Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol
⚡ Contested ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
This paper is a statistical showdown in one of parapsychology's hottest debates: can human consciousness actually affect quantum experiments? Walleczek's group claimed they found a false positive in a double-slit experiment (where light passes through two tiny openings), suggesting the pro-consciousness result was just a statistical fluke. Radin fires back, pointing out that with eight separate tests at once, you'd expect at least one false hit about a third of the time — that's just how probability works. Once you correct for running so many tests, the original means wash out, but a pre-planned test looking at variance (how spread out the data is) actually survives the stricter standard. The real headline-grabber: pooling 28 double-slit experiments from four independent labs, 11 came back significant, with combined odds against chance of less than one in ten million. That's a remarkably strong cumulative signal, whatever you think is causing it.
Research Notes
Central to the double-slit observer-consciousness controversy (#4). This commentary and Walleczek's response form a key exchange on statistical methodology in consciousness-related quantum experiments. Radin's cumulative evidence claim (28 experiments, p < 10⁻⁷) is the strongest summary statistic for this research program.
A formal reply to Walleczek and von Stillfried (2019), who claimed a false-positive in one of eight comparisons from an unpublished 2012–2013 double-slit consciousness experiment funded by Walleczek's foundation. Radin et al. argue the design required multiple-comparison correction: with eight non-overlapping tests at p < 0.05, the probability of at least one false positive was 34%. After applying the False Discovery Rate algorithm, none of the eight mean comparisons remained significant, but a pre-planned variance comparison not reported by WS survived FDR correction, suggesting a genuine but unstable observer effect. Across 28 double-slit experiments by four independent groups, 11 were significant (p < 0.05), with cumulative binomial probability p < 10⁻⁷.
Links
Related Papers
Same Research Program
- Consciousness and the Double-Slit Interference Pattern: Six Experiments — Radin, Dean (2012)
- Psychophysical Modulation of Fringe Visibility in a Distant Double-Slit Optical System — Radin, Dean (2016)
- Psychophysical Interactions with a Double-Slit Interference Pattern: Exploratory Evidence of a Causal Influence — Radin, D.I (2021)
- Psychophysical Effects on an Interference Pattern in a Double-Slit Optical System: An Exploratory Analysis of Variance — Radin, Dean (2022)
- Observer Influence on Quantum Interference: Testing the von Neumann-Wigner Consciousness-Collapse Theory — Radin, Dean (2025)
Also by these authors
More in Psychokinesis
New Year's Eve as a Case Study in Experimental Metaphysics: Exploring Global Consciousness in Random Physical Systems
Anomalous Entropic Effects in Physical Systems Associated with Collective Consciousness
Psychophysical Interactions with Electrical Plasma: Three Exploratory Experiments
Stock Returns and the Mind: An Unlikely Result that Could Change Our Understanding of Consciousness
Evidence for Anomalistic Correlations Between Human Behavior and a Random Event Generator: Result of an Independent Replication of a Micro-PK Experiment
📋 Cite this paper
Radin, Dean, Wahbeh, Helané, Michel, Leena, Delorme, Arnaud (2020). Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00726
@article{radin_2020_commentary_ds_false_positive,
title = {Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol},
author = {Radin, Dean and Wahbeh, Helané and Michel, Leena and Delorme, Arnaud},
year = {2020},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00726},
}