The Limits of Observation: Can We Collapse Wave Functions with Our Senses?

[RAD4921]

Can blind people collapse the wave function or is the wave collapse restricted to the sense of sight? Can other senses such as smell, taste, hearing and feeling collapse the wave function? Does the wave function only collapse on the surface of an object?
Thanks RAD

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Wave function colapses when it is measured. 'Measured' is a fairly undefined term. But it is stupid to assume that measuring only pertains to what we see.

Also I think maybe this is the wrong forum for this.

 

[RAD4921]

Wave function colapses when it is measured. 'Measured' is a fairly undefined term. But it is stupid to assume that measuring only pertains to what we see.

Also I think maybe this is the wrong forum for this.

I was reffering to the paradox of Shroedinger's Cat in which the thought experiment uses the sense of sight to conduct the measurement. The idea of sense collapsing the wave function came from a book (A book on physics and philosophy) and is not my idea. If a conscious being does not collapse the wave function then it must be a purely mathematical abstraction.

 

[Rach3]

A wavefunction is an algorithm for determining probabilities. It has NOTHING to do with human vision, consciousness, or blind people. Your philosophy book has mislead you.

I've sent a PM to loseyourname, this thread really belongs in the QM forum.

 

[RAD4921]

A wavefunction is an algorithm for determining probabilities. It has NOTHING to do with human vision, consciousness, or blind people. Your philosophy book has mislead you.

I've sent a PM to loseyourname, this thread really belongs in the QM forum.

Here is from the book

The hypothesis of wave-function collapse by conscious observers raises a number of questions. First of all, does 'observation' refer solely to the sense of sight or do our other senses -- taste, touch, smell, and hearing -- also possesses the power to collapse wave functions? If not, how can the superiority of sight be explained? Can clairvoyant vision, or distant viewing, also collapse wave functions? When we collapse our own bodies' wave functions, must we actually look at ourselves (assuming that it is not too dark, or that we are not blind), or is it sufficient to be aware that we are alive? Is it in fact possible to collapse the wave function of an object just by thinking of it?

When we look at an object we normally only see part of its surface, but apparently this is sufficient to collapse the wave function of the whole object. If an astronaut observes our Earth from space, does this automatically collapse the wave functions of everything living on it? And where exactly does the boundary between the Earth and its surroundings lie? The rocky Earth is surrounded by an atmosphere, which merges into the interstellar medium. In fact, if everything is constantly exchanging matter and energy with its environment, and is directly correlated with everything else, would not an observation by a single selfconscious observer collapse the wave function(s) of everything in the universe


It sounds to me that wave collapse is just a mathematical abstraction and has nothing to say about reality,

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I was reffering to the paradox of Shroedinger's Cat in which the thought experiment uses the sense of sight to conduct the measurement. The idea of sense collapsing the wave function came from a book (A book on physics and philosophy) and is not my idea. If a conscious being does not collapse the wave function then it must be a purely mathematical abstraction.

I know, and my point is just because they used sight to preform the measurement in the thought experiment doesn't mean that the measuring only pertains to sight. Since it doesn't only pertain to sight, it is silly to say that a blind person cannot collapse a wave fuction.

Edit: By the way your book is probably written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Duality of states only occurs at the quantum level, and the collapse only occurs when something is consious(sp?) of it's state. For instance our naked eyes cannot see things that small, and our brain cannot comprehend it so there is no consious understanding of it's state, so no collapse can occur. So saying that looking at the Earth would collapse everything on it is not only false logic, but it's stupid.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah from what I know, wave-functions collapse when ANYTHING measures them, human or not.

 

[hypnagogue]

Moved from General Philosophy.

 

[Tide]

Ultimately, all of your senses are based in electromagnetism anyway so the question of "seeing" vs. "non-seeing" is moot.

 

[koantum]

Ultimately, all of your senses are based in electromagnetism anyway so the question of "seeing" vs. "non-seeing" is moot.

