False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined with the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol
β‘ Contested βπ Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Can human consciousness change the behavior of light just by watching it? That's what Dean Radin's famous double-slit experiment claimed. In a dramatic twist, the same funder and investigator who ran the original study tried to replicate it β this time with rigorous blinding (no one knew which data was which until analysis was done) and a clever trick: they ran "sham" experiments with no observers at all. The result? The consciousness effect completely vanished β zero confirmation. But here's the kicker: the equipment itself produced a statistically significant blip even when nobody was watching, and that blip was roughly the same size as the supposed mind-over-matter effect from the original study. This strongly suggests the earlier "consciousness" results were actually just the machine acting up. The testing method they developed β called the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol β could become a powerful new standard for checking whether tiny, hard-to-detect effects are real or just measurement noise.
Research Notes
The strongest empirical challenge to Radin's double-slit program. Uniquely, the study was commissioned by the same funder and performed by the same investigator as the original, using pre-specified blinded analyses. The AMP methodology β testing for false positives via sham experiments without subjects β could become a gold standard for ultra-weak-effects research. Directly supported by Tremblay's independent re-analysis finding anomalies in control data.
A conceptual replication of the Radin double-slit (DS) experiment was commissioned using 10,000 test trials performed blindly by the same investigator who reported the original results. The Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol (AMP) implemented systematic negative, positive, and time-reversed controls alongside a sham-experiment conducted without test subjects. The replication failed to confirm the original anomalous consciousness effect (0% true-positive match rate). Critically, the sham-experiment revealed a statistically significant false-positive effect (p = 0.021, Ο = β2.02, N = 1,250) in exactly the test category predicted for a true-positive result. The false-positive effect size (~0.01%) was within an order of magnitude of the claimed consciousness effect (0.001%), and its statistical significance matched that of the original study. These findings demonstrate that the DS-apparatus produces significant effects without observers present, calling into question all prior claims of anomalous observer consciousness effects.
Links
Related Papers
Critiques
Companion
- Independent re-analysis of alleged mind-matter interaction in double-slit experimental data β Tremblay, Nicolas (2019)
- Response: Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol β Walleczek, Jan (2020)
- On the Double-Slit Experiment of Dean Radin β PitkΓ€nen, Matti (2017)
Same Research Program
Replication Of
Also by these authors
More in Skeptical
Cognitive Styles and Psi: Psi Researchers Are More Similar to Skeptics Than to Lay Believers
Searching for the Impossible: Parapsychology's Elusive Quest
Cross-Examining the Case for Precognition: Comment on Mossbridge and Radin (2018)
N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and the Pineal Gland: Separating Fact from Myth
Paranormal psychic believers and skeptics: a large-scale test of the cognitive differences hypothesis
π Cite this paper
Walleczek, Jan, von Stillfried, Nikolaus (2019). 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.2019.01891
@article{walleczek_2019_false_positive_amp,
title = {False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined with the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol},
author = {Walleczek, Jan and von Stillfried, Nikolaus},
year = {2019},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01891},
}