6.37 sigma replication of Dean Radin's double slit consciousness experiments

... and my implication is, if this was never an issue with DS in general why now?

Sure.
I guess it's even more complicated than that because interferometers comes in all shapes and size (and costs) and I presume their susceptibility to external interferences will differ as well.

If you're referring to the classic DS experiment that didn't make use of an interferometer, so I guess the question is valid only for the DS experiments based on those devices.

Cheers

Iterferometers have been used for years. Are you suggesting that this is a new application of the device? Or that sound level is a typical factor in their use? If not, what is the special situation here?

Sure.
I guess it's even more complicated than that because interferometers comes in all shapes and size (and costs) and I presume their susceptibility to external interferences will differ as well.

Lots of maybes and guesses here. 

Not trying to be negative but I haven't heard anyone say definitively if this is a reasonable consern. While I know Dean Radin doesn't think so.

One might say that we need to check IDs at the polling booth because "you never know who might be voting".

OTOH- one might say the same thing because they don't like who is visiting the polling booth. (sorry about the politics reference but it is a fit)

The motivation for the question is often an important thing to take notice of.

Iterferometers have been used for years. Are you suggesting that this is a new application of the device? Or that sound level is a typical factor in their use? If not, what is the special situation here?

You asked this:

did the original DS experiment deal with these objections? (ambient sound affecting the measurements)

I was just pointing out that the earlier DS experiments did not use an interferometer. I believe QM experiments haven't used one untill the 1960s or so.

Other than that I think it would be interesting to know why sound energy should (or should not) be a concern with interferometers. But maybe there are even more distinctions to be made based on the actual device.

You asked this:


I was just pointing out that the earlier DS experiments did not use an interferometer. I believe QM experiments haven't used one untill the 1960s or so.

Other than that I think it would be interesting to know why sound energy should (or should not) be a concern with interferometers. But maybe there are even more distinctions to be made based on the actual device.

Fine. I'm not trying have a big thing about this. 

But if they've been used in DS experiments for 50 years or so, I'm thinking the bugs have been worked out. I mean the delayed choice experiment , validation of entanglement, and experimentation of conscious observation have all been tested using some variation of this setup. It's considered basic boilerplate stuff at this point. It's not like its a brand new thing. And I don't see anyone expressing concern. 

I would ask Max what his credentials are, but he already said that he knows nothing about statistical analysis, so I think we can rule him out when it comes to test of this type. No insult intended here Max: I'm not qualified in this area either... But then again,. I don't have a PhD so I don't feel too badly about it.

I guess lacking further comments, and given Dean's response I feel comfortable accepting the data and moving on.

Seems like a valid point.
We've talked about this in another thread: "outrageous" claims or not, experiments must take into account every source of interference, including of course that generated by the meditator themselves. Chanting, mantras, coughing, whatever can perturb the sensitivity of the intruments.

Maybe this has been addressed in the experiments but was not clarified in the paper? Unfortunately I did not have the time to go through the details.

I'm pretty sure that the instruments were in a shielded chamber separated from the meditators etc.

I'm pretty sure that the instruments were in a shielded chamber separated from the meditators etc.

In this new experiment, the apparatus was on a passively damped optical table and inside a Faraday cage. The participant sat in the same room about 3m away.

In this new experiment, the apparatus was on a passively damped optical table and inside a Faraday cage. The participant sat in the same room about 3m away.

I'm talking about Radin's experiments - sorry for not being clearer. If the issue was dealt with in other experiments and they were still significant, that and other factor that ive already mentioned point away from sound being the reason for the positive results.

I've been through all of this on the last forum. Happy to do it again, but work does get in the way. In the meantime you could look up 'vibration' affecting laboratory experiments, and the three types of vibration which cause problems. You could also look up interferometers particular sensitivity to vibration, driving the devices components and cavities. You could also look at standing waves and reinforcement effects to do with speakers in different types of rooms etc. It's all available to you. You can also look up the effect of tuned speaker ports too. As meditators appear to have been given total leeway about how they affected the device, and there was no monitoring of sound within the room, I have no idea whether some meditators were make any noise themselves (chanting, or using the resonant Omm sound etc.

In Radin's experiments the instrument was in a shielded room separate from the meditators. Sound clearly isn't the reason for the results as Radin still got positive and significant results.