Dean Radin's Double Slit Experiments

If it is the secretary's awareness which represents the collapse, then she has that awareness in either case (if she knows about the experiment). But now that there has been an admission that it is supposedly only awareness of the experiment which causes collapse, then scenarios which build conscious organisms into them (like a secretary), but which fail to collapse unless there has been a non-conscious collapse, do look like good candidates to demonstrate that consciousness is not necessary (so I take back what I said).

Or we have to be willing to believe that we are in a state of superposition, even now.

Linda

I don't see how that would indicate that consciousness was not necessary. Someone or something conscious has to be involved at some point otherwise we have no evidence of anything ever occurring at all and therefore have evidence of nothing.
 
I don't see how that would indicate that consciousness was not necessary. Someone or something conscious has to be involved at some point otherwise we have no evidence of anything ever occurring at all and therefore have evidence of nothing.

Nothing exists unless humans are aware of its existence?

Linda
 
Not humans, but conscious awareness. That is the von Neumann interpretation.
Sorry, too narcissistic for my comfort.

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse when you insist on experimental evidence that 'something' has occurred or it didn't happen?

Linda
 
Sorry, too narcissistic for my comfort.

Narcissistic? I just said that it isn't about humans.

fls said:
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse when you insist on experimental evidence that 'something' has occurred or it didn't happen?

Linda

I don't really understand your question here. Could you perhaps rephrase it for me, please?
 
I don't really understand your question here. Could you perhaps rephrase it for me, please?

Well, you said that it's not sufficient for a bell to have rung for it to be said that a bell has rung (something has to be aware that bell ringing (or not) represents a particular collapse). Has a wave function ever collapsed?

Linda
 
Well, you said that it's not sufficient for a bell to have rung for it to be said that a bell has rung (something has to be aware that bell ringing (or not) represents a particular collapse). Has a wave function ever collapsed?

Linda

The bell didn't ring. The observation creates the history. The observation is the collapse.
 
The bell didn't ring. The observation creates the history. The observation is the collapse.
I get that that's one interpretation. But it's also the case that the bell didn't ring regardless of whether a conscious observation was made further down the line.

Linda
 
Consider the situation the instant before the bell would ring if the the printer prints "down." The entire experimental mechanism and the printer are still superposed.

One of the long sequence of superposed states has the measurement giving "up," the printer printing "up," and the bell silent.

Another long sequence of states has the measurement giving "down," the printer print "do," and the bell ringing.

Now extend the sequence to the secretary.

The first long sequence has the measurement giving "up," the printer printing "up," the bell silent, and the secretary unaware that anything interesting happened (she wasn't told about the experiment). The superposed sequence continues on past the printing, perhaps until, sometime in the future, someone notices the paper.

The second long sequence has the measurement giving "down," the printer printing "do," the bell ringing, the secretary hearing the bell, and the entire sequence collapsing to this final state.

Except that the collapse in the second scenario does not occur, because the measurement is still superposed until all paths reach consciousness.

~~ Paul
 
I get that that's one interpretation. But it's also the case that the bell didn't ring regardless of whether a conscious observation was made further down the line.

Linda

If the Von Neumann interpretation is correct, the bell didn't 'not ring.' The observation creates the history. None of it happens until consciousn observation.
 
Consider the situation the instant before the bell would ring if the the printer prints "down." The entire experimental mechanism and the printer are still superposed.

One of the long sequence of superposed states has the measurement giving "up," the printer printing "up," and the bell silent.

Another long sequence of states has the measurement giving "down," the printer print "do," and the bell ringing.

Now extend the sequence to the secretary.

The first long sequence has the measurement giving "up," the printer printing "up," the bell silent, and the secretary unaware that anything interesting happened (she wasn't told about the experiment). The superposed sequence continues on past the printing, perhaps until, sometime in the future, someone notices the paper.

The second long sequence has the measurement giving "down," the printer printing "do," the bell ringing, the secretary hearing the bell, and the entire sequence collapsing to this final state.

Except that the collapse in the second scenario does not occur, because the measurement is still superposed until all paths reach consciousness.

~~ Paul

That would not be correct. Hearing the bell is an observation that results in a particular outcome, collapsing the consistent history that led to that outcome.
 
That would not be correct. Hearing the bell is an observation that results in a particular outcome, collapsing the consistent history that led to that outcome.
It doesn't mean anything to collapse one history, does it? What is being collapsed are all the superposed sequences that represent all possible sequential states of the system. The collapse, which is supposed to be random, causes one sequence to become classical. Some of those sequences reach the secretary, some do not. When does the collapse occur?

Also, a related question: Does reaching a consciousness have to collapse the system, or is it optional?

~~ Paul
 
It doesn't mean anything to collapse one history, does it? What is being collapsed are all the superposed sequences that represent all possible sequential states of the system. The collapse, which is supposed to be random, causes one sequence to become classical. Some of those sequences reach the secretary, some do not. When does the collapse occur?

Also, a related question: Does reaching a consciousness have to collapse the system, or is it optional?

~~ Paul

I think there might be a little misunderstanding on what collapse is. Collapse occurs with the conscious observation, and it is when one outcome is realized.

The entire chain of events, as described by the Schrödinger equation, would be a superposition of all possibilities.

Once an observation is made of a particular outcome, it collapses the wave function, which collapsed the history of events that led up to that observation. All the other options effectively never happened and never collapsed. The other options are possibilities that ended up never happening.

