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

These were just a random selection to give people a flavour of some things that are going on in magnetobiology and related fields, spin/magnetic moment etc., from more mainstream scientists...

I'd be interested to know more, but as always don't have enough time to look into things. If you were willing to post a brief summary of your thinking, that would be very useful.

This is Guerrer's FB account... Apparently he worked at CERN?
https://facebook.com/guerrer?fref=nf&ref=content_filter

Yes, from the interview I posted a link to earlier, he was there for a year as a research student.

Yes, from the interview I posted a link to earlier, he was there for a year as a research student.

CERN isn't exactly known for loose experiment standards... It kinda puts Max's characterization into perspective.

I've been trying to understand the statistical analysis technique, which is pretty complicated. I'm giving up for the time being. But it seems that in the control sessions, where no participant was present, there were alternate "intention" and "relax" conditions, and the non-significant p value mentioned in the abstract reflects the difference between these. I suppose this means that the visual feedback produced by an LED operated during the control "intention" condition, but I'm not clear whether they also had a set of headphones sitting there producing the audible feedback. (If they did, that would apparently show that the observed effect wasn't an acoustic effect due to the feedback, as Max suggested.)

It's unlikely to be acoustic feedback due to the difference in performance between meditators and non meditators in these kinds of experiments.  If it was due to that then the effect would be consistent whether people meditate or not.

I also want to comment and say that Max has ignored my two comments to him and other members seemed to have skipped over his accusations of fraud. I don't think we should allow fraud to be insinuated against researchers without solid evidence, especially if we want these people to give us interviews and participate in this forum in the future. No problem with accusations of sloppiness etc (even if I think the person is wrong) but we shouldn't be okay with suggestions that results are faked or that experiments are run badly to get a fake positive result in order to boost revenue.

I'm only interested in the paper, not where he doesn't work.

I think that you have a sharp mind, Max... But I also think that you go into each paper looking for things that bolster or refute your ideas, and that takes away from your objectivity. Let's get the man in here, shall we? I'm sure that PhD in quantum physics is at least worth a few coherent rebuttals... What do you say?

You explain what I'm seeing... somebody pointed those speakers directly at the measurement device... it's not like they are paired with a PC... they have been put on the table with that very sensitive bit of equipment for some reason...

1) Where did you get this picture from, what experiment are you claiming it's from?

2) If the results are due to sound, why do meditators do much better then non meditators?