Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern
Dean Radin, Leena Michel, James Johnston, and Arnaud Delorme (2013). Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern. Physics Essays, Volume 26: p. 553-566
This is the third publication describing our ongoing research program on mind-matter interactions. This line of research focuses on experimentally testing John von Neumann's (and others) interpretation of the quantum measurement problem (QMP). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good description of the QMP. So far we've conducted 15 experiments and have reported the results of 10 of them. Overall the evidence is consistent with von Neumann's proposal that consciousness is involved in the behavior of quantum systems. Note that consistency doesn't necessarily mean that von Neumann's approach is the only valid interpretation.
Abstract
Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or –away from a double-slit system located 3 meters away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect.
A Fraunhofer diffraction model was used to explore various interpretations of this outcome. This analysis suggested that the distribution of light between the two slits and the horizontal stability of the laser beam were the principle components of the optical system that were perturbed.
The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2,089 experimental sessions. Results were [significantly] similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude. Data from 2,303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 hours using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size.
The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies.
The article may be downloaded by clicking here.
This is the third publication describing our ongoing research program on mind-matter interactions. This line of research focuses on experimentally testing John von Neumann's (and others) interpretation of the quantum measurement problem (QMP). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good description of the QMP. So far we've conducted 15 experiments and have reported the results of 10 of them. Overall the evidence is consistent with von Neumann's proposal that consciousness is involved in the behavior of quantum systems. Note that consistency doesn't necessarily mean that von Neumann's approach is the only valid interpretation.
Abstract
Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or –away from a double-slit system located 3 meters away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect.
A Fraunhofer diffraction model was used to explore various interpretations of this outcome. This analysis suggested that the distribution of light between the two slits and the horizontal stability of the laser beam were the principle components of the optical system that were perturbed.
The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2,089 experimental sessions. Results were [significantly] similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude. Data from 2,303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 hours using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size.
The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies.
The article may be downloaded by clicking here.
Comments
Best,
Michael.
Yes.
Yes, I'm in discussions with a half-dozen physicists who are interested in these topics.
One question that occurrs is if the effect of observers are cumulative or not. The PEAR project did some work on that but if memory serves it was not totally clear... Sometimes appearing to be cumulative and other times not. In terms of this specific line of thought that could be an interesting question in terms of, and very speculatively, the selection of universal constants that are consistent with conscious observers in the future light cone.
Not sure if there is other work or perspectives on this that I am missing?
Is there many theoretical physcicist interested in psychophysical interactions?
I've shown this kind of research to some of my friends, and I find it quite curious that both skeptical and mystic people are offended by it.
The skepticals are offended because it dares to suggest that something strange is going on.
And the mystics are offended because it dares to suggest that spiritual phenomena have an objective reality and are not entirely subjective.
Dean, did you have the same sort of reactions?
(1) no interest at all, because the person doesn't understand this type of study, or because he or she is more interested in football or the pragmatics of daily life,
(2) emotionally negative because of an incorrect belief that such results must be impossible because they violate some imaginary "law of physics,"
(3) emotionally negative because this type of study seems to secularize a strongly held belief that mind/consciousness is divine or sacred, and as such it shouldn't be questioned,
(4) emotionally positive because in some way it seems to confirm the person's prior experiences or beliefs, and
(5) my own motivation: curiosity about the role of consciousness in the physical world, about the far reaches of human potential, and about the relationships between science and those concepts called "spiritual" (because we don't understand them yet, as I discuss in my book, Supernormal).
Well, I think it perhaps profoundly challenges that mind is purely brain too, of which there is considerable backlash.
Dean did you gain additional insights from that critique?
$25 is too much for my budget, but I'd like to know what were the critics, entropy violation?
causality violation?
Beside, there is a video on Youtube of Stuart Hameroff, (the author with Roger Penrose, of a quantum interpretation of the mind).
1)Mr. Dean, your experiment is rather consistent with Hameroff's hypothesis. Any comment here?
2)Mr. Hameroff mentioned that, according to his theory, 'Consciousness' is not a continuous state of the Human mind, rather, it is a discontinuous state, with something of the order of 50 'events of consciousness' per 1 second, a value also proposed independently by meditators he said. So according to this, the Mind is actually made of discrete events of consciousness. S.H. also mentioned that some Meditators can raise this frequency to near 100 events/seconds.
