, are discussed.
The consciousness-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics was explored by testing if human observation might act like a weak quantum measurement effect in an optical interferometer. Forty-seven participants selected via a worldwide search for individuals with experience in focusing their attention were each provided with a custom-made optical apparatus. Using this device, they ran a preassigned series of test sessions to see if illumination recorded in a portion of the interference pattern would be affected when a feedback signal based on that measure was observed versus unobserved. Another portion of the interference pattern was recorded simultaneously but never observed to provide control data. Environmental sensors and real-time encryption of the illumination data were among the methods included in the design of the experiment to help ensure data integrity.With all data combined the results did not support three preregistered hypotheses, but for one of those hypotheses participants partitioned by those experienced in an outward vs. an inward focus of attention achieved significantly better results in reducing interference (p = 0.008). An exploratory hypothesis also found a significant difference in skewness of the distribution of interference measures recorded in observed vs. unobserved periods (p = 0.004). In addition, an exploratory analysis showed a clear trend – a progressive decline in interference – while participants observed a portion of the interference pattern, as compared to data recorded simultaneously from an unobserved portion (p = 5.9 × 10-14). By comparison, applying the same analysis during no-observation periods found no differences in trends (p = 0.77). Control data run with no observers present and subjected again to this same trend analysis showed uniformly nonsignificant results. Alternative explanations, including possible environmental influences that might have caused these outcomes, as well as recommendations for future studies, are discussed.
This hypothesis paper explores the profound intersection of quantum mechanics and human consciousness, proposing a theoretical model for Intention-Driven Wave Function Collapse (IDWFC). While the standard Copenhagen interpretation assigns the "observer" a central role in measurement, this paper extends that role, suggesting that focused human intention can actively bias quantum probabilities and influence the physical materialization of events. The proposed framework integrates several key concepts: Non-Local Consciousness and the Zero-Point Field: Drawing upon the work of von Neumann, Stapp, and Puthoff, the paper posits that consciousness interacts with the Zero-Point Field (ZPF) to facilitate the collapse of the wave function toward specific intentional outcomes. The Role of the Right Hemisphere and rTPJ: Building on the Perceptual Filter Saturation (PFS) model, it argues that right-hemisphere dominant states—characterized by reduced left-brain filtering—are essential for the effective transmission of intentional "signals" into the quantum substrate. Quantum Coherence in Biological Systems: Following the Orch-OR theory of Penrose and Hameroff, the paper discusses how micro-tubular quantum coherence may serve as the biological transducer for intentional wave function collapse. This work suggests that the materialization of reality is a participatory process mediated by the interaction between focused intent and quantum potentiality, offering a roadmap for future experimental verification. Quantum Mechanics, Wave Function Collapse, Consciousness, Intention, Materialization, Zero-Point Field, von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation, Non-locality, Quantum Biology, Participatory Universe
The decoherence interpretation of quantum measurements is applied to Wigner's-friend experiments. A framework in which all the experimental outcomes arise from unitary evolutions is proposed. Within it, a measurement is not completed until an uncontrolled environment monitorizes the state composed of the system, the apparatus, and the observer. The (apparent) wave-function collapse and the corresponding randomness result from tracing out this environment; it is thus the ultimate responsible party for the emergence of definite outcomes. Two main effects arise from this fact. First, external interference measurements, trademark of Wigner's-friend experiments, modify the memory records of the internal observers; this framework provides a univocal protocol to calculate all these changes. Second, it can be used to build a consistent scenario for the recently proposed extended versions of the Wigner's-friend experiment. In regard to the work of Frauchiger and Renner [Nat. Commun. 9, 3711 (2018)], this framework shows that the agents' claims become consistent if the changes in their memories are properly taken into account. Furthermore, the particular setup discussed by Brukner [Entropy 20, 350 (2018)] cannot be tested against the decoherence framework, because it does not give rise to well-defined outcomes according to this formalism. A variation of this setup, devised to fill this gap, makes it possible to assign joint truth values to the observations made by all the agents. This framework also narrows the requisites for such experiments, making them virtually impossible to apply to conscious (human) beings. Notwithstanding, it also opens the door to future realizations on quantum machines.
