Psience Quest

(2017-09-05, 01:26 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I think I covered that in my reply to Malf, and I've already explained they didn't measure vibrations through air pressure at all, indeed they introduced richly harmonic sound into the test room at different pressure levels for each of the two test state periods they we're trying to compare. The obvious thing to do is look at what they changed.

I am having a hard time understanding your objection. Maybe you can clarify it.
The study says that they have investigated artifacts caused by sound generated during the experiment. You object saying that the they "didn't measure vibrations through air pressure"

You say tomato, I say tomahto
At the end of the day they need to make sure that sounds produced during the test don't affect the interferometer. Are you complaining because they didn't use the wording you expect?

Also, why are you pretending not to see the fact that meditators scored signficantly better than non-meditators in the same setup? If air vibrations were the cause of the anomaly you wouldn't see any difference.

Cheers

Max, I say this half as a regular member and half as a moderator (because moderation policy on this issue hasn't yet been determined).

Roberta is right: your insinuations against Dean Radin in posts #12 and #19 to this thread are irresponsible and you should retract them. You are essentially accusing Dean of deliberately engaging in research malpractice in order to secure funds for IONS. Whilst your accusations are framed in suggestive language, I doubt that this framing would save you in a legal case of defamation, should Dean choose to press one (which I doubt he would).

I encourage you to consider what your reaction would be if somebody impugned your professional and personal reputation in such a way. I doubt that you would be happy about it, and would probably do as I and Roberta are asking of you: request that they retract it.

Max, you have no proof that the suggestion you made has any basis in fact, and whilst you are free to speculate privately, to do so publicly is unfair to the man whose reputation you have impugned.

Please retract your insinuation that Dean deliberately engages in research malpractice in order to secure funds.

Thanks.

(2017-09-06, 07:53 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Your comments reflect both your own interpretation, and your own choice of words Laird.

Further more, it is not what I wrote. What I wrote I'm completely happy with.

There's not much need for interpretation - your words speak for themselves. I believe I have fairly represented your insinuation, which anybody can check for themselves, and it's not something you should be happy with. But unless/until we determine moderation policy with respect to these sorts of issues, I'll simply reiterate that I believe you ought to retract your inappropriate insinuation, and leave it at that.

(2017-09-05, 07:30 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You said you didn't see a problem with headphones? I didn't agree, I say there *might* be a problem introducing sound changes into a closed test environment, but as the researchers never tested for air pressure vibrations at all, standing waves, resonance in the room, with the equipment, or apparently even if some of the mediators started making noises etc, we don't know diddly squat, other than how not to conduct an experiment using a device that is enormously sensitive to vibrations.

Max,
you have posted two technical articles as an example of what could constitute a disturbance to the interferometer.

Namely these two:
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/...mance.html
https://www.thorlabs.com/tutorials/tables2.cfm

Both articles don't seem to support your thesis. This is from one of the two:



They talk about foot traffic, vehicular traffic, wind blowing the building, building ventilation fans, temperature changes.
About random sources of vibrations they say this:

Quote:Random vibrations are classified as vibrations from unpredictable sources like wind blowing a building or a jack hammer crew digging up a water main in the street. In addition, it is important to know the frequency and amplitude of the vibrations. Typically, the frequency of the vibrations will range from 4-100 Hz.

Nowhere in both articles there's any mention to "people making noises".
I have been in rooms with more than 10 people meditating and there's dead silence, a part from the occasional sniffle or rustle of fabric when someone adjust his/her position.

Essentially you're claiming that the experimental setup is invalid because a person is allowed to be at a distance of 3 meters from the apparatus and any minor noise produced by the subject is going to perturb the test. It's an interesting claim, I give you that, but I haven't seen the necessary concrete evidence to support it.

Can you pleas finally provide substantial support to such claim?

Thanks

(2017-09-05, 07:30 PM)Max_ Wrote: [ -> ]we don't know diddly squat, other than how not to conduct an experiment using a device that is enormously sensitive to vibrations.

This is plainly unfair.
The studies declare in plain english that they have tested as many sources of intereference as possible, including sound. I've even quoted the relevant paragraph for you in my previous post.

Please stop playing dumb, it's disingenuous.

(2017-09-06, 09:07 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Where did you quote the relevant paragraph from the study in your previous post where you claim they measured vibrations from air pressure... I can't see the quote?

I am under the impression that you're just bitching about the fact tha Radin et al. did not use the exact wording that you expect.

