Content uploaded by Luciano Pederzoli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luciano Pederzoli on Jun 04, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.14704/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
447
Can Our Minds Emit Light at 7300 km Distance?
A Pre-Registered Confirmatory Experiment of
Mental Entanglement with a Photomultiplier
Patrizio Tressoldi*, Luciano Pederzoli†, Marzio Matteoli‡,
Elena Prati‡ and John G. Kruth§
ABSTRACT
With this pre-registered confirmatory study, we aimed at replicating the findings observed in two previous
experiments where the focused mental entanglement (ME) with a photomultiplier located approximately 7300 km
far from the location of a small group of selected participants, showed an increase in the number of photons with
respect to the control periods. In particular, we aimed at replicating the increase of approximately 5% of photons
detected in the ME periods with respect to the control periods in the bursts of photons above 10. The results
observed in this study confirmed this increase replicating what observed in the two previous experiments. We
discuss the characteristics of these photons which energy is estimated in approximately 65 eV at 788 THz and how
ME can generate them at distance.
Key Words: mental entanglement at distance, photons, generalized quantum theory, photomultiplier
DOI Number: 10.14704/nq.2016.14.3.906 NeuroQuantology 2016; 3:447-455
Introduction1
Generalized quantum theory (GQT) provides a
formalized theoretical model for the extension of
the nonlocal effects observed in entangled
particles to a larger or macro environment (von
Lucadou, 2007; Walach and von Stillfried, 2011;
Filk and Römer, 2011). The theory is introduced in
order to provide a foundation for future research
that will establish whether these effects, which are
clearly established in the micro world of quantum
physics, can be observed in real-world
interactions between people, objects, or other
potentially entangled systems that are larger than
individual particles that are only observed in very
small environments.
Corresponding author: Patrizio Tressoldi
Address: *Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova,
Italy. †‡EvanLab, Firenze, Italy. §Rhine Research Center, Durham, USA.
Phone: + 390498276623
e-mail patrizio.tressoldi@unipd.it
Relevant conflicts of interest/financial disclosures: The authors
declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Received: 06 January 2016; A ccepted: 2 March 2016
According to GQT authors, there are some
necessary conditions in order to apply GQT to the
macro world: The genuinely quantum theoretical
phenomenon of entanglement can and in general
will show up also in GQT if the following
conditions are fulfilled:
1) A system is given; inside which
subsystems can be identified.
2) Entanglement phenomena will be best
visible if the subsystems are sufficiently
separated such that local observables
pertaining to different subsystems are
compatible.
3) There is a global observable of the total
system, which is complementary to local
observables of the subsystems.
This theory has already been positively
supported using systems comprising humans and
random event generators (REGs) (Walach et al., In
press). The novelty of our study is the use of a
PhotoMultiplier Tube (PMT) instead of a REG.
Preliminary evidence by Schwartz (2010),
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.14704/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
448
Caswell, Dotta and Persinger (2014) and Joines,
Baumann and Kruth (2012), suggest that human
focused intention triggers biophotons emissions
that could represent the carrier of a sort of
quantum-like mental entanglement (ME) with
electronic apparatuses or other types of targets.
We hence apply the GQT assuming:
a) a small group of participants and the
PMT represent two subsystems of a single
larger one created by their informational
relationship (see Procedure), and
b) this informational relationship
constitutes an entangled state, and
c) the measurable variables represent the
system’s comprehensive characteristic
even though measured individually.
It is important to point out that this type of
entanglement is conceived as a generalized form
of quantum-like nonlocal correlations
corresponding to a situation whereby elements of
a quantum system remain correlated non-locally
and instantaneously no matter how separated
they are in space or in time, without implying any
causal or transmission direction of information
between the subsystems.
We remark that the informational
interpretation of conventional quantum
mechanics plays an important role in justification
of our purely informational model of ME
experiments. The idea that quantum theory is not
about particles nor waves, but about information
and the latter is the fundamental element of
quantum reality was discussed in works of leading
experts in quantum foundations, e.g., Bruckner
and Zeilinger (2005); Fuchs (2002). Of course,
these authors wrote about information obtained
from physical systems, but the usage of this
interpretation for cognitive systems is quite
natural (Khrennikov, 2004).
