"An ideal single-photon source has yet to be created." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon_source
Still, detection of single particles has been hinted to during the Apollo program; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_visual_phenomena
The definition of an _ideal_ source is "that it should be on-demand, efficient, robust and easy to implement." It seems fragile, inefficient and difficult to implement sources have been invented multiple times.
- Ambient human body temperature is a
constant source of noise as infrared
photons.
- In a dark, cold environment the human body
is radiating a constant shower of photons
in a limited spectrum. Interference patterns
could augment paths and energies of photons
in flight.
- A human might simply guess at sensations
and produce statistical anomalies that we
want to believe in.
- A guessing human might intuitively gain
an understanding of implicit tells in the
detection process, and notice cues from
the researchers, and interpret behavioral
signals to provide affirmative responses
to stimuli.
- How many photons can an individual simply
think into existence by willful thought?
Who's to say that the test subjects aren't
detecting psychic brain waves from the
researchers, by way of Vulcan mind melds
and subsequent "remote viewing" events?
Which are outside of the visible range, and wouldn't interfere with the experiment, assuming they used visible range photons (the article doesn't mention this, but why would they not).
> - A human might simply guess at sensations > and produce statistical anomalies that we > want to believe in.
Isn't literally any study susceptible to this? Besides: "Still, participants were able to answer correctly more frequently than would be expected if they had guessed at random — and their confidence level was higher when they were right." suggests this wasn't an one-off anomaly. (Although N=3 nonetheles...)
> - A guessing human might intuitively gain > an understanding of implicit tells in the > detection process, and notice cues from > the researchers, and interpret behavioral > signals to provide affirmative responses > to stimuli.
I think the researchers might have heard of the double-blind method.
> - How many photons can an individual simply > think into existence by willful thought? > Who's to say that the test subjects aren't > detecting psychic brain waves from the > researchers, by way of Vulcan mind melds > and subsequent "remote viewing" events?
I might be missing a joke?
What I can't identify by name is the philosophical arguments in the other statements.
I'm about 90% sure one is a metaphysical Copenhagen interpretation of QM (You've heard of Heisenberg's lucky cat?) but I'm not as certain as the UV catastrophe analogy. Depends how you read it, I guess.
(...and it's Schrödinger's Cat)
If what you say is true then we should have seen a signal from it long ago.