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

But another problem relates to how V1 and V2 should be combined together to form a single measure of the differences between the pattern in the concentration and relax conditions. The snag is that there are five different experiments, and the feedback given to the participants is differently defined in each. Sometimes the feedback tells the participants they're doing well if the amount of light going through the left-hand slit increases, but sometimes it encourages them to boost the amount going through the right-hand slit. That will tend to have opposite effects on the phase shifts. So, for example, V1 can be expected to be positive in some experiments, but negative in others.

Now, in the paper, there is a table in which the expected sign of V1 is worked out for each of the five experiments from the form of the feedback, using a simple model. So on that basis there is rational way of working out how to combine together the values of V1 for the different experiments. That seems reasonable (assuming those predicted signs of V1 have been worked out correctly). But then V2 is added in, and it still seems to me that there's a problem with this step, because there isn't a rational way of choosing the sign of V2. 

But as I say, I have only had a very quick look at the paper so far, so I may well be missing something.

I've finally got around to reading the revised version properly, and I was indeed missing something. The intention now is to treat all the experiments to date as exploratory, and to do a further two series of pre-registered formal experiments with the same feedback as in Experiments 4 and 5 presented in the preprint (which gave the most significant results for the V1 and V2 variables separately). In the formal experiments, the expected signs of the V1 and V2 variables will be based on the signs of these two variables observed in Experiments 4 and 5. This will get around the problems of V1 having the opposite sign to that expected on theoretical grounds, and of there being no theoretical way to determine the expected sign of V2 - and will allow all the results in the formal experiments to be analysed with reference to a pre-determined statistical hypothesis.

But of course, the down-side of treating all the experiments to date as exploratory, is that we'll have to disregard the statistical results based on them, and wait and see whether the formal experiments confirm the new hypothesis.

I've finally got around to reading the revised version properly, and I was indeed missing something. The intention now is to treat all the experiments to date as exploratory, and to do a further two series of pre-registered formal experiments with the same feedback as in Experiments 4 and 5 presented in the preprint (which gave the most significant results for the V1 and V2 variables separately). In the formal experiments, the expected signs of the V1 and V2 variables will be based on the signs of these two variables observed in Experiments 4 and 5. This will get around the problems of V1 having the opposite sign to that expected on theoretical grounds, and of there being no theoretical way to determine the expected sign of V2 - and will allow all the results in the formal experiments to be analysed with reference to a pre-determined statistical hypothesis.

But of course, the down-side of treating all the experiments to date as exploratory, is that we'll have to disregard the statistical results based on them, and wait and see whether the formal experiments confirm the new hypothesis.

Another down-side is that even if there is a genuine effect made up of the two components included in the theoretical model, it's not entirely safe to assume that the results of Experiments 4 and 5 will give the signs of the components correctly. While the effects appear to be pretty strong in Experiment 5 (Z=-3.15 for the V1 variable and Z=-2.87 for the V2 variable), they appear much weaker in Experiment 4 (Z=1.85 for V1 and Z=-1.32 for V2). A Z value of -1.32 is not conclusive that the expected value is less than 0.

I'm still trying to figure out what may (or may not) be going on in these experiments, and in the previous ones by Dean Radin and others.

Could any Quantum Mechanics enthusiasts give me some help with the underlying concept? If I understand correctly, the motivation for looking at a double-slit system, from a psi point of view, is that the interference pattern is the result of wave-like behaviour by the photons, and that if a measurement is made of which slit the photons are passing through, the fringes disappear. So if the photons could be "psychically measured", that should tend to weaken the pattern. (Note, however, that the participants in Guerrer's experiments were told only to try to enhance the feedback they were receiving, and those in Radin's were told various things, but weren't usually told explicitly to try to measure where the photons were going.)

[Image: doubleslit.jpg]
Radin used various analysis techniques, but the common feature was an attempt to quantify the intensity of the double-slit interference pattern (at the bottom  in the figure), relative to that of the single-slit diffraction pattern (at the top). Again, Guerrer uses a different analysis technique - he assumes that the effect is to change the amounts of light which go through the two slits, and to introduce a phase-difference between the light going through the two slits.

What I don't understand is why a psychical measurement of the photons - if that were the mechanism - shouldn't also affect the single-slit diffraction pattern, as well as the double-slit interference pattern. The diffraction pattern is also a result of wave-like behaviour by the photons, and if I understand correctly, it should also be disrupted by measurement of the photons as they pass through the slit - if that measurement yields extra information about position and momentum, in addition to indicating which slit the photon is passing through. And I can't imagine any reason why a psychical measurement would be confined to "which way" information.

But maybe I am misunderstanding something.