For the 2nd time the paper states that they investigated possible artifacts due "heat generated by proximity of the body, or sound vibrations associated with announcements of the condition assignments or performance feedback, or systematic drifts or oscillations, also failed to identify viable artifacts."

So, they checked that the sounds produced during the test would not cause artifacts in the interferometer.
Of course sound propagate through air and material vibrations!

This is like complaining they didn't write about interferences from "photon energy" while they did check for artifacts due to surrounding EM fields.

You're just playing word games at this point.

(2017-09-06, 09:02 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You seem to have overlooked "The difference is that acoustic vibrations are a measure of the effects of air pressure variations on the experiment." in the first paragraph, and "acoustic vibrations (above 20Hz)" in the diagram.... I'll just keep quoting below these from the document because it's quicker...

"Therefore, it is common in laboratories to find an ambient noise spectrum where the inputs are most likely to be structural and acoustic."

"some of the most common sources of noise:
Acoustics (B)     100 – 10000Hz           10-2 to 10-4 in amplitude"

"Although sometimes the specific vibration criteria are known because the manufacturer of a device might provide the required environmental specifications required for the proper use of that device, this is not always the case. In these cases, generic criteria have been developed by consultants like Colin Gordon & Associates. Table 2 below has a description of what types of applications can be implemented successfully given the severity of vibrations present in that environment....

[Bottom row on table 2 this data...]

Criterion Curve
VC-E

RMS Vibration Velocity Amplitude
(One-Third Octave Bands Range of Measurement)
3 µm/s (1-80 Hz)

Detail Size (line width)
0.1 µm

Description of Use
A difficult criterion to achieve in most instances. Assumed to be adequate for long path laser based interferometers and other systems requiring extraordinary dynamic stability."






From the laser focus world article... [dealing with simpler commercial interferometers for measuring surface profiles - but it gives a flavor]

"Vibration in particular is the largest and most obvious error source in an interferometric test situation"

"Acoustic noise can also be a significant source of error in a measurement. Acoustic noise is basically sound pressure waves that travel through the air. These waves have varying energies, but in general, the lower the frequency of the noise, the greater the amplitude. Acoustic noise affects the interferometric cavity by "driving" elements of the test setup-the mounts, the part, the part holder, even the interferometer mainframe itself.

Interferometers are particularly sensitive to vibrations and acoustic noise in the range from 0 to 30 Hz, with the lower-frequency noise having the most dramatic effect (see Fig. 1). The ripples seen in contour and isometric plots typically have a frequency approximately two times the fringe frequency. The most effective countermeasure for acoustically coupled noise is to design the test setup such that the part or system to be tested is rigidly mounted and the mount supporting the part is stable and robust. Ideally, the mount, in combination with the part to be tested, should have a resonant frequency higher than 30 Hz."

"Software-based environmental qualification routine allows the user of an interferometer to determine the frequency spectrum of environmental vibrations/noise"

"sophisticated measurement tools and techniques are required to measure and quantify vibration and acoustic noise sources. Because of the cost, this equipment is not always readily available, and it is not always practical to measure each test environment. Some PC-based interferometer systems have an environmental qualification routine built into the software. This software tool enables an operator to qualify the measurement environment by directly measuring the effects of vibration and noise on the interferometric cavity"

None of this provides anything relevant to your claims.
Especially when the paper you have cited as problematic clearly states that they have investigated artifacts caused by sounds emplyed during the experiment.

Granted, you can always go around calling people incompetent or insinuating generic accusations, but I am not sure how can you expect to be taken seriously.

(2017-09-06, 09:43 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Which paper is that quote from?

This is getting silly, dude...

(2017-09-06, 07:53 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Your comments reflect both your own interpretation, and your own choice of words Laird.

Further more, it is not what I wrote. What I wrote I'm completely happy with.

Since five people have liked Laird's post, and not one have liked your response, clearly it's not just Laird who thinks your comments are inappropriate and out of place. Maybe have some humility not and do what Laird reasonably asked of you, or dig your your heels in and drag the rest of us down with you.

All sessions in my study used the headphone with a moderate volume for providing feedback to the participant. The same occurred in control sessions, the headphone playing the feedback was laying on the couch where the participants used to sit.

If the sound was causing any artifact it should appear in the controls as well. Besides that, it should be unidirectional. As opposed, the data revealed an anti-correlation between V1 zp sign and the slit enhancement proposal by each experiment (see section 2.5). It's challenging to explain how oscillations in the air medium could favor more light passing through one slit as compared to the other. Even more challenging is the fact the enhanced slit correlates to what was proposed by the feedback mechanism.

Gabriel