The Silence Experiment: A Multi-State Protocol for Detecting Consciousness-Dependent Decoherence in Shielded Environments

A controlled experimental protocol for testing the von Neumann–Wigner (VNW) interpretation of quantum mechanics, the hypothesis that consciousness plays a role in quantum state reduction, against the prevailing environmental decoherence framework (Zurek, Zeh, Joos). The experimental platform places a single experienced meditator in EEG-verified cognitive states inside a shielded environment. A quantum coherence sensor measures decoherence rates (T₂) across seven consciousness conditions (C1–C7) spanning the full cognitive-excitation axis, against a separate empty-chamber instrumental baseline, with a thermal-dummy control cell recorded alongside and excluded from all confirmatory tests. 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 the chamber baseline and at conditions C1–C5, and that T₂ at C7 will further exceed T₂ at C6. This is tested by three pre-registered primary tests, all directional, evaluated together under a family-wise alpha of 0.005 one-sided (Bonferroni per-test alpha ≈ 0.00167): a Jonckheere–Terpstra ordered test across C1–C7, planned Contrast 1 ([C6, C7] vs. [baseline, C1–C5]), and planned Contrast 2 (C7 vs. C6). Contrast 2 is retained in the primary family but is underpowered in Phase 0; a null on it is uninformative rather than disconfirming, and definitive resolution is deferred to Phase 1. All other cross-condition comparisons are exploratory. Because the empty-chamber baseline sits in the comparison group, the predicted direction commits the protocol to a coherence-protective contribution at the deepest states (Γcog < 0), not merely to the absence of a decohering one. This directional assumption is stated explicitly rather than left implicit. A weaker suppression pattern, in which C6 and C7 exceed C1–C5 but merely return the sensor to its empty-chamber value, is pre-registered as a distinct and separately reportable outcome; it is the pattern a purely somatic account also predicts. A pre-registered secondary test ([C6, C7] vs. baseline alone) is the discriminator between the two, since no primary test separates them. Both measurement pipelines are frozen before data collection. The EEG classifier for the independent variable specifies named channels, bands, thresholds, and scoring windows, defined positively rather than by exclusion. The T₂ estimation pipeline for the dependent variable specifies pulse sequence, delay grid, fit function with the stretch exponent held fixed rather than free, estimator, and fit-quality rejection operating on the decay curve rather than on the fitted value. A pre-registered positive control injects calibrated dephasing noise of known amplitude and confirms the predicted T₂ response, so that a null can be reported as a genuine upper bound rather than as an untested absence of sensitivity. A secondary experiment uses quantum random number generators with improved shielding, blinding, and instrumentation. Analysis is pre-registered, randomised with allocation concealment, outcome-blinded where feasible, and conducted by an independent statistician who does not see condition labels until the analysis is locked. Null results establish pre-registered upper bounds; positive results require independent replication. The theoretical basis for this protocol is detailed in the companion paper, The Silence Paradigm.