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

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.

Since they are being taken in and out of intent/relaxing phases, it would be odd for them to be chanting during the first (I can see them doing so during the relaxing phase if not instructed otherwise, but that wasn't the one that got the results). My point being that the people in these experiments were being told to visualize their influence in the result, not to actively meditate.

For anybody who is interested, an easy article to understand about sources of vibration in the lab...

https://www.thorlabs.com/tutorials/tables2.cfm

and another about standard commercial interferometers, which should give you a flavor of their sensitivity to the environment...

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/...mance.html

Cool, thanks.
From the article #2

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).

Definitely not in the range of human voice

I haven't looked at that paper before. That's the online test one which is quite different to the previous studies we've been discussing.

Except that they are all testing the same thing - so if it's noise how can they still get a positive and significant result if people up to thousands of kilometres away are taking part?

I have to say that at the moment I don't see how the statistical analysis procedure can be justified.

I've only just found this thread, and will look at the paper later, but what are you're concerns?

For anybody who is interested, an easy article to understand about sources of vibration in the lab...

https://www.thorlabs.com/tutorials/tables2.cfm

and another about standard commercial interferometers, which should give you a flavor of their sensitivity to the environment...

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/...mance.html

Oh God why do I keep at this???

Yes. Took a look. Not much surprising here, afterall the device is all about combining light and measuring the mis-alignment. Since light waves are pretty small (depending on freq of course) these devices are pretty sensitive,, which of course is the whole point.

The fact that a device has this level of sensitivity is a pretty good indicator that it will ALSO be sensitive to mechanical vibration which of course is also what sound is. 

What is it that makes you think that the people who use these devices DON'T KNOW THIS?

I've only just found this thread, and will look at the paper later, but what are you're concerns?

I'd like to think a bit more about it before getting into details, but I thought it was fair to say it looked problematical to me.