Going back to Mr. Dean experiment and using 50Hz as a typical value, you wouldn't expect the Mind wave-function of a human subject, to interact more often than 50 times/s with the wave function of the photons produced by the laser, during the period of attention.
So let's say one Mind-wave-function can interact with ONLY one photon-wave-function and provoke its collapse, well, that would be a maximum of 50 photons-wave-functions collapsed per second. Given a laser producing billions of photons per second, that is a very small ratio and wouldn't be easily detectable.
That's another reason to deal with single photon beam to see an effect of this hypothetical '50Hz conscious Mind".
3)also, if the wave function of a conscious human mind (using Hameroff's model) can influence the wave function of a photon, there is no reason for the opposite not to be true.
Any comment?
Very interesting idea. Thanks. I will consider it.
The primary critique in the article published in Physics Essays was not about the evidence, which was accepted as is. Rather it was the interpretation that consciousness was the important component. The work of the Belgian group led by Diederik Aerts was mentioned as an example of a different approach to understanding quantum mechanics from a generalized perspective. E.g. see this paper: http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publications/1999EinmagIndigoIntro.pdf. A somewhat similar approach to a generalized quantum theory is provided by the team led by Harald Atmanspacher: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quantph/0104109.pdf.
I find these approaches very interesting because they recast the idea of mind-matter interaction into an effect that ought to occur (indeed must occur), which is in stark contrast to the typical classical perspective which is forced to reject the possibility of any form of mind-matter interaction.
Would be interesting to see the difference between 'sender'feedback verses no feedback.
And also any complex structure in there.
Tony
NISHANT BERRY - Would the outcome of the experiment be affected by any source radiating electromagnetic waves and to what extent?
Human bodies act like charged devices and produce electrical currents with magnetic effects and medical science tells us that the human brain, eyes and heart radiate varying degrees of EM energy which affect our surroundings without us even being aware of this interplay of forces.
According to HeartMath, the human heart’s magnetic field can be measured several feet away from the body. According to research at HeartMath, the heart emits an electromagnetic field that changes according to our emotions. Others can pick up the quality of our emotions through the electromagnetic energy radiating from heart. Dr. J. Andrew Armour introduced the term, "heart brain," in 1991. Armour showed that the heart’s complex nervous system qualified it as a "little brain."
So, expectedly, the human body acts like a conducting device emitting electromagnetic radiations that're in many ways influenced by our thoughts/emotions - this field of energy could be labeled "sentient energy field".
With regard to human impact on quantum system like double slit experimental setup, detailed experiments need to be conducted using a variety of electromagnetic sources insentient/sentient and then correlations/inferences should be drawn.
We conducted studies where the individuals involved in the experiment were separated from the optical system by 4 km to 18,000 km. At such distances any EM fields associated with the human body are many orders of magnitude smaller than EM fields that are in proximity to the optical apparatus (like the lights in the room, or the fields associated with the web server). So it seems unlikely that what we are observing in these experiments is related to any known properties of EM fields.
The heart (and intestine/solar plexus, that contains a group of neurons equal to 1/10 of the whole brain mass) as a little brain is an interesting discovery, because it was considered a seat of emotions by different people of different ancient ages.
- The heart emits a 5,000 times stronger electromagnetic field than the brain.
GIANFRANCO - The heart (and intestine/solar plexus, that contains a group of neurons equal to 1/10 of the whole brain mass) as a little brain is an interesting discovery, because it was considered a seat of emotions by different people of different ancient ages.
- Yes, heart is the seat of emotions since it has awareness and the presence of a minibrain (neuronal network) in the heart corroborates this statement. Tell me, why're emotions always sensed in the heart region and never in the head? The cognizing centers in the brain perceive the emotion being felt in the heart but the sensation of elation, sadness, longing, revenge, compassion, hatred, anger, etc, is always felt in the heart region.
- All the above-mentioned cases were evidently conducted using human participants connected to the IONs facility via technological devices which then brings in the question of interfering EM effects of the device itself.
How about an experiment in which the participator is not connected to the experimental setup through any technological device - internet, mobile phone, camera etc?
The impact of just pure mentation on the course of the optical experiment should be tested with the participator say being located somewhere outside the IONs campus or in a neighboring room or in a faraway place?
If it is seen that pure mentation sans any technological device can impact the outcome of the experiment then it may be inferred that directed or concentrated thinking of the participator with respect to the experiment has affected the result.
Yes, in a sense they were connected through the Internet. But not directly, only by association. I.e., there are no direct EM linkages -- meaning no wires carrying common EM signals -- between a PC and a web server.
