Quantum Consciousness Experiment
Richard A. Mould
March 1999

 The following is a more detail description of the experiment described in Quantum Consciousness.   The rationale of the experiment is explained in that paper.

1. The set-up
        Two scalers L and R recording local background radiation are placed side-by-side in fig. 1.  Their outputs are fed to a selector box that chooses channels L or R, depending on which is the first to record a count after the selector has been turned on.  A 20 V signal is then emitted from the output of the chosen channel.  The output on the R-channel is unused, but the L-output closes a relay that puts 80 volts across two metal bars.  A finger placed across the metal bars will receive apainful 80V shock when the L-channel is selected.  The L-light in the figure turns on when the L-channel is selected, and the R-light turns on when the R-channel is selected.

This equipment was used for a total of 2500 trials, each consisting of two parts.  The author’s finger was first placed across the metal bars, the selector was turned on, and a ‘shock’ or ‘no shock’ was recorded.  The bars were covered with EKG gel to prevent burns.  In the second part of each trial, the finger was removed and a tap key was depressed which placed an equivalent resistor r = 40 K? across the bars.

The purpose of isolating the 80 V circuit is to insure that there is no electronic feedback from the metal bars that can influence the primary selection between the left and right channels.  In particular, we do not want the finger across the bars to have an electronic feedback that distinguishes it from an equivalent resistance across the bars

 The possible feedback we are investigating is that of a non-local quantum mechanical correlation.  In the first part of each trial the superposition created at the selector is reduced when the author feels a tactual sensation, where the eigenvalues are either an experience of pain or no pain.  In the second part of each trial the superposition is reduced by a visual perception, where the eigenvalues are the appearance of the L-light or the R-light.  Our conjecture is that the subjective experience of pain will be less probable than the experience of no pain.  The appearance of the L-light relative to the R-light is concurrently recorded in the second part as a control.  Accordingly, the number of shocks NS, should be significantly lower than the number of times NL that the L-light goes on.

The L and R-lights were each set to go on two seconds after the 20 V pulse in each channel.  This was done to insure that a visual experience of the lights did not trigger a state reduction in the first part of a trial, thereby preempting the effects of the pain vs no-pain experience.  Other precautions were taken to insure that there would be no visual clues coming from the movement of the hand when a shock was received.

2.The results

        Total number of trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N = 2500
        Number of shocks received in the first part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NS = 1244
        Number of times the L-light went on in the second part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NL = 1261
There are three possible outcomes of a single trial.  Either the difference NL – NS increases, or it decreases, or it remains the same.  The three possibilities are represented by the variables u (increase) occurring with a probability p, and d(decrease) with a probability q, and e (remain the same) with a probability r.  It was found in the experiment that u = 632 and d = 615 after 2500 trials.
        Increase difference NL – NS   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .u = 632
        Decrease difference NL – NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .d = 615
       Unchanged NL – NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   e = 1253
The difference u – d as a function of N is shown in fig. 2.

If p0 = NL/N is the probability that the left channel fires in the second part of each trial (absent the finger), and q0 = 1 – p0  is the probability that the right channel fires in the second part of each trial, then

p0 = 1261/2500 = 0.5044    q0 = 0.4956
The null hypothesis puts p = p0q0, q = q0p0, and r = p02 + q02.
giving                                          p = 0.2500     q = 0.2500  r = 0.5000
The variances of u + d and u - d are
s2 (u + d) = <(u + d)2 > - < u + d >2  = s2 (u) + s2 (d) + X
s2 (u – d) = <(u- d)2 > - < u - d >2  = s2 (u) + s2 (d) - X
or                                              s(u – d)2  = 2s2 (u) + 2s2 (d) – s2 (u + d)
  s2 (u – d)2 = 2p(q + r)N + 2q(p + r)N – r(p + q)N

yielding                           s(u – d) =  {[4pq + r(p + q)]N}1/2 = {N/2}1/2 = 35.4
The horizontal bars in the graph give the value of s(u – d) = {N/2}1/2.

Our non-null hypothesis is that u – d is significantly different from 0.  From the data, u – d = NL – NS = 17, which is well within above the standard deviation around 0.  The separate variables u and d are also well within the standard deviation s(u) = s(d) = [p(q + r)N] 1/2 = 21.7 of their expected value  of 625, so our hypothesis is not confirmed.

The probability of finding u, d, and e after N trials is given by

The most probable outcome after 2500 trials is P(625, 625, 1250), inasmuch as p = q = 0.25 and r = 0.50.  Therefore

which again shows that there is no significant difference between our outcome and the most probable outcome.