Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

[anonymous]

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2012/0...uble-slit.html

Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Phys...in%20final.pdf

Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s. Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=-4:36, p=6·10-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.  2012 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157]

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Entangled Minds: Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern

Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Phys...in%20final.pdf

Thanks for posting this! It's very exciting stuff!

[Scott]

From page 159 of paper

"To measure perturbations in the wavefunction, the interference pattern recorded by the line camera was analyzed with a fast Fourier transform to quantify the power associated with the two dominant spatial wavelengths:
a shorter wavelength associated with the doubleslit interference pattern (call this power PD) and a longer wavelength associated with the diffraction pattern produced by each slit (PS) (see Fig. 2). The fraction of (log) spectral power associated with the interference pattern was D=½PD=ðPD+PSÞ, and that with the diffraction pattern was S=½PS=ðPD+PSÞ. The ratio of these fractions,
R=D=S, was the preplanned variable of interest."

What is being measured? Putting together figure 10 on pg 166 I see they are measuring the separation of nodes/antinodes in the interference pattern. This would not be a wavelength relation since it would be a factor of distance from slit to surface being projected onto. What else is being measured here and why?

They dismiss any temperature fluctuations based on measurements with a .5 degree C resolution. Did they test what effect just a heat source (hot water bottle) might have as a control? How does the system respond to temperature fluctuations? They did comment that this did not exclude this from influencing data, but I can see this as being brought up as evidence that it was not from that source when it did not really address the question at all. They even had some hints that this could be a factor and left it up in the air.

I really am interested in my first comment though. This is about the 4th time I have brought this up. This paper did at least start to point at what is being measured (at least part of what they toss into calculation). Average distance between nodes projected from slits (I assume at this scale the difference in distance from slit to edge vs. center is not a factor) - OK. What is the rest and why is it needed? If you are screwing with the slit experiment then that should do it. If you want to say the intensity of the center vs. outsides of pattern is affected, measure that.
What is it he is comparing?

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Scott

From page 159 of paper

"To measure perturbations in the wavefunction, the interference pattern recorded by the line camera was analyzed with a fast Fourier transform to quantify the power associated with the two dominant spatial wavelengths:
a shorter wavelength associated with the doubleslit interference pattern (call this power PD) and a longer wavelength associated with the diffraction pattern produced by each slit (PS) (see Fig. 2). The fraction of (log) spectral power associated with the interference pattern was D=½PD=ðPD+PSÞ, and that with the diffraction pattern was S=½PS=ðPD+PSÞ. The ratio of these fractions,
R=D=S, was the preplanned variable of interest."

What is being measured? Putting together figure 10 on pg 166 I see they are measuring the separation of nodes/antinodes in the interference pattern. This would not be a wavelength relation since it would be a factor of distance from slit to surface being projected onto. What else is being measured here and why?

They dismiss any temperature fluctuations based on measurements with a .5 degree C resolution. Did they test what effect just a heat source (hot water bottle) might have as a control? How does the system respond to temperature fluctuations? They did comment that this did not exclude this from influencing data, but I can see this as being brought up as evidence that it was not from that source when it did not really address the question at all. They even had some hints that this could be a factor and left it up in the air.

I really am interested in my first comment though. This is about the 4th time I have brought this up. This paper did at least start to point at what is being measured (at least part of what they toss into calculation). Average distance between nodes projected from slits (I assume at this scale the difference in distance from slit to edge vs. center is not a factor) - OK. What is the rest and why is it needed? If you are screwing with the slit experiment then that should do it. If you want to say the intensity of the center vs. outsides of pattern is affected, measure that.
What is it he is comparing?

Why not clarify your questions (because they seem rather scattered right now) and post them on Dr Radin's blog?

[Johann]

Oh look, yet more evidence for psi.

Go Dean!

- Johann

[EthanT]

Looking forward to reading this!!

I wonder what the backlash will be like? Probably nothing like Bem's, but there's got to be some I would think!

[metaphysics101]

I'm sure the skeptics will find ways to find holes in the data, and if there aren't evident holes, then they will make their own.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by metaphysics101

I'm sure the skeptics will find ways to find holes in the data, and if there aren't evident holes, then they will make their own.

Isn't the point of publishing a scientific work to expose it to critique in the scientific community?

[metaphysics101]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Isn't the point of publishing a scientific work to expose it to critique in the scientific community?

sure, but no matter how impressive it might turn out to be, expect it to fail in the eyes of the skeptics.... Sorry, but that's just the way I feel.

[really]

Originally Posted by metaphysics101

sure, but no matter how impressive it might turn out to be, expect it to fail in the eyes of the skeptics.... Sorry, but that's just the way I feel.

What skeptics think doesn't amount to a hill of crap if these experiments and subsequent ones independently verify the initial conclusions. So stop bellyaching about mean ol' skeptics.

If this turns out to be true, Radin and colleagues will have some splainin to do.
http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...m-reality.html