A pre-registered experimental protocol testing the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation against environmental decoherence theory.
Clifton Bacon · Principal Investigator
§ 01 — Overview
Abstract
No controlled experiment has systematically varied the cognitive state of a conscious observer across a graded set of EEG-verified meditation depths while measuring the decoherence time (T2) of a shielded quantum sensor under conditions designed to push all known environmental decoherence channels below the sensor's intrinsic T2 limit. The Silence Experiment proposes to address this gap.
The protocol places an experienced meditator — in EEG-verified states spanning the full cognitive-excitation axis — inside a five-layer shielded chamber alongside an NV-center diamond sensor (Phase 0) or superconducting transmon (Phase 1). Seven consciousness conditions (C1–C7) are measured against an empty-chamber instrumental baseline. The primary pre-registered hypothesis is that T2 at C7 (Cessation / Objectless Awareness) and T2 at C6 (Minimal Phenomenal Experience) will both exceed T2 at chamber baseline and at conditions C1–C5, and that T2 at C7 will further exceed T2 at C6. This is tested via three pre-registered tests evaluated under family-wise alpha = 0.005 one-sided with Bonferroni correction (per-test alpha ≈ 0.00167), with a parallel Bayesian track (BF > 10 strong, BF > 100 decisive): (i) Jonckheere–Terpstra ordered test across C1→C7, (ii) Planned Contrast 1: [C6, C7] vs. [baseline, C1–C5], (iii) Planned Contrast 2: C7 vs. C6. All other cross-condition comparisons are treated as exploratory.
The design is pre-registered, randomized, outcome-blinded where feasible, and fully blinded by an independent statistician who does not see condition labels until the analysis is locked. Secondary measures include quantum random number generators. A positive result on either contrast would establish a correlation between a specific cognitive state and quantum coherence under extreme isolation. A null result would provide the most precise upper bound to date on consciousness-dependent effects on decoherence.
Disclaimer: The Silence Paradigm is a hypothesis-generating framework, not established science. Its value lies in the falsifiable predictions it produces. This website presents the framework for evaluation and critique by the scientific community.
§ 02 — Core Papers
Core Documents
The complete Silence Paradigm project is documented across the papers below, all publicly available on Zenodo with assigned DOIs.
Does the cognitive state of a conscious observer measurably affect the decoherence rate of a nearby quantum system?
The Experimental Gap
The measurement problem — what causes the transition from quantum superposition to definite classical outcomes — has been debated since the founding of quantum mechanics without resolution. The von Neumann-Wigner interpretation proposes that consciousness participates in quantum state reduction. Environmental decoherence theory predicts it does not. Both make specific, distinguishable predictions for this experiment. No controlled experiment has tested these predictions by systematically varying the observer's cognitive state while measuring decoherence under shielded conditions. This protocol addresses that gap.
The Boundary Effect
The experiment measures not consciousness itself, but the shift in the decoherence boundary when a conscious observer's state changes. Decoherence is the transition between quantum and classical behavior. If consciousness participates in state reduction, the effect should manifest at this boundary as extended coherence times, with the largest shift at the deepest accessible state. The protocol pre-registers a two-step prediction: a measurable step at C6 (Minimal Phenomenal Experience, the threshold state) and a further step at C7 (Cessation / Objectless Awareness). This is expected to be a small effect — but measurable with sufficient shielding and sensitivity.
What This Is Not
Not a claim to have solved the hard problem of consciousness
Not a claim about dark matter, dark energy, or cosmology
Not dependent on any single interpretation of quantum mechanics
A null result is informative and publishable
Theoretical Context
Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation: Proposes that consciousness participates in quantum state reduction. The experiment tests a weaker, empirically tractable version: if consciousness participates in state reduction, varying cognitive state should produce measurable differences in decoherence rates.
Environmental decoherence theory (Zurek, Zeh, Joos): The dominant framework — predicts no consciousness-dependent effect on decoherence, provided environmental coupling is held constant. This is the experiment's primary null hypothesis.
Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR): Proposes consciousness arises from quantum processes in neuronal microtubules. Makes distinct predictions for this experiment, though quantitative predictions for this specific configuration have not been derived.
Quantum biology: Quantum coherence has been documented in biological systems (photosynthetic energy transfer, avian magnetoreception, enzyme catalysis). This establishes that quantum coherence can be functional in warm, wet biological systems — relevant context, though not proof for the hypothesis.
