That puzzling double-slit diffraction experiment
The story
Many years ago, a series of double-slit diffraction experiments claimed to provide groundbreaking evidence that the human mind could influence the state of photons in a laser beam. The researchers later repeated their tests using the same experimental setup to confirm their previous findings successfully.
Upon reviewing their first publication, I found the experimental parameters and graphs they reported were inaccurate. The described experimental setup appeared fictitious, and the reported graphs conflicted with other reported parameters. I published an introductory review addressing the issues.
A research team member acknowledged the accuracy of my estimate of one of their experimental parameters, although to a semi-private audience. A year later, in their subsequent publication detailing a series of follow-up tests, correction of that error was included. However, the correction did not agree with what they had admitted semi-privately. They provided a new incorrect experimental parameter with a unique quality to support the assertion that the previous error was a dyslexic typo. The newly cited experimental parameter still conflicted with the data and graphs they had reported in their tests.
The revealing evidence
Extending my investigation, I could provide further details regarding the discrepancies in these data and graphs, which I highlighted in a series of videos. My videos illustrate how a deliberate shift in the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) spectrum related to the double-slit diffraction experiment can provide deceptive evidence supporting the tested hypothesis.
The spectral shift observed was unnatural. It required the intervention of an external agent to program the computer performing the FFT on the diffracted light signal to introduce the observed frequency shift.
The FFT powers of the shifted spectrum rendered misleading evidence to support the tested hypothesis: that the mind had directly affected the state of the laser photons. The amount of positive evidence it produced depended on the extent of spectral shift between zero and one unit of frequency. By introducing an artificial spectral frequency shift within this range, the false evidence increases following the decrease of the relative key measure from zero to 93%.
I further discussed how the inaccuracies in their reported data stemmed from careless and sloppy experimental protocols.
It is puzzling why the researchers failed to conceal the unnaturally shifted key-spectrum.
How should the experimental setup be better prepared?
A. The camera window should be carefully cleaned so that all its pixels, including the ones near the rim, convert light adequately to an electrical signal.
B. It is essential to thoroughly verify the components of the experimental setup before publication.
C. Ideally, the double slit should be positioned slightly further from the camera. This adjustment would increase the size of the central diffraction band's projection on the camera window, ensuring its width sufficiently covers all camera pixels,
D. The position of the double-slit slide on the vertical plane perpendicular to the laser beam should also be adjusted to produce a symmetrical array of diffraction fringes in the central diffraction band.
E. It is best to ensure the pixel dimensions quoted by the manufacturer before reporting them in the publication to avoid citing an embarrassingly inaccurate size.
How should the double-slit experimental results have been reported?
A. The reported spectrum displays an artificial one-unit frequency shift. It generates the key measure that provides evidence supporting the tested hypothesis.
B. If the researchers had not published the inaccurate experimental data and graphs they employed, it would have been impossible to identify the existing violation of scientific integrity.
C. As their published data revealed the nonexistence of evidence supporting the hypothesis that the mind influences the photon state, the researchers should have better admitted it.
The puzzling question is:
Was the adjusted FFT spectrum exhibiting a noticeable gap near zero frequency published with incorrect data and experimental parameters due to negligence?
Richard P. Feynman:
If science is to progress, what we need is the ability to experiment, honesty in reporting results - the results must be reported without somebody saying what they would like the results to have been - and finally - an important thing - the intelligence to interpret the results.*
(*) The Character of Physical Law. (Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, England, 1992, p. 148).