The experiment requires comparison of the behavior of the optical system during active attention vs. no-attention control periods. Some automated mechanism has to inform the participant what to do, and when. That requires technology.
Something like card or dice experiments? They have already been made.
- To inquire into the question whether the Mind Force of Consciousness is actually the doer and not the electrical energies of the tech devices used the sensible thing to do would be to conduct the experiment in such a way that only the Mind Force of the participator interacts over spacetime with the optical setup.
If his heightened Mental Power can alter the outcome of the experiment in keeping with the application of his Mental Will directed at the system anywhere - from another room in IONS, from Sydney or from LA - then only it would conclusively provide some tangible basis for the inference that sentient entities can alter the outcome of a physical experiment by their thoughts.
Those with actual Psychic Power can alter the outcome of the experiment from a distance and that too without using any technological device and besides if their Mind Power is sufficiently potent then they can even damage the optical system by knocking out its mechanical parts or sensitive electronic parts by interring with the working as per their wish.
Remember one thing - a mystic with heightened Energy of Consciousness at his disposal can effectively function from anywhere since spatiotemporal barriers mean nothing to the awakened and nonlocal Consciousness Field of the mystic - just a thought or just an incoming vibration from the object/person is sufficient for the connection to be forged and instantly the field of Conscious Energy of mystic connects with it and brings it into its ambit and can easily work on it and in such cases there're no statistically favorable outcomes (and all that goes by this numerical jugglery) since the Conscious Power of the mystic is always active and can achieve what it wishes to at will and as many times as it so desires.
I have heightened powers of concentration and routinely experience the rising of the kundalini energy through the spinal nerves right up to the pineal and simultaneously I often experience a strong descent into my brain and spinal nerves of a high frequency energy field that is similar to the energy field of the kundalini. Both these yogic events take place during the waking consciousness and occur with the concomitant subtle phenomena of faint light radiating from the body, opening up of olfactory nerves, subtle sounds being heard internally, immense heat streaming out from the body that can be felt by anyone up to a distance of 15 feet or so and temporary awakening of certain psi powers related to distant healing, trikaal gyaan, extra-lightness of body mass and the like.
And, so, I am offering myself for testing in the particular case of the double slit.
DETAILS:
1) At present, I am located thousands of kms away from the US where the IONs facility is situated.
2) If I could be intimated of the date/time when the double slit experiment will be run and if I could be given the exact address in terms of the whereabouts of the lab (building number, room number, floor etc) then it will be helpful and that is all that I will need to try and affect the outcome of the experiment using pure heightened mental energy from long distance.
3) I will simply sit and concentrate on the mental image of the experimental setup in my bedroom with all the electrical gadgets turned off.
4) The experimental setup at IONs should be kept away from any human or electrical influence after getting it going. Neither gross bodily energies nor EM energy should be present in the concerned lab at the time when the experiment is being run.
5) A hidden cam can record the proceedings from a distance of at least 30 feet, if possible.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229692.600-quantum-twist-could-kill-off-the-multiverse.html#.U3Tp33Lraso
I was just wondering whether you have an opinion, or any thoughts on this at all, Dean.
Obviously, the maths is beyond me, but I'm finding the starting point of an 'inflaton' preceding all other particles in the universe, and hence not having anything external to act as an 'observer', (just so one can avoid quantum fluctuations) a bit of a stretch.
What is the form of these so-called primal conscious configurations called Boltzmann brains that just popped out of the vacuum fully formed when it supposedly took billions of years for ordinary brains to come into existence on earth from a sea of random molecular pull and push forces?
Were the conditions in the vacuum just right to produce these so-called fully formed conscious entities (Boltzmann brains)?
Why the stress on the need to have eternal conscious observers and on consciousness itself and that too when these very scientists argue against the philosophy of consciousness being concomitant with energy field or inherent in energy field or energy being a field of action of an inbuilt consciousness that progressively over vast stretches of time gives a directional thrust to the universal laws which ultimately results in the emergence of sentient forms/ordinary consciousnesses in the finely tuned terrestrial nature?
The proponents of the so-called Boltzmann's brains (as opposed to the appearance of ordinary consciousness such as ours) argue that matter somehow "randomly" arranges itself in just the "right way" for the appearance of both Boltzmann brains (in the supposed quantum vacuum that no one has ever observed - not even the yogis!) and ordinary brains (on earth).