So essentially only one history is what is collapsed and is then 'real.'
 
What concerns me a bit about this experiment, is that ψ effects seem to operate in all kinds of setups - the double slit experiment didn't (as far as I know) behave in a special way.

David
 
I still want to go over the paper a bit more, but here are a few things that occurred to me as I was re-reading it .

It would be interesting to do a controlled study where the participants were not told about the double slit part but rather, using the same protocols, were told to concentrate intently on something else.

Also, I note that in some of the experiments the controls were done without someone present during the double slit. I know Radin looked somewhat in one of them at the body heat issue, but I'm not sure if it coverred this issue (have to re-read it): The control perhaps should be done with someone sitting in the same spot as the subjects, but not given any instructions at all, nor told about the double slit aspect.

Did the paper state whether whoever calculated the results was blind or not to whether they were analyzing a control or subject line?

I don't know if it would make a difference or not, but I believe ideally controls should be identical to the subject experiment with the exception of the control variable.

Found it interesting that in the experiment where this was done (the retro-causal one) the overall effect size for controls and subject were identical at -0.13. It was only when the meditators were selected out that the significant effect was found.

The meditator angle is interesting as well, and one possibility came to mind related to the control I suggested above. Is it possible that thinking, in addition to being consciously experienced by us, sends out some physical stuff (waves? fields? I have no idea what the correct technical term should be) that did affect the output (whether intentional or not). It would be interesting to perform the experiment with the subjects at different distances (the one distance experiment he did in this paper showed no effect but Radin noted some possible technical defects as well so we should discount these results).

I have a question about the lag calculations. I couldn't tell from reading it, but did they provide a lag calculation for the inattention ones as well? (ie: there would presumably be a delay in them stopping concentrating as well.) I guess it would be quicker to stop thinking than to start thinking. That said, I wonder why the calculation is needed at all? Presumably the lag issue should affect trials in a similar manner, and therefore should not affect the results? I'm curious as to whether the results would be different without the lag adjustment?

I had a brief'ish look at the paper, but I didn't understand why anyone would assume the effects Radin claims he measured had anything other than a normal physical cause. I couldn't understand why anyone would bother conducting the experiment in a shielded room, and then put all that electrical equipment in the same room. I just thought the whole series of experiments were meaningless.

This is the second paper of his that I've looked at now (previous one here), and I'm afraid I am beginning to suspect that Radin's experimental studies are nothing more than plausible publicity stunts designed to promote the INS's activities to it's target customers.
 
Last edited:
I think there might be a little misunderstanding on what collapse is. Collapse occurs with the conscious observation, and it is when one outcome is realized.
Yes, that's the interpretation. It is random which outcome is realized.

The entire chain of events, as described by the Schrödinger equation, would be a superposition of all possibilities.
Including the possibility that the secretary was never aware of anything.

Once an observation is made of a particular outcome, it collapses the wave function, which collapsed the history of events that led up to that observation. All the other options effectively never happened and never collapsed. The other options are possibilities that ended up never happening.

So essentially only one history is what is collapsed and is then 'real.'
So when the secretary hears the alarm, a random outcome is "chosen" and the wavefunction is collapsed. One possible outcome is that the secretary never hears anything, so it is possible that that outcome is the one that is realized. But then the secretary never heard the bell and never had the chance to collapse the wavefunction.

I think the entire system has to stay superposed until all paths reach a consciousness.

~~ Paul
 
What concerns me a bit about this experiment, is that ψ effects seem to operate in all kinds of setups - the double slit experiment didn't (as far as I know) behave in a special way.
I think if listed all of the various unusual things that psi experiments require, we would be asking an awful lot of QM to be the basis of those things. For example, any time the subject is supposed to be the consciousness that collapses wavefunctions, what stops the experimenter or a random passerby from doing it instead?

~~ Paul
 
Yes, that's the interpretation. It is random which outcome is realized.


Including the possibility that the secretary was never aware of anything.


So when the secretary hears the alarm, a random outcome is "chosen" and the wavefunction is collapsed. One possible outcome is that the secretary never hears anything, so it is possible that that outcome is the one that is realized. But then the secretary never heard the bell and never had the chance to collapse the wavefunction.

I think the entire system has to stay superposed until all paths reach a consciousness.

~~ Paul

That's not how the VMI works. one outcome is observed. The other possibilities no longer have anything to do with it. That observation of one of the possible outcomes creates the consistent history.
 
I think if listed all of the various unusual things that psi experiments require, we would be asking an awful lot of QM to be the basis of those things. For example, any time the subject is supposed to be the consciousness that collapses wavefunctions, what stops the experimenter or a random passerby from doing it instead?

~~ Paul

What is the problem in that?

And why wouldn't one try to explain a phenomenon in terms of our most fundamental physics? What else should one use? Archaeology?
 
That's not how the VMI works. one outcome is observed. The other possibilities no longer have anything to do with it. That observation of one of the possible outcomes creates the consistent history.
The outcome that is observed is a random one. It can't be that the conscious observer forces a particular eigenstate. If that is the proposal, then the VMI wouldn't fit the math, but it does. In other words, if the secretary's consciousness always forces a collapse to "down," then it must be that the collapse already occurred.

Perhaps you could link to a description of the VMI and we could discuss it.

~~ Paul
 
Back
Top