I'm still trying to figure out what may (or may not) be going on in these experiments, and in the previous ones by Dean Radin and others.

Could any Quantum Mechanics enthusiasts give me some help with the underlying concept? If I understand correctly, the motivation for looking at a double-slit system, from a psi point of view, is that the interference pattern is the result of wave-like behaviour by the photons, and that if a measurement is made of which slit the photons are passing through, the fringes disappear. So if the photons could be "psychically measured", that should tend to weaken the pattern. (Note, however, that the participants in Guerrer's experiments were told only to try to enhance the feedback they were receiving, and those in Radin's were told various things, but weren't usually told explicitly to try to measure where the photons were going.)

[Image: doubleslit.jpg]
Radin used various analysis techniques, but the common feature was an attempt to quantify the intensity of the double-slit interference pattern (at the bottom  in the figure), relative to that of the single-slit diffraction pattern (at the top). Again, Guerrer uses a different analysis technique - he assumes that the effect is to change the amounts of light which go through the two slits, and to introduce a phase-difference between the light going through the two slits.

What I don't understand is why a psychical measurement of the photons - if that were the mechanism - shouldn't also affect the single-slit diffraction pattern, as well as the double-slit interference pattern. The diffraction pattern is also a result of wave-like behaviour by the photons, and if I understand correctly, it should also be disrupted by measurement of the photons as they pass through the slit - if that measurement yields extra information about position and momentum, in addition to indicating which slit the photon is passing through. And I can't imagine any reason why a psychical measurement would be confined to "which way" information.

But maybe I am misunderstanding something.

You've not. Remember the slit experiment is not just a demonstration of pk it's also a demonstration of conforming physical reality to ones will. In short ones intention is expected to change what previous double slit experiments always show.

I'm still trying to figure out what may (or may not) be going on in these experiments, and in the previous ones by Dean Radin and others.

Could any Quantum Mechanics enthusiasts give me some help with the underlying concept? If I understand correctly, the motivation for looking at a double-slit system, from a psi point of view, is that the interference pattern is the result of wave-like behaviour by the photons, and that if a measurement is made of which slit the photons are passing through, the fringes disappear. So if the photons could be "psychically measured", that should tend to weaken the pattern. (Note, however, that the participants in Guerrer's experiments were told only to try to enhance the feedback they were receiving, and those in Radin's were told various things, but weren't usually told explicitly to try to measure where the photons were going.)

[Image: doubleslit.jpg]
Radin used various analysis techniques, but the common feature was an attempt to quantify the intensity of the double-slit interference pattern (at the bottom  in the figure), relative to that of the single-slit diffraction pattern (at the top). Again, Guerrer uses a different analysis technique - he assumes that the effect is to change the amounts of light which go through the two slits, and to introduce a phase-difference between the light going through the two slits.

What I don't understand is why a psychical measurement of the photons - if that were the mechanism - shouldn't also affect the single-slit diffraction pattern, as well as the double-slit interference pattern. The diffraction pattern is also a result of wave-like behaviour by the photons, and if I understand correctly, it should also be disrupted by measurement of the photons as they pass through the slit - if that measurement yields extra information about position and momentum, in addition to indicating which slit the photon is passing through. And I can't imagine any reason why a psychical measurement would be confined to "which way" information.

But maybe I am misunderstanding something.

Have you reached out to Radin? This isn’t a new experiment. He references various papers decades ago that were testing similar concepts.

Have you reached out to Radin? This isn’t a new experiment. He references various papers decades ago that were testing similar concepts.

No, I haven't contacted Radin. I just wondered whether anyone here had any thoughts on it.

I think the only pre-Radin double-slit psi experiments were those published by Ibison and Jeffers in 1998:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-27...ml#pid6581

They just looked at the heights of the central peak and the adjacent troughs of the interference pattern. They gave very little discussion of how they expected psychical observation to affect those heights, though evidently they expected the fringe pattern to weaken, so that the peak height would decrease and the trough heights would increase. But it seems to me that if diffraction as well as interference were affected, that might tend to increase the peak height.

No, I haven't contacted Radin. I just wondered whether anyone here had any thoughts on it.

I think the only pre-Radin double-slit psi experiments were those published by Ibison and Jeffers in 1998:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-27...ml#pid6581

They just looked at the heights of the central peak and the adjacent troughs of the interference pattern. They gave very little discussion of how they expected psychical observation to affect those heights, though evidently they expected the fringe pattern to weaken, so that the peak height would decrease and the trough heights would increase. But it seems to me that if diffraction as well as interference were affected, that might tend to increase the peak height.

I’d reach out to him and ask. He referenced some older studies in a talk he gave.

