Wavelength Comparison Test protocol
Compound: N,N-DMT
Status: research
A pre-registered test of whether the reported forms depend on 650 nm, or appear at any wavelength. Published either way.
Safety
Monitoring: Green and violet modules at the same rated power are perceived as brighter than red and carry a higher retinal hazard for the same milliwatt figure. Never assume a 532 nm or 405 nm module at the same rating is as forgiving as a 650 nm one. Check the rating on each module separately, keep every module at or below Class 3R, and never look into any beam. A sitter manages the modules and swaps them between arms so the observer never handles a powered laser.
Side effects
- Afterimages from prolonged beam observation
- Eye strain in a dim room
- For substance arms, the effects listed on the 650 nm laser protocol page
Abort criteria
- Any eye discomfort, afterimage that does not fade, or visual disturbance that outlasts the session
- Any module whose class rating cannot be confirmed from its own label
- Observer distress in a substance arm, on the criteria already set out on the 650 nm laser protocol page
Contraindications
- Photosensitive epilepsy or photosensitive conditions, all arms
- For any arm involving N,N-DMT, every contraindication listed on the 650 nm laser protocol page applies without modification
- Any laser above Class 3R, at any wavelength
Related
Why: DMT + 650nm Laser Protocol is the protocol this test varies. Read it first.
Slug: dmt-laser
Title: DMT + 650nm Laser Protocol
Why: Sober Baseline Protocol is required before every arm, on the same surface, at every wavelength.
Slug: sober-baseline
Title: Sober Baseline Protocol
Why: Physiological Instrumentation sets out what it would take to time-lock an arm of this test to an instrument.
Slug: physiological-instrumentation
Title: Physiological Instrumentation: EEG, ECG and MRI
Overview
Mechanism: Two explanations predict opposite results. If the reported forms are elaborated from laser speckle, then changing the wavelength changes speckle contrast and grain size, and the forms should change in a way that tracks those optical parameters. If the forms are independent of the light source beyond needing coherent light, then they should persist across wavelengths with no systematic optical signature. One test separates these. Neither outcome requires the phenomenon to be real or unreal for the test to be worth running.
Indications
- Falsification test
- Wavelength dependence
- Speckle hypothesis discrimination
- Pre-registered replication
Evidence level: Pre-registration. No result yet. Here is the full state of the public record as of 21 August 2026. The pilot study (Goler 2025, IPI Letters, CC BY 4.0) states that 530 nm and 450 nm lasers have been probed and produced similar observations, but publishes no data, no observer counts and no comparison method for that claim. On the Shawn Ryan Show on 9 July 2026 the same claim was repeated in looser form, that the effect can occur at any frequency and that red is easier. Community logs at Project Veilbreak record self-reported sessions spanning 400, 488, 520, 600 and 650 nm, unverified and unblinded. No published controlled study isolates wavelength as a variable. That gap is the reason this page exists. Laser speckle contrast is known from the peer-reviewed optics literature to vary with wavelength and with the observer's own optics, which is what makes a wavelength comparison able to discriminate between the two leading explanations rather than merely repeat them.
Contraindications
- This page describes an observational study design. It is not an instruction to obtain or use any controlled substance
- Do not attempt any arm of this design without the laser safety practices set out below
- Photosensitive epilepsy or any photosensitive condition
Citations
Doi: 10.59973/ipil.158
Year: 2025
Title: Detailing a Pilot Study: The Code of Reality Protocol (source of the 530 nm and 450 nm claim, no data published for it)
Year: 2012
Title: Objective and subjective speckle contrast, wavelength dependent (Optics Express 20:8770)
Year: 2025
Title: On the DMT Laser Code of Reality Effect, skeptical analysis advancing the speckle explanation
Year: 2026
Title: Shawn Ryan Show #320, claim that the effect occurs at any frequency, podcast assertion, no data
Integration
Prompts
- At this wavelength, describe any forms on or near the beam, without naming anything you saw at another wavelength
- How did the speckle texture itself look, independent of any structure in it?
