Foundations of Physics

, Volume 19, Issue 12, pp 1499–1514 | Cite as

Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems

  • Dean I. Radin
  • Roger D. Nelson


Speculations about the role of consciousness in physical systems are frequently observed in the literature concerned with the interpretation of quantum mechanics. While only three experimental investigations can be found on this topic in physics journals, more than 800 relevant experiments have been reported in the literature of parapsychology. A well-defined body of empirical evidence from this domain was reviewed using meta-analytic techniques to assess methodological quality and overall effect size. Results showed effects conforming to chance expectation in control conditions and unequivocal non-chance effects in experimental conditions. This quantitative literature review agrees with the findings of two earlier reviews, suggesting the existence of some form of consciousness-related anomaly in random physical systems.


Empirical Evidence Quantum Mechanic Experimental Investigation Physical System Methodological Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. G. Jahn and B. J. Dunne,Margins of Reality (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando, Florida, 1987).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. d'Espagnat, “The quantum theory and reality,”Sci. Am., pp. 158–181 (November, 1979).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Costa de Beauregard, “S-matrix, Feynman zigag and Einstein correlation,”Phys. Lett. 67A, 171–173 (1978).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. D. Mermin, “Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory,”Phys. Today, pp. 38–47 (April, 1985).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Shimony, “Role of the observer in quantum theory,”Am. J. Phys. 31, 755 (1963).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. P. Wigner, “The problem of measurement,”Am. J. Phys. 31, 6 (1963).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U. Ziemelis, “Quantum-mechanical reality, consciousness and creativity,”Can. Res. 19, 62–68 (September, 1986).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. J. Squires, “Many views of one world—an interpretation of quantum theory,”Eur. J. Phys. 8, 173 (1987).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Hall, C. Kim, B. McElroy, and A. Shimony, “Wave-packet reduction as a medium of communication,”Found. Phys. 7, 759–767 (1977); p. 761.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Smith, unpublished manuscript, MIT, 1968. (Cited in Ref. 9, p. 767.)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. G. Jahn and B. J. Dunne, “On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena,”Found. Phys. 16, 721–772 (1986).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. E. Alcock,Parapsychology: Science or Magic? (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York, 1981), pp. 124–125.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Gardner,Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1981).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Hyman, “Parapsychological research: A tutorial review and critical appraisal,”Proc. IEEE 74, 823–849 (1986).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Kurtz, “Is parapsychology a science?” inParanormal Borderlands of Science, K. Frazier, ed. (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1981).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. F. Marks, “Investigating the paranormal,”Nature (London) 320, 119–124 (1986).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Honorton, “Replicability, experimenter influence, and parapsychology: An empirical context for the study of mind,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the AAAS, Washington, D.C., 1978.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E. C. May, B. S. Humphrey, and G. S. Hubbard, “Electronic system perturbation techniques.” SRI International Final Report, September 30, 1980.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Schmidt, “Precognition of a quantum process,”J. Parapsychol. 33, 99–108 (1969); “A PK test with electronic equipment,”J. Parapsychol. 34, 175–181 (1970); “Mental influence on random events,”New Sci. Sci. J. 50, 757–758 (1971); “PK tests with pre-recorded and pre-inspected seed numbers,”J. Parapsychol. 45, 87–98 (1981).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. G. Jahn, “The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective,”Proc. IEEE 70, 136–170 (1982); R. D. Nelson, B. J. Dunne, and R. G. Jahn, “An REG experiment with large data-base capability, III: Operator-related anomalies,” Technical Note PEAR 84003, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory, Princeton University, School of Engineering/Applied Science, September 1984; H. Schmidt, R. Morris, and L. Rudolph, “Channeling evidence for a PK effect to independent observers,”J. Parapsychol. 50, 1–16 (1986).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Rosenthal,Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1984); K. Wachter, “Disturbed by meta-analysis?”Science 241, 1407–1408 (1988). We may note that Cohen'sh, the difference between control and experimental proportions, is a common effect size measure that might have been used in the present study. This was rejected in favor ofe, as defined, because some of the reviewed studies reported only finalp values or only overallZ scores;e was thus deemed more useful in the present meta-analysis.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. L. Bangert-Drowns, “Review of developments in meta-analytic method,”Psychol. Bull. 99, 388–399 (1986).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. H. Rosenfeld, “The particle data group: Growth and operations.”Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 25, 555–599 (1975).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. G. Wohlet al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, Part II, p. S5 (1984).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. V. Glass, “In defense of generalization,”Behav. Brain Sci. 3, 394–395 (1978).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. M. Cooper, “Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative reviews,”Rev. Educ. Res. 52, 291–302 (1982).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. M. Dawes, “You can't systematize human judgment: Dyslexia.” InNew Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science: Fallible Judgment in Behavioral Research, R. A. Shweder, ed. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1980), pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. D. Gottfredson, “Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments,”Am. Psychol. 33, 920–934 (1978).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. Akers, “Methodological criticisms of parapsychology.” InAdvances in Parapsychological Research, Vol. 4, S. Krippner, ed. (McFarland, Jefferson, North Carolina, 1984); “Can meta-analysis resolve the ESP controversy?” InA Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, P. Kurtz, ed. (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1985).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. E. Alcock, “Parapsychology: Science of the anomalous or search for the soul,”Behav. Brain Sci. 10, 553–565 (1987).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Diaconis, “Statistical problems in ESP research,”Science 201, 131–136 (1978).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. E. M. Hansel,ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Reevaluation (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1980).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. Hyman, “The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical apprasial,”J. Parapsychol. 49, 3–50 (1985).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    T. X. Barber,Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. B. Rhine, “Comments: ‘A new case of experimenter unreliability,’”J. Parapsychol. 38, 215–255 (1974).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. M. Dawes, “The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making,”Am. Psychol. 34, 571–582 (1979).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    L. V. Hedges, “How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science?”Am. Psychol. 42, 443–455 (1987).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. E. M. Hansel,ESP: A Scientific Evaluation (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1966), p. 234.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    R. Rosenthal and D. B. Rubin, “Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies,”Behav. Brain Sci. 3, 377–415 (1978).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    G. V. Glass, B. McGaw, and M. L. Smith,Meta-analysis in Social Research (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1981).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Q. McNemar, “At random: Sense and nonsense,”Am. Psychol. 15, 295–300 (1960).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    S. Iyengar and J. B. Greenhouse, “Selection models and the file-drawer problem,” Technical Report 394, Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon University (July, 1987).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    L. V. Hedges, “Estimation of effect size under nonrandom sampling: The effects of censoring studies yielding statistically insignificant mean differences,”J. Educ. Stat. 9, 61–86 (1984).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    H. H. Collins,Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1985).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    S. Epstein, “The stability of behavior, II: Implications for psychological research,”Am. Psychol. 35, 790–806 (1980).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    D. Druckman and J. A. Swets, eds.Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1988), p. 207.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    A. Neher,The Psychology of Transcendence (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980), p. 147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dean I. Radin
    • 1
  • Roger D. Nelson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrinceton
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringPrinceton UniversityPrinceton

Personalised recommendations