The application of quantum formalisms to
domains other than quantum physics – such as
biological or mental processes - is independent
from the hypothesis that processing of
information made by biological systems is based
on quantum physical processes within these
systems. This approach, known as “quantum
biological information”, is grounded on the
quantum-like paradigm: biological systems of
sufficiently high complexity may process
information in accordance with laws of quantum
information theory (Asano et al., 2015).
Preliminary Evidence
In a pilot study, for the first time, Tressoldi et al.
(2014), used a PMT as the detector of mind-
matter entanglement at distance. This device
allows investigating whether photons can be the
physical correlates of ME at distance. In that
study, five participants selected for their strong
commitment toward this line of research and their
experience in mental control practices, mainly
meditation, were able to increase of about 20
photons per minute the photons detected by a
PMT located approximately 7300 km far from
their location, with respect to the control sessions.
In two pre-registered confirmatory
experiments, Tressoldi et al. (2015) failed to
support their confirmatory hypotheses, but
observed an increase of approximately 5% of
photons in the bursts exceeding at least six
standard deviations (6σ) the average photons
count, corresponding to bursts above 10 photons.
These results are reported in the tables 1Sa, 1Sb
and 1Sc, in the Supplementary Materials.
The failure of these two pre-registered
confirmatory experiments was due to two
intuitive but naïve hypotheses. The first one was
that ME effects, if any, should be detected
simultaneously on the PMT and lasting only for its
duration. The observed results showed that it was
not so. These effects appeared even after a delay
of approximately 20-30 minutes even if
participants were not engaged in a ME after the
planned five minutes.
The second naïve hypothesis was that ME
could enhance the photons count linearly or with
a constant effect. This was not the case. The
results showed that ME increased only the bursts
of photons exceeding more than 6σ those detected
on average every half a second during the
different experimental and control periods.
Prompted from the results of these exploratory
findings, we conceived this third pre-registered
confirmatory study.
Methods
Study Pre-registration
The study was preregistered at the Open Science
Framework site (https://osf.io/7h3d8) before data
collection. Ten experimental sessions had been
planned to be carried out in ten different days.
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.14704/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
449
Confirmatory Hypotheses
a) The percentage of photons in the bursts
composed by at least 11 photons (corresponding
to bursts exceeding 6 standard deviations the
average count) detected by the PMT every half
second during the 40 minutes of ME (5 min) and
post-ME (35 min) will exceed those detected in
the 40 min of the two control periods. We will
estimate the effect sizes (ES), with their
corresponding 95% confidence intervals, of the
comparisons of the percentages observed in the
ME and Post-ME with respect to those observed
within the two control periods. The corresponding
Bayes Factors (BF) will be estimated by using the
Morey (2014) applet, with this predefined priors:
μ1, μ2 = 0; σ1, σ2 = 1. A BF above three will be
considered as an acceptable evidence.
b) Postulating a non-random effect of the ME on
the PMT: We expect a (positive or negative)
correlation between the means of photons of the
ME + post-ME 40 minutes with those obtained in
the experiment 1 and 2 by Tressoldi (2015). No
correlation is expected between the analogue
means in the two control periods. The
correlations, with their 95% CIs, will be estimated
by using a bootstrap procedure with 10000
samples. The posterior probability High Density
Interval (HDI) of the linear regression will be
estimated by the Jags-Ymet-Xmet-Mrobust.R
function included in Kruschke (2014). The
randomization of the experimental and control
periods will be determined by using the
www.ranfom.org online service.
Participants
Four selected participants, three males and one
female, were included using the same criteria of
the pilot study, that is strong motivation toward
this line of research and a long experience in
mental control practices, mainly meditation. Their
age ranged from 39 to 69. Three of them
participated in the previous experiments. All
participants were also included as co-authors.