If the appearance of Boltzmann brains as opposed to ordinary consciousnesses is simply a question of a specific organization of matter then can the simplest arrangement of matter engineered in a particle smasher or in the lab using chemicals ever produce the faintest glimpse of a Boltzmann brain or of an ordinary conscious such as ours? I don't think so.
All reference to Boltzmann brains and to ordinary consciousness like ours that would die out before the former would get extinguished is a repetitive reference to the urgent need to have in existence at all times a conscious observer or to a specific state of the universal energy having the innate capacity to give rise to intelligent observers who could avert the impending final fate of the cosmos which is annihilation or of there being conscious observers who would be capable of witnessing the entire series of cosmic events from origin to the end of the cosmos due to heat death or big crunch or whatever reason.
Would an observer like a Boltzmann brain alter the fate of the cosmos as say in the double slit experiment the mere act of making a measurement cause the superpoistioned wave of light to collapse on the screen in a definite pattern?
A Boltzmann brain, if such a thing can possibly exist, would be in a position to alter the fate of the cosmos only if it possesses the entire energy and the entire intelligence of the cosmos otherwise it would be a helpless observer much like us - ordinary consciousnesses.
On the other hand, the Boltzmann brain would be capable of observing the entire series of cosmic events from beginning to end if it is separate from the cosmic system (which is impossible!) that is perpetually subject to entropy laws and does not itself get into a disordered state causing its inherent information content to atrophy thereby making it a partially capable observer or a useless observer who loses its potential to observe due to its native Boltzmann brain entering into a state of entropy-induced inefficiency.
As far as the question of quantum fluctuations related to the emergence of the multiverse is concerned, the question is this - are the blind quantum fluctuations sufficiently potent and orderly enough to give rise to a multiverse on the basis of randomness with each parallel universe having its own unique set of laws?
What caused quantum fluctuations?
Can randomness and blind chance account for multiverse, order and life?
Is the consensus among scientists over feeble and often highly questionable experimental data sufficient to explain away the riddle of the cosmos right from its origin?
I don't think so!
I am re-posting the piece on pseudoscience that was typed in haste and as a result had several typographical errors. If at all you deem the post fit for publication in your esteemed blog, please post the following corrected version of the same.
Thanks.
Nishant
Here is the corrected version:
PSEUDO-SCIENTISTS:
PART 1:
I really feel sorry for the usual run-of-the-mill scientists, who, despite not knowing, say, what forces drive their personalities or what lies ahead of them over the next microsecond and in order to hide their frustrations at being nowhere remotely close to understanding key issues of existence such as the origin of the cosmos, fate of the cosmos, the question of fine tuning, life, sentience, death, psi phenomena and lack of any clear-cut genetic mechanism to account for personality features (like self-awareness, abstraction, conscious reflection, intuition, inspiration and revelation) routinely keep churning out a giddying dossier of absurd ideas to justify the existence of their respective disciplines of research and study. Or more so, it has almost everything to do with egoism and lack of humility of not knowing when to confess one's ignorance.
Not being in a position to cogently answer any of the above mentioned fundamental phenomena, these crass materialistic experts resort to verbal jugglery, mathematical manipulation and intellectual fantasy by coming up with bizarre and irrational hypotheses such as the multiverse according to which random quantum fluctuations and inflation somehow produced the cosmos from the supposed vacuum state and that during the process of inflation the random fluctuations somehow got right the laws based on finely tuned physical constants in just our universe while the laws in other universes (not being finely tuned) remain highly unstable or unsuitable for generating life.
Or, take another shocking paradoxical hypothesis they talk about regarding how a certain degree of the organization of matter somehow produced life from nonliving matter while having absolutely no clue about the mechanism of life itself.
In this context, Boltzmann brains ("disembodied consciousnesses") is another fruitless cosmological idea that has been invented - as if to say that quantum fluctuations in the vacuum state could have ever given rise to fully formed "conscious entities" that simply popped out of the vacuum.
What is the form of these so-called primordial conscious configurations called Boltzmann brains that just popped out of the vacuum fully formed when it supposedly took billions of years for ordinary brains to come into existence on earth from a sea of random molecular pull and push forces?
Were the conditions in the vacuum just right to produce these so-called fully formed conscious entities (Boltzmann brains)?
