Julia Mossbridge

Julia Mossbridge

Feb 01, 2019

Group 6 Copy 806
2

Overview of Pilot Study

Note: Hello, I'm the PI, Julia Mossbridge. I'm not trained as a physicist, but I am working with a collaborator who understands QM better than I do: Daniel Sheehan at University of San Diego. Having said that, unusual hypotheses from novices in any field can sometimes lead to fruitful experiments that no one else would do -- perhaps this is one example.

Methods

In the pilot study, the double-slit optical apparatus was run 36 times with the light source at a low enough level to emit a single photon at a time. In each of these runs, a random-number generator was used to determine the duration that the light source would remain on for that particular run (the on-duration for that run). This determination was made 90 seconds after the photomultiplier was turned on. Two dependent variables were calculated: meanFirstMinute and SDFirstMinute. These were the means and standard deviations of the 24 photon counts taken in the first 60 seconds in each run, recorded at a nadir in the interference pattern.


Results Both dependent variables appeared to be influenced by the duration the light source would be on after the variables were recorded (Fig. 1 & 2). Note that one would expect the interference patterns to differ between runs of different lengths, when they recorded after the full duration of each run. The dependent variables, however, were calculated only using data obtained within the first minute of each run, prior to when the quantum-based random-number generator selected the duration of the run.

Fig. 1. Mean of the MeanFirstMinute values at each of the on-durations for the pilot study 1. Black line shows average of all the MeanFirstMinute values, to which the data would be expected to conform if the total on-duration of the light source did not influence the MeanFirstMinute values.

Fig. 2. Mean of the SDFirstMinute values at each of the on-durations for the pilot study 1. Black line shows average of all the SDFirstMinute values, to which the data would be expected to conform if the total on-duration of the light source did not influence the SDFirstMinute values.

MeanFirstMinute values increased with on-duration times (Fig. 1, linear regression, R-squared=0.169, p<0.02). SDFirstMinute values showed the same trend: variability increased as on-duration increased (Fig. 2, linear regression, R-squared=0.129, p<0.03). For both dependent variables, significant differences between the longest and shortest durations were also clear (MeanFirstMinute: p<0.005; SDFirstMinute: p<0.008). The only difference in the apparatus between runs at different on-durations was how long the light source would be on after the first 90 seconds; thus both the mean and standard deviation effects were apparently retrocausal.

An additional 21 runs were performed in which the on-duration was selected by the random number generator after 22 seconds. The trends were similar, but because the on-duration was selected during the time the dependent variables were calculated, these data do not present convincing evidence of retrocausality. However, this second pilot study revealed that periodic recalibration of the equipment is necessary -- a process that was made difficult during the pilot studies as the equipment was shared across experimenters. The proposed experiments eliminate this concern, as a new and solely-owned single-photon double-slit system will be purchased.


Proposed experiments

1. Set up automated version -- working with engineer Loren Carpenter, we plan to create a mechanism for slowly turning up/down the voltage to the light source so the experiment can be automated (at least 2 experiments, ~100 runs each))

2. Replicate using more time points -- to understand potential nonlinearities in the effect and to determine whether the effect of future on-duration times is limited to the minute time range, we plan to sample many more on-duration times, from 60 seconds to 1 hour (at least 6 experiments, ~100 runs each)

3. Examine the influences of…

• Observation rate -- pilot data suggest that the rate at which the photomultiplier records photon counts could influence the effect, so we will run several experiments in which the on-duration remains the same but the observation rate is randomly selected. The transactional interpretation of QM would predict that photon absorption, but not observation, would influence any quantum effect (at least 4 experiments, ~100 runs each).

• Observation location -- if these changes are occurring at a nadir in the interference pattern, what is happening at a peak? We'll run several experiments to find out, using the best times to sample on-durations (revealed by 2, above; at least 3 experiments, ~100 runs each).

• Time of on-duration selection -- it is possible that effects after the time the on-duration is known are diminished. We'll run several planned experiments to assess this possibility by manipulating on-duration selection time while all other parameters stay constant. The transactional interpretation is not consistent with knowledge effects on the system (at least 4 experiments, ~100 runs each).

2 comments

Join the conversation!Sign In
  • Julia Mossbridge
    Julia MossbridgeResearcher
    Hi Bert, Thanks for backing the experiment and also for the excellent question! The photomultiplier was a Hamamatsu R212 which looks like a vacuum tube p.m. to me (datasheet is here: hhttp://pdf.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheet/hamamatsu/R212.pdf ). But there's a misunderstanding here -- the measurements were started after about 30 seconds which is when I raised the barrier that, once raised, allows photons to be detected. This was the same (within human variability) for all runs (the human variability piece is part of why I want to automate the process). Because it takes some time for the light source to reach maximum output, one can see that the increase in the first 60 seconds of photon counts for each run. This is consistent across runs and therefore can't explain the effect. Within a day, if I did 10 runs that day, I could see that the later runs showed a faster ramp-up time. However, I checked the data to see if by chance the longer-duration runs happened to come later in the day, and this was not the case -- in fact, the effect was strengthened by removing later-in-the-day runs. However, the 90-second parameter you are referring to is when the RNG (random number generator) was asked to determine the future on-time duration of the light source. Meanwhile, the dependent variables (MeanFirstMinute and SDFirstMinute) were both gathered in the first 60 seconds after lifting the barrier. I hope this helps answer your question, but if not, please let me know! Take care, Julia
    Feb 08, 2019
  • Bert Pool
    Bert PoolBacker
    In the notes on the pilot study, it says the measurements were made 90 seconds after the photo multiplier was turned on. Is this because the photo multiplier being used is a vacuum tube p.m., and the 90 second wait time is for the filament and cathode to warm up and stabilize, or are you instead using a solid-state photo-avalanche or PIN diode photon sensor? I ask, because my concern is that a p.m.'s sensitivity may change over time and affect the photon counts. Not criticizing, mind you, just curious.
    Feb 08, 2019

About This Project

We plan to replicate and extend unpublished pilot results suggesting that photons to be emitted in the future affect interference patterns detected in the past. This may be a new example of quantum retrocausality (QR), in which choices in a quantum system seem to influence events in the past. This form of QR may be a candidate mechanism for precognition, the psychological and biological access to information about random future events.

Blast off!

Browse Other Projects on Experiment

Related Projects

There's an App for That! Developing an Accessible Cognitive Behavioral Therapy App

In today’s technological society a person’s entire life can be managed on their smartphone, so why not their...

How do chimpanzees adapt to a savanna woodland in Tanzania?

75% of Tanzania’s chimpanzees live in open “savanna” woodlands. Considered a marginal habitat due to low...

To Selfie or Not to Selfie - How Can Scientists Foster Public Trust on Instagram?

U.S. adults see scientists as intelligent, but not always warm. This is a problem because people's perceptions...

Backer Badge Funded

A psychology project funded by 89 people

Add a comment