The Mechanism Problem
We do not currently possess a confirmed physical mechanism by which the cognitive state of a conscious observer would alter decoherence rates beyond known environmental effects.
This is stated directly. The VNW interpretation posits that consciousness plays a role in state reduction but does not specify the mechanism, and no existing theory provides a calculation of expected effect size. The absence of a mechanism does not, however, mean a positive result must be read as a sensor or shielding artifact — the multi-state, randomised, environmentally-monitored design separates those possibilities directly, an argument developed in full under Why the Multi-State Design Works. The experiment is worth conducting because:
The measurement problem is genuinely unresolved. Whether consciousness plays any role remains open after nearly a century.
The VNW interpretation has never been rigorously tested with controlled observer states. This is a gap in the experimental literature.
Science regularly tests hypotheses before mechanisms are fully understood. The cosmic microwave background was discovered before the theory that explained it.
Null results are valuable and publishable. A rigorous null result establishes the most precise upper bound ever placed on consciousness-dependent quantum state reduction.
T2 as an Operational Proxy
The VNW interpretation concerns wavefunction collapse in a measurement context, while T2 measures the loss of off-diagonal coherence in a quantum system's density matrix. These are not the same process, and a null on T2 does not rule out a VNW effect in pure measurement-outcome statistics. Decoherence time is used here as an operational proxy for any putative consciousness-coupling channel — not as the canonical VNW observable. The reasoning is that if consciousness modulates state reduction in any way, the quantum-to-classical boundary is the natural place to look for leakage, and T2 is one experimentally accessible handle on that boundary. A secondary QRNG arm runs continuously alongside the primary measurement in the measurement-outcome channel, but it is exploratory and underpowered for the small effects reported in prior consciousness-RNG work; it is not relied upon as a second confirmation of the T2 result. A null on T2 therefore constrains, but does not eliminate, the consciousness-causation hypothesis.
§ 04 — Experiment
The Silence Experiment
Overview
The Silence Experiment is a foundational test of the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation under controlled observer states — a question that has been part of the quantum literature for nearly a century without ever being tested this way. The protocol systematically varies the EEG-verified cognitive state of a conscious observer across seven pre-registered consciousness conditions (C1–C7) and an empty-chamber instrumental baseline, while measuring the decoherence time (T2) of a nearby quantum sensor under conditions that drive every known environmental coupling channel below the sensor's intrinsic T2 limit. This is the primary scientific purpose of the chamber, and it is the purpose its specifications were designed to make possible.
A sensor-and-shielding characterisation of the NV-center platform under the chamber's full isolation regime — with quantified upper bounds on residual electromagnetic, thermal, vibrational, and magnetic coupling to T2 — is produced as a co-product of the same hardware run, and is independently publishable in a metrology venue regardless of what the consciousness arm shows. But the chamber exists for the consciousness test. NV-centers are characterised in lab cryostats every day; the engineering required for this protocol is not.
Analysis is pre-registered, randomized, outcome-blinded where feasible, and fully blinded by an independent statistician who does not see condition labels until after the analysis is locked. A secondary measure uses quantum random number generators.
Reference: see "The Silence Experiment" (Paper 2 V15) for full protocol details.
Consciousness Conditions
Seven consciousness conditions (C1–C7) span the full cognitive-excitation axis. They are listed below in descending order of cognitive excitation, against an empty-chamber instrumental baseline. C6 (Minimal Phenomenal Experience) and C7 (Cessation) carry the primary pre-registered prediction.
The pre-registered prediction as a shape: T2 stays flat across the baseline and C1–C5, steps up at C6 / MPE (Contrast 1: [C6, C7] vs. all others), and steps up further to the prediction ceiling at C7 / cessation (Contrast 2: C7 > C6). A monotonic ramp across C3–C7 instead would indicate a depth-of-practice confound; a flat line everywhere supports environmental decoherence theory.
