[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 4 points 21 points (+25|-4) ago  (edited ago)

This has been discussed before and is junk science: the paper that describes a portion of this video is junk science (but apparently the video addresses the problems with the paper):

Here's the actual paper by Dean Radin: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2012doubleslit.pdf

There's a major red flag for me, though I only read it once: the control experiments were performed without human observers present! (p. 161, 163). That makes this junk science in my opinion, as the proposed independent variable is the human subject's mental attention. Removing his presence from the room and calling this a control is inadequate for determining whether or not mental attention has an actual effect. A properly constructed experiment would have two controls: sessions with an empty room, and sessions where a human participant was physically present but was given no instructions about focusing his mental energy on the double slit.

Obviously when you're using an extremely sensitive piece of equipment that's conceivably influenced by things like heat, moisture and gasses, putting a warm, living, breathing, perspiring creature next to it may have an effect!

Furthermore you'd expect that the longer such a creature sits there the greater the effect of whatever process is actually causing the observed behavior; the author attributes this to the meditators' ability to get better and better at influencing the experiment. I'd attribute it to a greater amount of humidity, heat, etc., reaching the sensitive instrument.

Here's the previous submission https://voat.co/v/science/2141642

[–] AmaleksHairyAss [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Obviously when you're using an extremely sensitive piece of equipment that's conceivably influenced by things like heat, moisture and gasses, putting a warm, living, breathing, perspiring creature next to it may have an effect!

The same thing happened over the internet. This video is about a lot more than that one experiment.

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I watched about ten minutes before realizing he was just describing the contents of his paper. Do you have a timecode for when he discusses the new experiment? And ideally does he talk about a new paper that addresses that shortcoming of his first?

[–] prairie 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Also, he said that even when humans were present, it alternated between having the human focus on "influencing" the experiment, and not thinking about it, and there was some correlation between this change in mental state.

[–] massiveprivilege 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Instruments used in observing the experiment interfere with the result. Nothing to do with "just by seeing it you change it".

Imagine wanting to observe metal dust under a microscope but the only microscope able to view it are made from strong magnets. You see the dust just sitting there but when you bring the microscope to observe it suddenly you see this. Conclusion just by looking at it it changed. No dummy, it changed because you put magnet close to it.

[–] TheBuddha 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[–] PraiseIPU 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Shrodingers cat.

And your credit score

You change the outcome by looking at it. But if you don't look at it, it could be said to exist in multiple states simultaneously.

[–] MyNameIsIsrael 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I had a £300 tail end of a loan I was struggling to pay and I imagined a universe where I was without the debt. A week later I received a letter saying due to a change in the company and administration costs, the were terminating the loan charges.

Mmm tasty apple.

[–] Antiracist10 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

Fuck you TheBuddha.

[–] Blackmallow 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 


[–] Dortex 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Well technically it effects the experiment. It wouldn't get done if humans didn't want to observe it.

[–] BeeBlood 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

praktikin my affectiveness

[–] Blackmallow 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Affect: something affects another thing. Effect: the effect something has over this other thing. It's purely grammatical dude.

[–] AmaleksHairyAss [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!

[–] VertBos 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

This has been proposed and researched many times by many people including pre-eminent quantum physicists such as Wigner. However, it has never been reliably shown to any reasonable degree of certainty, let alone the 5 sigma which is considered the required statistical certainty for it to be called a discovery/finding. If people disagree I would love for them to link me some papers (with 5 sigma results).

Edit: Here's a paper arguing that decoherence effects destroy any long distance quantum correlations that could allow for psychokinesis or any quantum-mechanical effect following from human observation: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdf

[–] The_Cat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

5 sigma is the level that particle physicists use to denote discovery of a new particle, and is irrelevant here.

[–] VertBos 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

How would it be irrevelant here? My point is that there has never been a statistically significant result of human observation influencing experiment, 5 sigma is an oft used threshold for something to be considered a scientific discovery in physics (not exclusively particle physics).

[–] PraiseIPU 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Looked up what 5 sigma even is

Now my brain hurts


[–] VertBos 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Physics tends to have that effect

[–] JerkSock 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It may all be a simulation..... https://youtu.be/t_RwcGzGurc

[–] derram 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY :

New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter ~ Dean Radin Ph.D - YouTube

This has been an automated message.

[–] prairie 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

To really test this notion about the person's mind being able to target things, I'd like to see him test with two units, with different feedback indicators, and see whether a person can learn to quickly switch between units, or even influence both at the same time. The notion of being able to target some arbitrary out-of-sight object you don't even know is there is almost too convenient to take seriously.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)