Random Event Generator Study
by R. D. Nelson et al during the
January 23rd 1997 GaiaMind Global Meditation
Shows Significant Results
Data were recorded from two random event generator systems in Amsterdam, one in Utrecht, two in Freiburg, two in Durham, one in Giessen, one in Edinburgh and five systems in Princeton. The available data are thus from 14 independent REG systems in seven different locations, all in the US or Europe.
The data can be displayed graphically, as a cumulative Chisquare over the
14 independent recordings, which allows the relative sizes of the separate
contributions to be visualized. Since the data were taken concurrently,
the order in which they are displayed is arbitrary; of course, the final
value of the accumulated deviation is not affected by the order. The figure
also includes the expectation (df), which in this case is also the number
of segments, and an envelope showing the locus of the 5% probability for
so large a Chisquare as the number of samples increases. The last line in
the table, and the last point on the graph both show the result when the
data are concatenated across the 14 different devices. This overall accumulation
represents a result that falls in the range considered significant by most
scientists. It would occur by chance less than 5 times in 100 repetitions
of the full experiment, and it supports the pre-stated hypothesis that the
output of the various random event generators would deviate from expectation
during the time of the global meditation.
While the combined results are only tentative in terms of the confidence withwhich the null hypothesis can be rejected, they indicate that some condition or process that occurred during the planned time of the global event was
correlated with and may have caused a small change in the performance of random
event generators set to address this possibility in a pre-planned,
multi-laboratory, international study. Other than chance fluctuation as an
alternative explanation for the results (which the p-value addresses) other
speculative explanations could be advanced. One that may have some merit would
attribute the effect to specific intentions on the part of the experimenters or
others who knew about the experiment. However, the study was not designed to,
nor is it capable of rigorously addressing secondary questions of this nature.
The results do confirm the experimental hypothesis, and they replicate findings
in related experiments. Together with these they contribute to an impressive
body of evidence for an anomalous, direct interaction of human consciousness
with physical systems, even though the sources and mechanisms of the
interaction remain obscure.
|