Condition
What
Why
Chamber baseline
No observer present
Instrumental floor — calibrates sensor performance in the absence of an observer; not a consciousness condition
C1 · Active cognition
Meditator performs mental arithmetic or verbal tasks
High-excitation endpoint — maximum information-processing load
C2 · Ordinary resting state
Untrained person, eyes closed, relaxed
Controls for human presence, body heat, and EM from the nervous system without trained practice
C3 · Focused attention (Shamatha)
Concentrated meditation on a single object (breath)
Tests directed concentration on the cognitive-excitation axis
C4 · Open monitoring (Vipassana)
Receptive awareness without specific focus
Tests open receptive awareness without directed content
C5 · Non-directed openness
Complete receptive surrender without technique
Tests non-technique-based receptivity distinct from C3/C4
C6 · Minimal Phenomenal Experience (MPE)
Threshold state — tonic alertness without intentional content, no discursive cognition, no active self-model
Operationally defined gating state for entry to C7; carries the first step of the primary pre-registered prediction
C7 · Cessation / Objectless Awareness
Contentless awareness or full cessation (nirodha)
Primary hypothesis site — predicted to produce maximum T2 lengthening relative to all other conditions and baseline
Why the Multi-State Design Works
The eight-cell structure (seven consciousness conditions plus chamber baseline) is what makes this experiment interpretable in either direction, and it is what separates the protocol from prior consciousness-quantum work. The logic:
It changes the question being asked. A single-condition test asks "is T2 different in a meditator's presence than in an empty chamber?" — a question dominated by slow drift in the system. The multi-state design asks "does T2 show a specific two-step pattern at C6 and C7 against everything else?" That is a pattern-matching test against the cognitive-excitation axis, pre-registered as two orthogonal directional contrasts — (i) [C6, C7] vs. [baseline, C1–C5], and (ii) C7 vs. C6 — and there is no environmental confound that produces a signal correlated with EEG-verified MPE and cessation but not with mental arithmetic, resting-state activity, or focused attention.
It internalises its own controls. The chamber baseline, C1 (active cognition), and C2 (untrained resting) are not separate validation studies — they are reference conditions in the same randomised block. They calibrate the instrument noise floor, the high-cognitive-excitation endpoint, and the human-presence baseline within each session. Prior consciousness-RNG work could not distinguish "intention" from "any focused mental state" because it had only one state. This design rules out broad-arousal, broad-cognitive-activation, and mere-human-presence explanations because all three are explicitly conditioned on.
Each condition is a falsifier for the others. Because no current theory specifies which cognitive state should produce the effect, the protocol does not commit to a single site. It tests the predicted MPE/cessation gradient against five reference conditions plus the chamber baseline and lets the shape of the result discriminate between theories. If both C6 and C7 deviate with C7 > C6: the pre-registered two-step VNW pattern. If only C7 deviates: a single-point cessation effect. If C3–C7 scale monotonically with depth of practice: a physiological-confound or depth-of-practice signature rather than a consciousness-specific effect. If all conditions are flat: environmental decoherence theory is supported and a pre-registered upper bound is established.
It defeats the artifact-prior objection structurally. For a shielding failure or sensor drift to mimic the predicted result, it would have to vary in lock-step with EEG-verified cognitive states across randomised trials, leave every synchronously-monitored environmental channel (SQUID magnetometers, fluxgate, temperature, accelerometer) flat, and reproduce the specific two-step pattern predicted by the planned contrasts. Shielding failures don't behave that way; they track time, temperature, mains frequency, building activity. The randomised condition schedule and the independent environmental monitoring together convert "is this an artifact?" into a question the data can answer directly.
It turns the mechanism gap into a design feature. Because the protocol does not require a quantitative prediction from any specific theory, it is not falsified by the absence of one. The structure means a null result bounds something specific, and a positive result discriminates between specific theories. That is the property the adjacent literature consistently failed to achieve.
Shielding
The chamber is a 3 m cubic five-layer isolation system designed to minimize all known sources of environmental decoherence. Layers are passed sequentially via a dual-door airlock to prevent bypass or contamination.
EEG verification is the inclusion criterion for the two deepest conditions, so the protocol does not rely on a qualitative match to the target signatures. It pre-registers a positive, quantitative classifier with named channels, named frequency bands, explicit amplitude and coherence thresholds, and a defined scoring window for each of C6 and C7. The classifier is defined positively — by what the state is, never by exclusion — so that it remains falsifiable: a deviant trace that fails the C5 criteria is not thereby reclassified as C6 or C7.
Pilot firewall. Exploratory pilot recordings may be used to develop and anchor the classifier thresholds, cross-checked against the practitioner's first-person report. Once specified, the classifier is frozen and lodged in the pre-registration before Phase 0 data collection begins. Pilot data are never pooled into the confirmatory dataset, never used to set the empty-chamber baseline, and — pool size permitting — pilot participants are excluded from the confirmatory sample, so the criterion is not trained and tested on the same data. Trials whose recorded EEG fails the frozen C6 or C7 classifier are excluded from those cells and analysed under their actual EEG-classified condition.