Ethics, Consent and Permissions
The study was completed following the
requirements of the Ethical Committee of the
Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale of Padova
University, Italy. A written consent that was
signed by each participant before performing the
task.
Apparatus
The Photomultiplier (PMT; see Figure S1 in the
Supplementary Material) was placed in the
Bioenergy Lab of the Rhine Research Center, in
Durham, NC, USA and was managed by the co-
author JK. The Photomultiplier Tube (type 56
DVP) with PMT housing (Pacific Photometric
Instruments Model 62/2F - thermoelectrically
cooled to near -23 °C) is able to measure two
photons per second in the 400 to 200 nm
wavelength range. Signals from the PMT are
amplified by a Pacific Photometric 3A14 amplifier,
and photons are counted by a photon counter
(Thorn EMI GenCom model C-10) every half
second. This information is transferred to a
computer in the external darkroom and the
number of photons detected is recorded every half
second for the duration of an experimental
session.
Procedure
The research assistant, co-author PT, agreed with
the co-author JK, responsible of the Bioenergy
Lab, the day and the time to start and end of each
session. In the settled day and hour, JK activated
the PMT. The duration of each session was
predefined in 180 minutes divided in four periods
as presented in the Table 1.
Table 1. Splitting up of each session periods.
PMT
Cooling
Pre-ME (or
Control)
ME + Post-ME
(or Pre-ME)
Control (or ME
+ Post-ME)
60 minutes 40 minutes 40 minutes 40 minutes
The ME + post-ME (ME for short) period was
randomly placed in the third or in the fourth
period by using the randomization facilities
available on the www.random.org website. This
randomization yielded the following sequence: 2,
1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2. The five ME minutes started
at the onset of the third or the fourth period,
corresponding to the 100-105 minutes and 140-
145 minutes respectively. To reduce possible
experimenter effects, the co-author JK,
responsible of the Bioenergy Lab, was kept blind
of this sequence.
As in the two experiments of Tressoldi et
al. (2015), each participant acted in his/her home
connecting with the other participants via the
video chat ooVoo™. Approximately five minute
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.1470 4/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
450
before the period of ME, the research assistant
started a simple relaxation procedure to allow an
emotional bonding among all the participants.
During the five minutes of ME the participants
were free of choosing the preferred mental
strategies to influence the PMT activity even if
they were suggested to imagining to enter within
the PMT and trying to emit light feeling
completely at ease, protected from external
disturbances in strong and positive connection
with the other participants.
As in the pilot study, all participants were
provided with some images of the Rhine Research
Center, the Bioenergy Lab and the PMT to have a
representation of the site and the apparatus to be
influenced. Feedback about their performance
was delivered at the end of all ten sessions.
Results
Photocount Distribution
The typical photocount distribution is presented
in Figure 1. This is a typical Poisson distribution
ranging from zero photons to bursts of above ten
photons which could be considered as outliers.
Figure 1. Typical photocount distribution.
Confirmatory Hypotheses
a) The percentage of photons in the bursts
composed by at least 11 photons (corresponding
to bursts exceeding 6σ the average count)
detected by the PMT every half second during the
40 minutes of ME and post-ME, will exceed those
detected in the 40 min of the two Control periods.
These results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Number of bursts >10 photons and their
corresponding photons detected in the three different
periods of the ten sessions.
Period Bursts>10 Photons % 95%
HDI*
Control pre-ME 66 887 28.5 27-30
ME 88 1164 37.4 35-39
Control 78 1060 34 32-36
HDI*= High Density Intervals estimated with the Jags-
Ycount_Xnom2fac-MpoissonExp.R script
Available at
https://sites.google.com/site/doingbayesiandataanalysis/sof
tware-installation
In the ME periods we observed an increase
of approximately 9% and 3% of photons with
respect to the Control pre-ME and Control periods
respectively. Even if not included in the
confirmatory hypotheses, we also observed an
increase of approximately the same percentages
of the bursts >10 photons. The estimation of the
corresponding ES is presented in Table 3.