Preregistration for Noetic Adventure online experiment Study Overview The Noetic Adventure web and mobile app resembles an adventure game front-end to a “does consciousness collapse the wavefunction experiment” involving a diffraction grating interferometer. Users are asked to view an animated candle flame while intending that it becomes dimmer. The height and brightness of the flame are linked by association to a first-order dot of light in the interferometer. No feedback is provided about the other first-order dot of light as a control Which dot of light is observed in each trial is randomly decided by the web app. For ease of exposition, we will refer to these two dots of light as observed and unobserved sensors to distinguish the source of the light from the “focus” vs. “relax” epochs, where feedback is provided vs. not provided only from the observed sensor. The analysis of interest has two components: First, the slope of illumination at the observed sensor is analyzed separately for the focus periods and the relax periods, and the difference in those two slopes is the statistic of interest. Second, the same comparison is performed for the unobserved sensor. These tests were based on the results of a previously published experiment that also used a diffraction grating interferometer, and which found that a difference in slopes was the most sensitive way to detect the hypothesized collapse effect. That is, there does not seem to be a sudden collapse but rather a slow degradation as intentional focus continues over time. (Radin, D. (2025). Observer influence on quantum interference: Testing the von Neumann-Wigner consciousness-collapse theory. Physics Essays 38 (1)). Data collection in this study started in February 2026. Formal data collection will continue until 1000 sessions are completed, where a session will be considered complete if all 10 focus and relax epochs are contributed, and where at least 9 of 10 “secret words” are correctly identified in the session. This latter criterion was a feature of the test to assess if the user was paying attention during each focus epoch, because the identify of that word – which was randomly selected for each focus epoch -- had to be identified during the following relax epoch. If the user was not paying attention, they were less likely to correctly identify the word (or provide any answer at all), the time it took them to select a word was also recorded to assess if they were paying attention. Staring in the month of April 2026, AI agents will be used to simulate human users. The idea is to see if AI can be considered to be conscious, and as such could they perform similarly to humans on this task. The same slope analyses will be performed on AI agent results, leading to the following predictions: 1) Humans will result in a significant one-tailed differential comparison in focus vs. relax slopes from the observed sensor. 2) Humans will result in a nonsignificant one-tailed differential comparison in focus vs. relax slopes from the observed sensor 3) AI agents will result in nonsignificant one-tailed differential comparisons in focus vs. relax slopes from both the observed sensor and the unobserved sensors. Results so far Before proceeding to the AI phase of the experiment, it was first necessary to establish that a human effect was detectable within this experimental design. Three complementary analyses were used. Cumulative z-Score The per-epoch slope difference (Focus minus Relax) was accumulated across sessions in randomized order (200 random orderings). The cumulative one-tailed z-score crossed the p = 0.05 threshold (z = -1.645) at approximately 150-200 sessions and continued to build steadily, reaching z ≈ -3.2 by the full sample of 646 sessions recorded to date (end of March 2026). The 90% envelope of random orderings confirmed that this trajectory was consistent regardless of session order, ruling out dependence on a small subset of outlier sessions. Ensemble slope permutation tests (time-shuffled split-half method) Using an ensemble time-shuffled split half test, both halves show a significant negative Intention slope (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.018), while Relax slopes remained non-significant. This was the expected pattern for a genuine Intention-specific effect. Bootstrap Split Replicability 500 bootstrap iterations drew two independent samples of 307 sessions each (with replacement): - Each sample reached p < 0.05: 67.5% of iterations - Both samples significant: 44.2% - At least one significant: 90.8% - Both samples show negative effect (sign-consistent): 96.6% - Correlation between bootstrap z-scores: r = -0.04 (confirming independence) The 96.6% sign consistency demonstrates that the effect direction was robust. Nearly each random subsample showed a negative Intention slope, even when significance was not always reached at half power. Conclusion At 646 of 1000 planned sessions, the human effect was statistically significant (z = -3.2, p = 0.0004 one-tailed), accumulating steadily across sessions, and replicated across independent data splits. Intention slopes on the ensemble time-shuffle split half test resulted in (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.018), with 96.6% sign consistency across bootstrap resamples. These outcomes supported proceeding to finishing the human data collection and to start the AI phase of the experiment. Effect Size Basis Effect sizes derived from the human dataset, based on N = 646 qualifying sessions as of end of March 2026, produced a Cohen's d = 0.035. For detecting a result of the same magnitude, using a one-tailed test at α = 0.05, we determined that 500 sessions were required for 80% power. We will thus run 500 AI agent sessions. Primary Analysis Script All analyses will use a Matlab script “twelve_regression.m” with identical parameters: lagSeconds = 5; % To account for attention switching delay minCorrect = 9; % High engagement with 9 out of 10 “secret words” answered correctly totalRequired = 10; % All focus epochs required per session nPerm = 5000; % Permutation iterations Regression-Residual Method For each session: 1. Regress observed sensor on unobserved sensor: `obs = b0 + b1*unobs + residual` 2. The residual isolates observation-specific signal with shared laser variance removed 3. Extract Intention and Relax half-epochs (after 5-second cognitive delay) 4. Compute linear slope of each half-epoch Statistical Tests There are three preregistered tests, all one-tailed at α = 0.05: 1. Residual Intention slope ≠ 0 (permutation test, 5,000 iterations): This shuffles the time order of ensemble mean curve to test if the Intention slope is significantly negative. 