Observer physiological covariates. Because the observer's body is the one coupling source inside the shielded volume, a set of observer-physiology channels — respiration, electrocardiogram (heart rate and variability), surface electromyography, and a body-directed infrared/thermal channel — is recorded synchronously on the same GPS-disciplined time base and pre-registered as nuisance covariates. These variables change systematically across the cognitive-excitation axis (slower respiration, reduced movement, lower thermal output at C6/C7), which converts the "the deep states simply involve a stiller body" objection into a testable control rather than an unmeasured confound. A consciousness-linked T2 effect is credited only if it survives adjustment for these somatic covariates.
Cosmic-ray background (Phase 0). A surface laboratory does not attenuate cosmic-ray muons, which carry diurnal and barometric variation. Phase 0 therefore includes a scintillator coincidence veto as a standard (not optional) channel to flag and exclude muon-coincident T2 events; Phase 1's underground siting removes the background entirely.
Statistical Design
Because the eligible expert-practitioner pool is small, Phase 0 is a clustered, repeated-measures design in which each participant contributes many sessions per condition. Sessions are correlated within participants and are not independent observations, so the pre-registered primary tests are evaluated within a linear mixed-effects framework: T2 is the dependent variable, consciousness condition is a fixed effect, and participant is a random effect (random intercept, with a random slope across conditions where estimable). This is a within-subjects design — each participant serves as their own control across all seven conditions and the baseline — and the planned contrasts and Jonckheere–Terpstra ordering test are computed on the participant-adjusted condition estimates from this model, not on the raw session count.
The three pre-registered primary tests are evaluated together under a family-wise alpha of 0.005 one-sided with Bonferroni correction (per-test alpha ≈ 0.00167), with a parallel Bayesian track (BF > 10 strong, BF > 100 decisive). A finding is treated as fully pre-registered evidence only when both tracks converge in the same direction.
Phasing
PHASE 01
Phase 0 — Foundational test
~$420K–$470K — University lab, NV-center, pre-registered eight-cell test (chamber baseline + C1–C7) with single-condition sessions: 5-minute pre-condition settling buffer, then 15 min per condition (C1–C6) or 30 min for C7. Sensor + shielding characterisation paper produced as an independently publishable co-product.
PHASE 02
Phase 1 — Conditional follow-up
~$1M-$3M — Conditional on Phase 0 results plus adoption by an institutional host. Chained multi-condition sessions running all seven conditions in randomised order, with identical per-condition timing to Phase 0 (15 min for C1–C6, 30 min for C7, each preceded by a 5-minute settling buffer). Underground-lab access for an unaffiliated PI is not realistic; Phase 1 proceeds only via a host collaboration.
What Would a Positive Result Mean?
Establishes a correlation between consciousness state and quantum decoherence rate under controlled conditions. The two-contrast structure further distinguishes a two-step VNW pattern (both contrasts significant), a single-point cessation effect (Contrast 2 only), and a depth-of-practice confound (Contrast 1 only).
Does NOT prove the full theoretical framework — a positive result opens questions, it does not close them.
Would require independent replication before any claims could be considered established. Would open a new domain of investigation requiring systematic characterization.
What Would a Null Result Mean?
Establishes an empirical upper bound on effect size for consciousness-state-dependent decoherence changes.
Does NOT disprove that consciousness is fundamental — only that any effect is below current detection threshold under these conditions.
A rigorous null result is informative and publishable. It constrains the parameter space of consciousness-inclusive interpretations of quantum mechanics.
§ 05 — Evidence
Prior Work and the Empirical Gap
The relevant gap in the existing literature is in quantum foundations, not in parapsychology. No controlled experiment has systematically varied the EEG-verified cognitive state of a conscious observer while measuring the decoherence time of a nearby quantum sensor under conditions that drive all known environmental coupling channels below the sensor's intrinsic T2 limit. This protocol addresses that gap.
The Quantum-Foundations Gap
The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation has been part of the foundational literature for nearly a century, but has never been tested against environmental decoherence theory using a controlled-observer-state design with a direct coherence measurement. Decoherence experiments routinely characterise T2 against electromagnetic, thermal, vibrational, and magnetic perturbations; none have included the observer's cognitive state as a controlled independent variable verified by EEG. Whether such a test produces a signal or a tight upper bound, the result is novel within quantum foundations.
