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

Because Roberta asked me to comment on the study with the speakers photograph, and because Radin said the photo wasn't relevant (even though it is in his paper) and claimed all his studies used heaphones.

If it has nothing to do with Guerrer's study, can you take it to the thread that was opened to discuss Dean's work? It's distracting and confusing.

I agree with that but I have a minor nitpick... most VR headsets don't provide noise cancelling systems. In fact the only one that does is the most expensive (HTC vive) and their earbuds provide very basic noise cancelling.

Nitpicking over

You are in the future, stop nitpicking.

Golly... and I thought there was no money in psi research!

Now I may be missing something obvious, but why would 'noise cancelling headphones" be used if there was no ambient noise in the room?

Quite, those headphones are not fully closed cup, they have a tuned port hole on the outside of each cup, very roughly my understanding is that they equalise the air pressure inside with the outside, but the length and diameter of the port tunes it to a certain fequency (Hz).

I'm wondering - and it seems logical - whether the tuned port output / equalisation between both sides of the speaker diaphragm is different when the speaker cups are sealed on a users head, or left uncovered (as for the control). Does the tuned port output change?

I haven't looked at the room yet, or placement or device, to look at standing waves and reinforcement, and we know nothing about the resonance of the device itself, because nobody bothered to measure air  pressure, or vibrations from air pressure.

Also. What was the point of the three big breaths?

Not really, I'm using your logic on you Max. It's clearly not due to sound caused by meditators, or some   other vibrational noise, or the feedback noise. If it was the online experiments, ones without speakers etc wouldn't get a positive effect. Why can't you admit you're wrong?

Because your logic is buggered, I'm not going to educate you why experiment z results, does not rule out that experiment a, b, c, d, e results may be due to vibration from air pressure.

If it has nothing to do with Guerrer's study, can you take it to the thread that was opened to discuss Dean's work? It's distracting and confusing.

Err... no. Radin responded on this thread, and Roberta accused me on this thread, and failing to measure or account for vibrations as the cause of the results is entirely relevant.

Radin claimed all his studies used headphones in this thread... I'm responding to Radin, and Roberta, who said I was somehow deceiving everyone... hence pointing out the headphones.

Doesn't matter how you look at it, putting these sensitive devices on isolation tables and monitoring humidity, temperature, magnetic fields, shielding them in faraday cages etc, and finding an interesting effect, and then going on to claim the standard model may be wrong, and that you have found a new force in the world.... that's absolutely batty!!!... when you haven't done the slightested thing to measure vibration from air pressure!

Putting a 1.5 meter long device with a huge resonating cavity, together in a room with richly harmonic sounds that vary in each period, and with subjects that are told to do what they like to affect the device, then not bothering to monitor what is going on in the room, and completely ignoring vibrations from air pressure driving the device, and not measuring vibrations from air pressure at all... and then claiming you've found a new force in nature is stupid...

How about a chamomille tea?

Whether the study claims to have found a new force of nature or a way to make the best tea in the world it doesn't matter. I agree with you that a sensitive device must be shielded from all interferences.

Back to the paper linked in the OP they are using headphones and I am pretty sure that they're not blasting the volume so high that it is audible outside.

I have a pair of open back AKG studio headphones. I tested with your example of meditation chanting you posted earlier. Using a volume level suitable for meditation there's no audible sound from outside at a distance of 1 meter. In the experiment the meditator is sitting 3 meters away from the apparatus (using closed back headphones).

To make the headphones audible at 3 meters I have to crank the volume to full blast, but in those conditions the participants would be screaming in pain with their ears bleeding!

I find it pretty difficult to see a problem with those headphones in this setup.

Re: Radin's 2012 study, they do mention that they investigated possible artifacts due to "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 I don't think it's fair to say that they didn't monitor the issue. Additionally meditators at the IONS lab performed better that non-meditators. I am not sure why there would be a difference if the results are merely an artifact due to sound energy.

cheers

Because your logic is buggered, I'm not going to educate you why experiment z results, does not rule out that experiment a, b, c, d, e results may be due to vibration from air pressure.

No Max, you're just wrong, thats it. Sound isn't the cause, if it was the online experiments wouldn't be significant, and the meditators wouldn't do better then non meditators. 

Also will you retract and apologise to Radin for insinuating he faked or purposefully messed up the experiment in order to get a false positive to generate income for IONs?

How about a chamomille tea?

Whether the study claims to have found a new force of nature or a way to make the best tea in the world it doesn't matter. I agree with you that a sensitive device must be shielded from all interferences.

Back to the paper linked in the OP they are using headphones and I am pretty sure that they're not blasting the volume so high that it is audible outside.

I have a pair of open back AKG studio headphones. I tested with your example of meditation chanting you posted earlier. Using a volume level suitable for meditation there's no audible sound from outside at a distance of 1 meter. In the experiment the meditator is sitting 3 meters away from the apparatus (using closed back headphones).

To make the headphones audible at 3 meters I have to crank the volume to full blast, but in those conditions the participants would be screaming in pain with their ears bleeding!

I find it pretty difficult to see a problem with those headphones in this setup.

Re: Radin's 2012 study, they do mention that they investigated possible artifacts due to "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 I don't think it's fair to say that they didn't monitor the issue. Additionally meditators at the IONS lab performed better that non-meditators. I am not sure why there would be a difference if the results are merely an artifact due to sound energy.

cheers

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.

No Max, you're just wrong, thats it. Sound isn't the cause, if it was the online experiments wouldn't be significant, and the meditators wouldn't do better then non meditators. 

Also will you retract and apologise to Radin for insinuating he faked or purposefully messed up the experiment in order to get a false positive to generate income for IONs?

This paper needs to show that they have at least excluded vibration (not exhaustive) as a cause of changes to fringe measurements, before suggesting they have found a new force in nature. They haven't done that in this study. I can confirm your opening OP that this looks like an independent replication of Radins studies, and further that the paper is the same junk I've seen in other studies from Radin. You won't find such studies in reputable publications because they are very poor.

Max. I'm not involved here but just a suggestion. You might want to withdraw some of that post above. It could get you into trouble, I don't know but is it worth it ?
(hint:libel ?)