Estimation of Bayes Factors are presented in
Table 2S in the Supplementary Materials.
Table 3. ES d, using probit method estimation of the
comparisons of the percentages of photons Bursts >10 and
their total count (photons) observed in the different periods.
Comparison Bursts >10 Photons
ES[95% CI] ES[95% CI]
Control pre-ME vs ME .26 [.17, .35] .24 [.15, .33]
ME vs Control .11 [.03, .19] .09 [.01, .17]
Table 4. Correlations and their 95% CIs between the data
obtained by the three Experiments (Conf = confirmatory
experiment; 1= experiment 1; 2 = experiment 2).
Period Conf vs 1
[95% CI]*
Conf vs 2
[95% CI]*
1vs 2 [95%
CI]*
Control
Pre-ME
-.08 [-.38, .20] .16 [-.17, .47] -.08 [-.39, .22]
ME -.11 [-.38,
.16]
-.04 [-.36, .30] -.39 [-.64, -
.06]
Control -.10 [-.36, .16] .16 [-.17, .45] -.11 [-.41, .27]
*obtained with 10000 bootstrap samples;
From the data reported in Table 4, it clearly
emerges that this confirmatory hypothesis was
not supported.
With respect to the confirmatory hypothesis, we
obtained a strong support in the comparison
between the Control pre-ME and the ME periods
and a small support in the comparison between
the ME and the control periods. b) We expect a
(positive or negative) correlation between the
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.1470 4/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
451
means of photons of the ME + post-ME 40 minutes
with those obtained in the experiment 1 and 2 by
Tressoldi et al. (2015). No correlation is expected
between the analogue means of the Control pre-
ME and control periods. These correlations are
presented in Table 4.
Summary of the Three Experiments
In table 5 we report the overall results obtained
by the three experiments for a total of thirty
sessions and in Figure 2 and 3, the corresponding
percentages of the bursts >10 and of their photons
count.
Figure 2. Percentages of photons detected in the bursts >10
in the three experiments and their total percentages.
Figure 3. Percentages of the bursts >10 in the three
experiments and their total percentages.
Discussion
In the ME periods there is an increase of
approximately 5% of the bursts exceeding 10
photons with an increase of 6% of their photons
with respect to the Control pre-ME and Control
periods. The estimation of the effect sizes of the
comparisons between the ME vs Control Pre-ME
and ME vs Control periods of the total results, is
presented in Table 6. Bayes Factors are presented
in the Table 3S in the Supplementary Materials.
Table 6. ES d, using probit method estimation of the
comparisons of the percentages of photons bursts >10 and
their total count (photons) observed in the different periods.
Comparison Bursts >10
ES[95% CI]
Photons
ES[95% CI]
Control Pre-ME vs ME .16 [.07, .25] .16 [.07,.25]
ME vs Control .13 [.04, .22] .17 [.08, .26]
Have we demonstrated the possibility to
increase the number of photons detected with a
PMT at approximately 7300 km of distance by
using the ME of a small group of selected
participants? Probably yes, in particular if we
refer to the number of photons detected in the
bursts exceeding 10 photons. After a pilot, two
unsuccessfully pre-registered studies and this
positive preregistered confirmatory one, now we
have a clearer idea on how to measure the effects
of ME on a PMT. Our results, see HDIs estimates of
percentages, show that ME shows its effects
increasing the bursts with more than ten photons.
In other words, it seems that ME effects
correspond to very fast burst of light of
approximately 20 photons/sec equivalents to an
energy estimated in 65 eV
2
, at approximately 788
THz, a really non-trivial energy. Furthermore,
these effects seem to appear even after a delay of
approximately 35 minutes. At present, we have no
idea about its causes. We can only exclude that the
participants continued their ME after the planned
five minutes.