Methodological Lessons from Prior Consciousness-RNG Work
A separate body of work — including the Princeton PEAR laboratory (1979–2007), the Global Consciousness Project, and Dean Radin's RNG and double-slit studies — reported small statistical deviations associated with focused human attention. This literature has not achieved broad acceptance and is subject to ongoing methodological critique. A meta-analysis by Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006) found that reported effect sizes correlated inversely with study quality, which is the classic signature of systematic bias. The present protocol does not build on any positive claim from that literature. It is cited only to extract the methodological lessons that shape this design: pre-registration before data collection, independent blinded analysis, EEG-verified cognitive states rather than diffuse "intention," a direct coherence (T2) measurement rather than RNG statistics, randomised condition ordering, and explicit pre-registered criteria for what counts as a null. The point of citing this work is to avoid repeating its weaknesses, not to inherit its claims.
§ 06 — Status
Current Status
The Silence Paradigm is in the pre-experimental phase. The theoretical framework, experimental protocol, and engineering blueprint are complete and publicly available on Zenodo with assigned DOIs, available for review and replication.
What Has Been Done
The experimental protocol has been refined through expert consultation on methodology, including input from researchers in consciousness-quantum interaction studies. A key critique — that the relationship between meditation style and observer effects is not empirically established — directly shaped the multi-state design in Paper 2. A subsequent refinement, informed by the contemporary consciousness-studies literature on Minimal Phenomenal Experience (Metzinger, 2020), added C6 as a distinct experimental condition between non-directed openness and full cessation, sharpening the primary statistical test into two orthogonal directional contrasts. The complete experimental protocol is formally pre-registered on OSF (10.17605/OSF.IO/F658T) prior to any data collection.
Institutional collaboration (gating requirement for Phase 1): A supervising PI with expertise in quantum sensing, quantum foundations, or contemplative neuroscience, and an affiliated host institution. Phase 1 facility access at SURF, SNOLAB, LNGS, or Boulby is allocated through established collaborations and is not realistically available to an unaffiliated researcher; the only viable path to Phase 1 is via a host collaboration that adopts the protocol after Phase 0.
Phase 0 funding: ~$420K–$470K for the foundational test at a university lab (NV-center, full dual-mu-metal shielding architecture, EEG, pre-registered eight-cell test: chamber baseline + C1–C7 with three pre-registered tests (Jonckheere–Terpstra plus two planned contrasts) at family-wise alpha = 0.005). A sensor-and-shielding characterisation paper is produced as a co-product of the same hardware run. Potential funding sources include FQXi, the Templeton Foundation, and Templeton World Charity Foundation.
Peer-review submission: Paper 2 will be submitted as a Registered Report to a journal that accepts the format (e.g. Royal Society Open Science, PLOS ONE, Collabra: Psychology), with both papers also posted to arXiv (quant-ph or physics.gen-ph). Zenodo and OSF provide stable archiving and pre-registration; they are not a substitute for peer review, and the published papers are labelled as concept papers not yet peer-reviewed.
If you are a researcher working in consciousness science, quantum foundations, or related fields — or know someone who might be interested — your feedback and critique are welcome. The project needs rigorous scientific engagement, not advocates.
§ 07 — About
About the Researcher
Clifton Bacon
I'm Clifton Bacon, founder of the project. I come to this work from an unusual angle. My professional background is in construction and engineering, which is where the chamber design and engineering blueprint come from — TSP-ENG-001 V5 was developed from the ground up using the same discipline of materials, tolerances, and layered systems that goes into building anything that has to hold its shape under real-world loads. The five-layer 3 m cubic shielded chamber was designed independently and is published in full so it can be reviewed, critiqued, and built.
Alongside that, I have a deep and sustained interest in neuroscience, contemplative practice, and the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. I'm a long-time meditator with an active practice across the techniques the protocol describes — focused attention, open monitoring, non-directed openness, the threshold state (Minimal Phenomenal Experience), and cessation. That practice is what gave me the phenomenological vocabulary for the two-step prediction at C6 and C7, and it's what convinced me the distinction between MPE and full cessation was operationally real enough to be worth pre-registering as separate experimental conditions.
I am not an academic physicist. The theoretical framework, the seven-condition pre-registered experimental protocol, and the complete engineering specifications were developed independently. The project exists to be reviewed, critiqued, and — if it survives that — adopted by people with the institutional infrastructure to run it.
The goal is straightforward: construct the instrument to the highest engineering standards possible with available resources, execute the experiment with full transparency, and let the data determine the outcome.