Why the stress on the need to have eternal conscious observers and on consciousness itself and that too when these very scientists argue against the philosophical stand of consciousness being concomitant with energy field or inherent in energy field or energy being a field of action of an inbuilt consciousness that progressively and over vast stretches of time gives a directional thrust to the universal laws which ultimately results in the emergence of sentient forms/ordinary consciousnesses in the finely tuned terrestrial nature?
The proponents of the so-called Boltzmann's brains (as opposed to the appearance of ordinary consciousness such as ours) argue that matter somehow "randomly" arranges itself in just the "right way" for the appearance of both Boltzmann brains (in the supposed quantum vacuum that no one has ever observed - not even the yogis!) and ordinary brains (on earth).
If the appearance of Boltzmann brains as opposed to ordinary consciousnesses is simply a question of a specific organization of matter then can the simplest arrangement of matter engineered in a particle smasher or in the lab using chemicals ever produce the faintest glimpse of a Boltzmann brain or of an ordinary consciousness such as the one we possess? I don't think so.
All references to Boltzmann brains and to ordinary consciousnesses like ours that would die out before the former could get extinguished is a repetitive reference to the urgent need in the human consciousness to have in existence at all times a conscious observer or to a specific state of the universal energy having the innate capacity to give rise to intelligent observers who could avert the impending final fate of the cosmos which is annihilation or of there being conscious observers who would be capable of witnessing the entire series of cosmic events from origin to the end of the cosmos due to heat death or big crunch or due to whatever reason.
Could an observer like a Boltzmann brain alter the fate of the cosmos as say in the double slit experiment in which the mere act of making a measurement causes the superpoistioned wave of light to collapse on the screen in a definite pattern?
A Boltzmann brain, if such an entity could possibly exist, would be in a position to alter the fate of the cosmos only if it possesses the entire energy and in a metaphysical sense if it could possess the entire intelligence of the cosmos otherwise it would be a helpless observer much like us - ordinary consciousnesses.
On the other hand, the Boltzmann brain would be capable of observing the entire series of cosmic events from beginning to end if it is separate from the cosmic system (which is impossible!) that is perpetually subject to entropy laws and does not itself get into a disordered state causing its inherent information content to atrophy thereby making it a partially capable observer or a useless observer who loses its potential to observe events in and around it due to its native Boltzmann brain entering into a state of entropy-induced inefficiency.
As far as the question of quantum fluctuations related to the emergence of the multiverse is concerned, the question is this - are the blind quantum fluctuations sufficiently potent and orderly enough to give rise, on the basis of randomness, to a multiverse with each inherent parallel universe having its own unique set of laws with our universe having a set of finely tuned laws that supports life?
What caused quantum fluctuations?
Can randomness and blind chance account for multiverse, order and life?
Is the consensus among scientists with respect to mathematical models and feeble (and often highly questionable) experimental data sufficient to explain away the riddle of the cosmos right from its origin to the present evolutionary stage?
I don't think so!
http://www.noetic.org/blog/series-of-experiments-shed-light-on-the-role-of-co/
"The point I am making is that you can't just assume that correlation equals causation. Especially when you have generous interpretations of what qualifies as correlation and use shoddy experimental procedures like online tests for god's sake. How is it bad form to make such an accusation? They experimenters have clearly gone into this experiment assuming what they intend to prove - THAT is bad scientific form. They squint hard enough, they see a correlation which they can't/refuse to consider other explanations for, and concluded that it must therefore be due to psi"
I agree with his point on correlation and causation. However, the 'shoddy experimental design' seems rather naive. Yes, the tests were conducted online, but surely that, plus shielding the device from EM phenomena is pretty good practice in and of itself. But I could be extremely wrong here of course.
Secondly, was there an agenda going into the experiment, that could cause expectation bias, and poor due diligence? It seems a rather unfair criticism to level. Especially when the paper specifically stated that replication would be needed.
Thirdly, an independent and more ludicrous criticism I have heard, is that the journal physics essays is that it is a 'fringe journal' and can therefore be dismissed out of hand, which kind of made me chuckle a little.
Our use of human and identically run "robot" sessions, with no participants ever allowed near the optical system, provided rigorous controls for potential design, instrumentation or analytical artifacts.
Our expectations were based on the results of our similar studies conducted in the laboratory. Being a completely automated test there was little room for experimenter bias. In any case, all experiments are run with hypotheses in mind.
If the best one can do to dismiss an experimental result is to dismiss the entire journal it is reported in, well, that's rather silly.
Yes, correlation does not imply causation. And yet some correlations suggest causal influences more than others.