Mind Over Matter? New PK Study Disappoints
On this page
Can your mind directly influence random computer processes?
Imagine sitting in front of a computer screen, watching random numbers flash before your eyes, and being asked to influence them with nothing but your mind. That's exactly what 200 volunteers did in a rigorous experiment conducted by physicist H. Grote in 2021. Each participant spent about 30 minutes trying to mentally 'nudge' a physical random number generator while researchers tracked every detail. The twist? The scientists analyzing the data had no idea what they were looking for until they 'opened the box' live at a scientific conference in Paris.
Large study finds no evidence that people can mentally influence random number generators.
For decades, researchers have tested whether human consciousness can directly influence physical systems without any known mechanism. The "Correlation Matrix" experiment is one approach that asks participants to try mentally affecting random number generators while watching visual feedback on a screen. This study represents a careful attempt to replicate previous claims using rigorous scientific controls.
A carefully controlled mind-matter experiment found no clear evidence for psychokinesis, but intriguing correlations between personality traits and performance emerged at the edge of statistical significance.
Key Findings
- The main test showed no evidence that people could influence the random number generator - results were exactly what you'd expect from pure chance.
- However, some secondary analyses looking at personality questionnaires and overall hit rates showed weak patterns that had a 6% probability of occurring by chance, which falls short of the usual 5% threshold scientists use.
What Is This About?
Researchers had 200 people sit at computers for about 30 minutes each, trying to mentally influence a random number generator. Participants could see visual feedback showing whether the random process was behaving as they intended. To prevent bias, the researchers used "blind analysis" - they wrote all their analysis software and decided how to interpret results before looking at any actual data. The analysis was even revealed live at a scientific conference to ensure transparency.
Participants spent about 30 minutes each trying to mentally influence a physical random process while receiving visual feedback. The study used strict blind analysis protocols where analysis software was written before examining the actual data.
The main psychokinesis effect was not statistically significant. Secondary analyses of questionnaire correlations and hit rates both showed marginal results (p=0.06) that could still be due to chance.
How Good Is the Evidence?
The secondary analyses showed p=0.06, meaning there's a 6% chance these patterns occurred randomly - just above the 5% threshold scientists typically require for significance. In psychokinesis research, effect sizes are typically very small, and most well-controlled studies find no significant effects.
Supporters of psychokinesis research argue that the marginal secondary results (p=0.06) suggest weak effects that might become significant with larger samples, and praise the study's rigorous methodology. Skeptics point out that the main analysis found no effect, the secondary results don't meet statistical significance, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Both sides generally agree this study represents good scientific practice with its pre-registered, blind analysis approach.
Mainstream: This well-designed study confirms that psychokinesis claims lack solid evidence and the marginal secondary results are likely statistical noise. Moderate: The rigorous methodology is commendable, and while the main effect was null, the consistent p=0.06 results across different analyses might warrant further investigation with larger samples. Frontier: This represents exactly the kind of careful replication needed in consciousness research, and the secondary findings suggest subtle mind-matter interactions that require more sensitive detection methods.
Many people think psychokinesis research is unscientific, but this study used rigorous controls including pre-registered analysis plans. The misconception is that finding 'no effect' means the research was flawed - actually, well-designed studies that find no effect are crucial for scientific progress.
To establish psychokinesis as real, scientists would need multiple independent replications showing consistent, statistically significant effects that can't be explained by known physics or experimental flaws. This study meets high methodological standards but found no main effect, adding to the evidence that such phenomena don't exist at detectable levels.
The main result was found to be not statistically significant and fell well within the expected random distribution of possible results.
Stance: Skeptical
What Does It Mean?
The experiment was 'unboxed' live at a scientific conference - imagine the tension as researchers opened their sealed analysis for the first time in front of an audience! The fact that personality traits showed any correlation at all with random number generation is genuinely puzzling.
This is like testing whether you can influence a coin flip just by thinking about it. You might flip heads when you wanted heads a few times, but over many trials, it would average out to normal chance levels - which is exactly what this study found.
If these subtle correlations between personality and 'psychokinetic' performance prove robust in future studies, it could suggest that consciousness interacts with physical systems in ways we don't yet understand. This might point toward a deeper connection between mind and matter than conventional physics allows. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we're still far from that threshold.
Blind analysis protocols, where researchers commit to their analysis plan before seeing results, help prevent the unconscious bias of finding patterns in data that aren't really there.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
Secondary analyses of questionnaire correlations and hit rates both yielded p=0.06, suggesting possible weak effects
weakThe main psychokinesis effect was not statistically significant and fell within expected random distribution
strongMethodology
The study used strict blind analysis protocols where complete analysis software was written and tested before examining the data
strongThe unblinding was performed live at the PA convention 2019 in Paris
strongThis was a rigorous conceptual replication of the Correlation-Matrix experiment built from scratch with new hardware and software
strongThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.