Aren't you putting the cart in front of the horse? According to the empiricists (and there are many), physics concerns the regularities in our experience of what we call "the world".

 

[koantum]

A wavefunction is an algorithm for determining probabilities. It has NOTHING to do with human vision, consciousness, or blind people.

At last someone talks sense. But probabilities of what? Measurement outcomes, to be sure, but how do we define them? See the discussion in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=116582".

 

[reilly]

Apparently it is unbecoming for a physicist to be "concerned with the regularities in our experience of what we call the "world." But it's a dirty job, and someone has to do it. (I'll admit to making an inference or two in my first sentence.)

If there ever was an award for garbled, troubled, imaginative discussions, those dealing with "wave function collapse" - cf post 5 - would be right up there. The other award, probably year-after-year, would be for the "Strawman of the Year."

Rach3 -- Is there physics when there's nobody to contemplate a splendid universe, let alone measure anything?

Am I correct, then, that Einstein's observers and their events somehow vanish into empty vacuum when atomic dimensions are at issue?

Could you have an algorithm without consciousness?
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[RAD4921]

Schroedinger's Cat

I don't know much about mathematics but from what I have read about Schroedinger's Cat the wave function collapse is supposed to apply to macroscopic objects as well as quantum objects. I know at first glance this thread may sound absurd but what role does consciousness plays in quantum physics? After all we are all made of quantum particles and we cannot talk about quantum phenomena without at the same time talk about ourselves.
RAD

 

[Nacho]

RAD4921,

Most of the people around here are a lot smarter about this than me, but since they ain't posting answers .. I'll try to.

As far as I can see, this whole "conscious observer" thing rests on 2 dubious concepts: "Superposition" and "Collapse of the Wave Function". They're OK if you treat them ONLY as mathematical tools. But some go as far as giving them physical meaning, i.e., "particles ARE in a superpositon of states before they are measured", and "when a measurement is taken, the particle collapses into 1 of 2 different allowed states".

That, along with what it means to "take a measurement" has no agreed upon definition. The CI (Copenhagen Interpretation of QM) doesn't even try to answer that one.

It all leads to Schroedinger's Cat in that each and everybody in the Universe is supposed to have to take their own measurement before the state of anyone or a conglomeration of particles is set for that person (the cat may be dead for you, but since I haven't looked it's either alive or dead for me .. its state is only realized for me when I look at it.)

Paul Dirac wrote a book on this in 1930 called "The Principle of Quantum Mechanics". There is a chapter in it where he writes about "Superposition and Indeterminacy", and states that it can be misleading to think of "Superposition" in a classical sense. And that's exactly how it is being thought about by persons who give them physical meaning. The book's a good read if you could find it in a library.

If you simply deny that "superposition" has a physical meaning, and define a measurement as "when 2 particles interact", the mystery of Schroedinger's Cat goes away. It's dead (or alive) for each and every person even if they don't look at (or smell/sense) it.

That's my take on it. Others will disagree.

 

[ZapperZ]

Wait... For people who do not think that there are effects that are attributed directly to the superposition phenomenon, then please produce an alternative explanation for (i) the bonding-antibonding bonds in H2 molecule (ii) the coherence gap observed in the Stony Brook/Delft SQUID experiments.

Till you can show me a valid alternative scenario that can be published in a peer-reviewed journal, all of this dismisal of superposition as not being real is really empty, philosophical talk not backed by empirical evidence, y'know, the one that's required when we do physics!

Zz.

 

[RAD4921]

Apparently it is unbecoming for a physicist to be "concerned with the regularities in our experience of what we call the "world." But it's a dirty job, and someone has to do it. (I'll admit to making an inference or two in my first sentence.)

If there ever was an award for garbled, troubled, imaginative discussions, those dealing with "wave function collapse" - cf post 5 - would be right up there. The other award, probably year-after-year, would be for the "Strawman of the Year."