Can these small effects be due to external
causes, for example experimenter or geomagnetic
influences? This possibility was present in the first
experiment of Tressoldi et al. (2015) because the
experimenter acting on the PMT knew which
periods were assigned to ME and to the control
periods. Furthermore, control periods were
recorded in different days with respect to the ME
ones. These two potential causes were eliminated
in the second experiment of Tressoldi et al. (2015)
and in the present one, keeping blind the
experimenter acting on the PMT about when the
ME was applied and recording the ME and control
periods on the same days.
2
Estimating an average wavelength of 380 nm, 1 photon = 3.26 eV.
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.14704/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
452
Table 5. Bursts >10 photons and their photons count in the Control pre-ME, ME and control periods observed in the three
experiments.
Confirm. Exp Exp1 Exp2 Total
Period Bursts>10 Photons Bursts>10 Photons Bursts>10 Photons Bursts>10 HDI Photons HDI
Control Pre-ME 66 887 79 1113 68 952 213 28-34 2952 30-32
ME 88 1164 89 1290 78 1081 255 33-40 3535 36-38
Control 78 1060 64 858 78 999 220 28-35 2917 30-32
As to the characteristics of the photons
detected by the PMT, it is obvious that these bio-
or mental- photons cannot have the
characteristics of classical photons given the many
obstacles between the participants and the
detector. One provisional explanation is that they
may be generated in the process of entanglement
between the participants and the PMT that does
not entail a transmission of information and
energy, as postulated by our theoretical model
presented in the introduction. However, according
to some authors (Cifra et al., 2015), the Poisson
distribution of the photocount is a sign of a
coherent but also of a classical, non-quantum
nature of light.
The GQT model that we adopted as
grounded foundation for this study clearly needs
more specifications about its components,
subsystems and how these states can be
established and measured when applied to a
mind-PMT entanglement. However, we think the
results observed in this study may foster further
investigations that could give some responses to
the multiple questions let open by our study.
Is it possible to replicate these
experiments? The only limitations are the
availability of a good PMT and some very selected
participants. If replicated independently, it can
support the hypothesis that human mind can be
entangled at distance with predefined targets and
it is possible to measure the energy of this
entanglement. The possibility to measure the
energy of these bio- or mental-photons may give
some suggestions about how human mind can be
entangled at distance with biological and physical
targets as demonstrated for example by the
studies on biological systems, e.g., plants, cell
cultures, etc. (Roe et al., 2015) and on random
number generators (Bösch et al., 2006).
Authors’ contributions
PE, LP and JK were responsible for design and
conception of the study. PT and LP analyzed the
data, drafted and revised manuscripts. PT, LP, MM
and EP contributed to the data collection. All
authors read and approved the manuscript.
All raw data are available on
http://figshare.com/articles/Mind_Interaction_on
_a_Photomultiplier/1466749
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Elena Prati and Helmut
Grote for English revision. We also acknowledge
Dean Radin comments and suggestions to a
previous version of this paper
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.14704/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
453
References
Asano M, Basieva I, Khrennikov A, Ohya M, Tanaka Y, Yamato
I. Quantum Information Biology: from information
interpretation of quantum mechanics to applications in
molecular biology and cognitive psychology.
arXiv:1503.02515. 2015.
Bösch H, Steinkamp F, Boller E. Examining psychokinesis: the
interaction of human intention with random number
generators-a meta-analysis. Psych Bull 2006; 132: 497-
523.
Brukner Č, Zeilinger A. Quantum physics as a science of
information. In Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics? (pp. 47-
61). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.
Caswell JM, Dotta BT, Persinger MA. Cerebral biophoton
emission as a potential factor in non-local human-
machine interaction. NeuroQuantology 2014; 12: 1-11.
Cifra M, Brouder C, Nerudová M, Kučera O. Biophotons,
coherence and photocount statistics: a critical review. J
Lumin 2015; 164: 38-51.
Fuchs CA. Quantum mechanics as quantum information (and
only a little more). arXiv: quant-ph/0205039., 2002.
Joines WT, Baumann SB, Kruth JG. Electromagnetic emission
from humans during focused intent. J Parapsychol 2012;
76(2): 275-293.