- Did the forms respond to attention, or persist when the beam was covered?
- Compared with the sober baseline on this same surface, what is different?
- If nothing structured appeared at this wavelength, say so plainly. That is the result
- Which arm was this, and what order was it in your sequence?
Homework
- Photograph the surface under each wavelength with the camera in the fixed position, before the session
- Keep the drawings for each arm separated and unlabelled until scoring is complete
Framework: Each arm produces one registry submission carrying its wavelength in the metadata, so the comparison can be reconstructed by anyone from the public record rather than taken on trust. Voice log immediately after each arm, before speaking to anyone. Drawing within five minutes, without reference images. The set of submissions from one observer across all arms is the unit of evidence, not any single session.
Follow up structure
- Submit the pre-registration to the registry before the first session
- Submit one record per arm, tagged with the wavelength, the surface and the session order
- Submit the blinded similarity scores once all arms are complete
- Submit a null report if no structured forms appeared in any arm, using the same route as a positive result
Preparation
Screening
- Naive observer arm preferred. An observer who has not browsed the registry or any symbol reports before their first documented session controls the strongest skeptical explanation, which is priming
- Standard safety screening as set out on the 650 nm laser protocol page applies unchanged to any arm involving a substance
- No photosensitive epilepsy or photosensitive condition, in every arm including the sober arm
- A sober sitter present for any arm involving a substance
- Documentation tools tested before the first arm: voice recorder, paper, pen, camera
- Observer agrees in advance that a null result will be submitted and published
Set setting: One fixed room, one fixed matte neutral surface, one fixed viewing distance, held constant for every arm. Only the laser module changes between arms. Class 3R or lower at every wavelength, under 5 mW, aimed away from faces, eyes, windows and reflective surfaces. A diffraction grating sits in the beam path, identical across arms. Ambient light held constant and recorded. Camera position fixed so the surface photograph is comparable between arms.
Consent template: The pre-registration commitment. Before the first session the observer records which wavelengths will be run, in what order, how many sessions each, and what result would count as the forms changing. That record is submitted to the registry before any data is collected. This is what separates a test from a demonstration. An observer who decides after the fact which sessions counted has produced an anecdote, not a comparison.
Legal status: This page describes a study design. Arms involving N,N-DMT concern a substance that is Schedule I in the United States and controlled in most countries. Nothing here is an instruction to obtain or use a controlled substance, and nothing here is medical advice. The sober arm and the equipment arms involve no substance.
Controls and rigor
Why: The comparison is only worth running if it can come out against the 650 nm claim. These controls are what make the result citable by someone who does not already believe the claim.
Practices
- Sober baseline first, in every arm, on the same surface, before any substance is involved. See the sober baseline protocol
- Fixed order counterbalancing across observers. If four observers run three wavelengths, the orders differ between them so that order effects do not masquerade as wavelength effects
- Draw before comparing. The drawing for each arm is completed before the observer looks at their own drawing from any other arm
- The wavelength cannot be hidden from the observer, since colour is visible. State this limitation plainly rather than claiming a blind that does not exist. What can be blinded is the analysis: the person scoring similarity between drawings should not know which wavelength produced which drawing
- Independent scoring. Similarity between drawings is scored by someone who did not run the sessions and does not know the arm assignment
- Report every session run, including sessions where nothing structured appeared, and including sessions abandoned partway
- Publish the pre-registration, the raw drawings and the scoring sheet, not only the conclusion
Reference material only. Nothing on this page is medical advice or a personal recommendation.
Adults 18 and older only.
First reported by Danny Goler in August 2020; the written protocol grew out of that observation. He has no part in Meridian Optics Lab, this store, or this site, is not a founder and holds no editorial role, and has not reviewed or endorsed any kit, page, or claim published here.