Rach3 -- Is there physics when there's nobody to contemplate a splendid universe, let alone measure anything?

Am I correct, then, that Einstein's observers and their events somehow vanish into empty vacuum when atomic dimensions are at issue?

Could you have an algorithm without consciousness?
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

I like what you said ' Is there physics when there's nobody to contemplate a splendid universe, let alone measure anything?'

Is the moon really there when no one is looking at it?

 

[ZapperZ]

This thread should never have been let out of the Philosophy forum.

Zz.

 

[Nacho]

ZapperZ,

Were you being serious, or tongue-in-cheek??!??

Have any info on the "(i) the bonding-antibonding bonds in H2 molecule (ii) the coherence gap observed in the Stony Brook/Delft SQUID experiments." I'd like to read them.

 

[ZapperZ]

Do you see me giggling?

https://www.physicsforums.com/journal.php?do=showentry&e=88&enum=26

I'd like to see people write a rebuttal to those papers and show where they can duplicate the identical phenomenon without invoking such superpositions!

Zz.

 

[Nacho]

ZapperZ,

Thanks, but I didn't see any links to the actual papers (not that I'd be able to understand them anyway) .. maybe I missed them though.

I'll try to find them online, or maybe a trip to the library next week.

Have you read the Paul Dirac chapter I wrote about?

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I don't know much about mathematics but from what I have read about Schroedinger's Cat the wave function collapse is supposed to apply to macroscopic objects as well as quantum objects. I know at first glance this thread may sound absurd but what role does consciousness plays in quantum physics? After all we are all made of quantum particles and we cannot talk about quantum phenomena without at the same time talk about ourselves.
RAD

Schroedinger's Cat is a -thought experiment- it doesn't in any way imply or prove that superpostion apply to macroscopic objects. Originally Schroedinger's Cat was supposed to show the flaws of quantum mechanics stating the cat can't possibly be dead and alive at the same time.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

not that I'd be able to understand them anyway

Quantum Mechanics isn't easy to explain no matter what, so if you don't understand papers on it, then don't expect to explain people trying to explain it in "laymans" terms because you still won't.

 

[Nacho]

Quantum Mechanics isn't easy to explain no matter what, so if you don't understand papers on it, then don't expect to explain people trying to explain it in "laymans" terms because you still won't.

Please, feel free to read the passage from Dirac I cite, and either show where he's wrong or what he wrote doesn't apply to a physical meaning of superposition.

The passage is only about 4 pages long. I'd type it up here but I'd have to get an OK from a board moderator first.

 

[Amanita-Virosa]

Superposition is a particularly difficult issue to come to grips with conceptually because its almost impossible to visualise what it actually means. This of course relates to the way we experience the world in our everyday lives: its difficult to imagine a chair or table smeared out across space - but electrons ain't chairs :-)

Sometimes I wonder if particles acutally exist at all and that everything is made of waves (this does imply a physical reality to the wavefunction which, I know to some, is abhorrent) and what we call collapse of the wavefunction represents a contraction into a very localized wave. What we as people see as solid objects are just conglomerations (spl) of localised wavepackets. Solidity, maybe is our subjective experience of these. As far as I can see the some of the conceptual problems of superposition disappear. Although I not sure what this means for that poor cat! :-)

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Dr Chaos]

Schroedinger's Cat is a -thought experiment- it doesn't in any way imply or prove that superpostion apply to macroscopic objects. Originally Schroedinger's Cat was supposed to show the flaws of quantum mechanics stating the cat can't possibly be dead and alive at the same time.

I was under the impression that Schrödinger's Cat was an attempt at proving that quantum superpositions didn't apply to macroscopic objects. I suppose it proves different things in accordance to what you believe in; I personally think that the cat is an observer, which means there is no paradox. If anything, the Quantum Zeno effect would prevent the cat from death, as cats can go for ages without blinking.

So is the general consensus here that one cannot collapse wavefunctions with their naked eye?