A third version of the preprint is now available:
https://osf.io/zsgwp/

I have read only the abstract so far, which says that based on the previous studies (now treated as exploratory), a further study of 80 sessions was pre-registered, to be tested using a directional hypothesis. But the results were not statistically significant. However, a post hoc bi-directional hypothesis gave significant results for the 80 sessions (2.75 sigma) and for all 240* sessions to date (4.73 sigma). 

Clearly, if this is a real effect, there is a difficulty in predicting its direction. This was the case with previous versions of the preprint, where the effect appeared to operate in the direction opposite to the one expected on the basis of model calculations [though in some cases I'm not convinced the expected direction had been calculated correctly]. The abstract says that 240 control sessions, conducted without an observer present, continued to give non-significant results on both directional and bi-directional hypotheses. So despite the difficulty in predicting the direction, it's still possible there's a real effect there.

(* Edit: Apparently this figure actually relates to 180 sessions, because the first experiment of 60 sessions, which was used to optimise the variables V1 and V2, was excluded.)

A third version of the preprint is now available:
https://osf.io/zsgwp/

I have read only the abstract so far, which says that based on the previous studies (now treated as exploratory), a further study of 80 sessions was pre-registered, to be tested using a directional hypothesis. But the results were not statistically significant. However, a post hoc bi-directional hypothesis gave significant results for the 80 sessions (2.75 sigma) and for all 240* sessions to date (4.73 sigma). 

Clearly, if this is a real effect, there is a difficulty in predicting its direction. This was the case with previous versions of the preprint, where the effect appeared to operate in the direction opposite to the one expected on the basis of model calculations [though in some cases I'm not convinced the expected direction had been calculated correctly]. The abstract says that 240 control sessions, conducted without an observer present, continued to give non-significant results on both directional and bi-directional hypotheses. So despite the difficulty in predicting the direction, it's still possible there's a real effect there.

(* Edit: Apparently this figure actually relates to 180 sessions, because the first experiment of 60 sessions, which was used to optimise the variables V1 and V2, was excluded.)

Having read the new version, I'm not really any clearer about what's going on. The four new experiments are based on the final two in the previous version, which were the ones that gave the strongest results. 

In these experiments, the feedback given to the participants would have encouraged them either to increase or decrease a variable based on the amplitudes of the first few terms in a Fourier series representation of the measured interference pattern (that is, the amplitudes of the wave-like components with the longest wavelengths, reflecting the large-scale shape of the interference pattern). But the response was analysed using two different variables, V1 and V2, which are defined in terms of  -the phases (i.e. the sideways shifts of the wave-like components) for two ranges of smaller wavelengths (intermediate between the lengthscale of the overall interference pattern, and the wavelength of the interference fringes).

As the feedback variable is different from the variables used to analyse the response, it's not necessarily unexpected that the response could vary in direction. It might be that there were different ways in which the pattern could change, in which the signs of the phase shifts were different, but the changes in the amplitudes of the leading terms were in the same sense. (Guerrer used a theoretical model for motivation, which predicted the sign of V1 - though not of V2 - for given feedback. But as the predicted sign in the final two exploratory experiments was the opposite of that measured, the model doesn't seem to reflect what's happening.) Indeed, as the double-slit system is nearly left-right symmetrical, it's not hard to imagine that the pattern could change in such a way that a change in the sign of the phase shifts (and thus of V1 and V2) could leave the sign of the amplitudes (and thus of the feedback variable) unchanged.

But we're still left with a situation in which, for example, in experiment 5 (20 participants) both V1 and V2 show very significant decreases (Z=-3.15 and -2.87), whereas in experiment 9 (also 20 participants, with the same feedback), they both show significant increases (Z=2.23 and 3.00). Perhaps it could be that these significant results in opposite directions are produced by only a small number of participants, which might make them statistically reconcilable. Perhaps it could be some kind of experimental artefact occurring in only a small number of sessions, but it's not easy to imagine how it would work.

One other interesting finding is that pooling experiments 5, 7 and 9 (which share the same feedback), there is a very significant correlation between the observed changes in V1 and V2 (p=0.01). But for experiments 4, 6 and 8 (in which the feedback acts in the opposite sense), the changes in V1 and V2 are significantly negatively correlated (also p=0.01). Again, given the approximate left-right symmetry of the system, it's not too hard to imagine that the directions of steepest (1) increase and (2) decrease of the feedback variable could correspond to the changes in V1 and V2 having (1) the same and (2) opposite signs. But it's hard to see why this change in the correlation according to the sense of the feedback should occur if this is an experimental artefact rather than a psi effect.

Perhaps more could be gleaned from a closer look at the experimental data. It's good that the data can be downloaded from the same OSF website where the preprint is hosted.