2. Residual Relax slope ≠ 0 (permutation test, 5,000 iterations): Same test on Relax epochs, expected null in both human and AI data. 3. Int-Rel slope difference (permutation test, 5,000 iterations): This randomly swaps Intention/Relax labels within blocks to test whether the slope difference is significantly negative. Predictions If (1) human observed sensor test is significant, (2) human unobserved sensor test is not, and (3) AI observed and observed sensor tests are not significant, that would support the idea that consciousness as enjoyed by humans is involved in collapse of the wavefunction, and that AI agents (as of April 2026) are not conscious. If 1 is not significant that would not support the consciousness collapse hypothesis (as far as this experimental test was concerned), or if 2 or 3 were significant, that would suggest that the underlying analytical methods were biased in some way. AI Data Preprocessing Identical to human data pipeline: - Raw sensor data: 2 Hz sampling - Segments: 1,200 samples (10 minutes), first 50 samples skipped for stabilization - Raw data normalization: zscore(detrend(data)) - Sessions with fewer than 9/10 correct “secret word” epoch responses Data Collection Stopping Rule Data collection for human sessions will stop at 1000 completed qualifying sessions,. Data collection for AI agent sessions will stop at 500 completed qualifying sessions.
Background: Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of matter and light at the atomic and subatomic levels.In quantum mechanics, a key principle is that quantum objects can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior.This is called "wave-particle duality" (Squires, 1999).Moreover, quantum mechanics presents us with a mixture of possibilities, where the particles exist in a state of superposition until an observation occurs.When we measure, the wave function collapses into a single outcome.To address this, it's imperative to understand what exactly constitutes an observation in quantum mechanics and its role in wave function collapse.Objectives: This study explores the concept of measurement from both a physical and philosophical perspective, examining different interpretations of consciousness and how observation influences the outcomes of quantum experiments.More specifically, it focuses on how mental states, such as expectation or previous knowledge could impact wave function collapse.Complementing the existing body of research, this review expands to explore several critical questions surrounding the nature of observation in quantum mechanics. Methods:The study conducted a literature review to establish the theoretical background and relevance.Forty-five participants (ages 13+) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Expectation/Attention, Neutral Observation, or Automated Control.Each group observed 100 random binary outcomes generated using Random.org,with the Expectation group instructed to mentally focus on increasing the number of 1s.The experiment was conducted using PsychoPy, with all outcomes and timing automatically logged.A statistical analysis using ANOVA and post-hoc tests revealed significant group differences, particularly between the Neutral group and the others.Results: Expected Group (primed with prior knowledge) yielded the highest median (63), suggesting expectation may amplify observed values.The Neutral Group (baseline awareness) recorded the lowest results (median=57).The Control Group (standard observation) occupied an intermediate range.Neutral < Control < Expected in median values.The expected group shows 2× the IQR of Control/Neutral, indicating higher variability.No outliers detected in any group using the 1.5×IQR rule.These patterns tentatively support the proposed link between conscious states (e.g., expectation/knowledge) and quantum phenomena.To validate the differences across the control, expected, and neutral groups, a one-way ANOVA test was taken, which revealed a statistically significant difference in the counts of ones between the groups (p = 0.000014).Post-hoc analysis using Tukey's HSD indicated that the neutral group significantly differed from both the control and expected groups, while the control and expected groups did not significantly differ from each other.Additionally, the effect size (η² = 0.64), indicates a large and meaningful difference between the groups.Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that conscious mental states, particularly expectation, may measurably influence quantum measurement outcomes.The observed positional trends and increased variability in the Expected group suggest that the observer's mindset is not merely a passive condition but may actively modulate the measurement process.While the findings align with and expand upon previous research linking consciousness to quantum phenomena, they also introduce new considerations regarding variability and individual cognitive influence.Nonetheless, this work offers a meaningful step toward understanding the complex relationship between consciousness and the physical world and underscores the need for continued interdisciplinary research to further explore this potential connection.