Khrennikov A. Information dynamics in cognitive,
psychological, social and anomalous phenomena.
Fundamental Theories of Physics Kluwer, Dordreht, 2004.
Kruschke J. Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R,
JAGS, and Stan. Academic Press, 2014.
Morey RD.
https://richarddmorey.shinyapps.io/probitProportions.
Accessed 13 Aug 2015
Roe CA, Sonnex C, Roxburgh EC. Two Meta-Analyses of
Noncontact Healing Studies. Explore-NY 2015; 11(1): 11-
23.
Schwartz GE. Possible application of silicon photomultiplier
technology to detect the presence of spirit and intention:
Three proof-of-concept experiments. Explore-NY 2010;
6(3): 166-171.
Tressoldi PE and Pederzoli L and Ferrini A and Matteoli M,
Melloni S and Kruth JG., Can our Mind Emit Light? Mental
Entanglement at Distance with a Photomultiplier (July 1,
2015). Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2625527
Von Lucadou W, Römer H, Walach H. Synchronistic
phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized
quantum theory. J Conscious Stud 2007; 14(4): 50-74.
Walach H, Horan M, Hinterberger T & von Lucadou W.
Evidence for a Generalised Type of Nonlocal Correlations
Between Systems Using Human Intention and Random
Event Generators. PLoS One. In Press. 2016.
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.14704/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
454
Supplementary Materials
Table 1Sa: Main results of Experiment 1 reported by Tressoldi et al. 2015.
Period Bursts>10 % Photons %
Control pre-ME 79 34 1113 34.1
ME 89 38.3 1290 39.5
Control 64 27.5 858 26.3
Table 1Sb: Main results of Experiment 2 reported by Tressoldi et al. 2015.
Period Bursts>10 % Photons %
Control pre-ME 68 30.3 952 31.3
ME 78 34.8 1081 35.6
Control 78 34.8 999 32.9
Table 1Sc: Correlations, and their 95% CIs and HDIs, between the data of Experiment 1 and Experiment 2
Period Pearson’s correlation [95% CI]* 95%HDI§
Control pre-ME -.084 [-.40, .23] -.12, .06
ME -.39 [-.64, -.06] -.33, -.04
Control -.11 [-.41, .27] -.12, .07
*= obtained with 10000 bootstrap samples; §= standardized beta linear regression coefficient.
Table 2S: Bayes Factors estimation of the comparisons of the percentages of photons Bursts>10 and their total count
(photons) observed in the different periods and with respect to the chance probability of .33, observed in the Confirmatory
experiment.
Comparison with expected chance = .33
BFH1/H0*
Bursts >10 .07
Photons 2.2 x 105
*= estimated with the function bayes.test.equiprobability available on
http://figshare.com/articles/Mind_Interaction_on_a_Photomultiplier/1466749
Comparison Bursts >10 Photons
BFH1/H0* BFH1/H0*
Control pre-ME vs ME 1.5 9.6x1010
ME vs Control .31 2.85
* Estimated with the Morey (2014) function with priors: µ1,µ2 = 0; σ1,σ2 = 1
Table 3S: BFs estimation of the comparisons of the percentages of photons Bursts>10 and their total count (photons) observed
in the different periods in the three experiments.
Control Pre-ME vs ME 2.37 12x1015
ME vs Control .96 19x1015
* Estimated with the Morey (2014) function with priors: µ1,µ2 = 0; σ1,σ2 = 1
Comparison with expected chance = .33
BFH1/H0*
Bursts >10 .04
Photons 7.9 x 1012
*= estimated with the function bayes.test.equiprobability available on
http://figshare.com/articles/Mind_Entanglement_with_a_photomultimeter_at_distance/1528158
NeuroQuantology | September 2016 | Volume 14 | Issue 3 | Page 447-455 | doi: 10.14704/nq.2016.14.3.906
Tressoldi et al., Can our brains emit light at 7300 km distance?
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
455
Figure S1. Image of the PMT.
