1. Home
2. Science
3. Luck: Randomness or Quantum Secret? Science Is Just Starting to Look

Quantum physics is redefining our understanding of randomness. But can the human mind truly shape the outcome of random events? Numerous experiments have probed this mystery, yet none have fully convinced the scientific community.

Quantum physics has upended the very foundations of how we understand the world. For over a century, it has challenged the idea that randomness is merely a product of our ignorance, suggesting instead that it is woven into the fabric of the universe itself. Before observation, particles exist in a cloud of probabilities. Nothing is predetermined. This is the essence of Schrödinger’s famous cat experiment, in which the cat is simultaneously alive and dead until the box is opened. For researchers like Swiss physicist Nicolas Gisin, this shift is more than a matter of calculations; it fundamentally alters our understanding of nature.

Faced with this intrinsic randomness, some have asked whether human consciousness or intention might influence the unpredictable. This notion, as old as humanity’s fascination with magic, has gained new relevance through quantum mechanics. In the 1970s, scientists began experimentally testing it in what became known as micro-psychokinesis. The concept is simple. A person tries to affect the outcome of a random number generator, a machine that produces sequences of numbers completely unpredictable thanks to quantum phenomena.

Thousands of experiments have been conducted, both in laboratories and on a large scale. A 2006 meta-analysis led by Dean Radin, published in Psychological Bulletin, reviewed over 300 studies and found a very small but statistically significant effect. Some see this as evidence of a genuine interaction between mind and matter. Others argue that this tiny signal could have alternative explanations. More recent analyses, conducted by teams such as those at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, show that when stricter protocols and more robust statistical methods are applied, the effect disappears or cannot be replicated.

On a larger scale, projects like the Global Consciousness Project have attempted to detect the influence of major global or collective events on networks of random number generators distributed around the world. The idea is that intense collective emotions might subtly disturb randomness through a mysterious effect of consciousness. A few statistical anomalies were observed following major events such as September 11, 2001, but these findings remain highly contested. Most researchers consider them to be coincidences or the result of biases in data handling. Without pre-established protocols, it is impossible to rule out the effects of coincidence or human interpretation.

Theoretically, the idea of a direct interaction between consciousness and matter remains highly controversial. A well-known theory, proposed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, suggests that human thought could arise from quantum phenomena occurring within neurons, at the very heart of the brain. However, most physicists and neuroscientists consider this extremely unlikely. The brain is a warm and chaotic environment, poorly suited to sustaining the delicate quantum processes that such interactions would require. While quantum biology has revealed remarkable effects in bird navigation and plant photosynthesis, there is no evidence that similar phenomena occur in human consciousness, as noted in a study published in Physics Reports.

Major experiments in quantum physics, such as Alain Aspect’s studies on particle entanglement, confirm that randomness is real at the microscopic level. Yet none of these experiments show that human consciousness plays any role in the “choice” of reality. Other interpretations of quantum physics, including the many-worlds theory, account for the observed phenomena without suggesting that thought can influence matter.

Ultimately, the idea of “quantum luck” controlled by the mind remains largely a source of inspiration for science fiction and philosophy. Even the largest experimental protocols, studies involving thousands of participants, and the most advanced statistical analyses have found no solid evidence that intention or thought can influence randomness. The few surprising results that have emerged are better explained by pure coincidence, methodological errors, or unconscious expectations.

Still, the debate continues, likely because it touches on a deeply human hope: the desire to exert some influence over a universe that often seems beyond our control. Modern science invites us to recognize the limits of our powers while continuing to explore the unknown. The door remains slightly ajar, but there is currently no evidence that the human mind can sway quantum randomness.