Can a conscious observer collapse the probability wave?

[Fredrik]

And I also believe that the state of the system is always relative to the observer. (The observer being any other system. It does not need to be conscious) But of course, since I am a conscious observer, it is always going to require a conscious observer (me) to collapse the wave function relative to me.

It sounds like you're confusing collapse with correlation, or in a slightly different terminology, measurement with pre-measurement. I started writing an explanation, but I realized that it would take too long. To understand these things, you will have to study measurements in a book, e.g. chapter 9 of Ballentine. It would also help to make sure that you understand density matrices, and the difference between "pure" and "mixed" states. Then you could read something about decoherence theory. (No one said that these things would be easy).

 

[Fiziqs]

I read that if we take the classic spilt beam interference experiment like this:

and send photons one at a time, then if we mount the mirrors(M) on sensitive devices that detect the reflection of a photon the interference pattern is destroyed. This destruction of the interference pattern due to the potential to determine "which way" information occurs even if the the mirror deflection devices are not connected to any counting or other recording devices. The mere interaction and potential to record which way" information is sufficient to collapse the probability function. Personally (although I might be wrong) an "observation" of a quantum particle is any interaction between the particle and its surroundings that causes a physical change that could in principle be detected by a human, even if it is not. "Observation" is any physical interaction between the quantum particle and the (coherent?) environment and does not have to include a human observer. That makes the phrase "observation causes collapse" a bit misleading. I think "interaction causes collapse" is a bit more accurate. Observation necessarily involves interaction but not vice versa.

P.S. Bear in mind that the universe evolved for billions of years before sentient observers evolved and presumably quantum principles worked just fine even back then.

yuiop, I have been doing my best to find a reference of some kind to the experiment you describe, but I guess that my Googling skills just aren't up to the task.

I did manage to find a recent thread on this topic here at PF, but no reference to the experiment having actually been carried out.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=589870

If you have a source reference I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks

 

[Fiziqs]

It sounds like you're confusing collapse with correlation, or in a slightly different terminology, measurement with pre-measurement. I started writing an explanation, but I realized that it would take too long. To understand these things, you will have to study measurements in a book, e.g. chapter 9 of Ballentine. It would also help to make sure that you understand density matrices, and the difference between "pure" and "mixed" states. Then you could read something about decoherence theory. (No one said that these things would be easy).

No need to write a long and complicated answer. Just the idea that I might be confusing collapse with correlation is enough to give me a new direction to go in. And the concept of pre-measurement was new to me too.

It doesn't take a long and complicated answer to pique my interest. You don't have to give me the answers, just show me where to dig, and I'll find the answer.

So thanks

P.S. I wouldn't want it to be easy.

 

[Fredrik]

Just the idea that I might be confusing collapse with correlation is enough to give me a new direction to go in.

I'm looking at these two concepts now, and it seems to me that the distinction is less significant than I had realized before. So maybe I was wrong to suggest that it's important to distinguish between them. I do however stand by my comments about what to read. Ballentine's chapter 9 explains von Neumann's treatment of measurements. For a brief glimpse of that, see this section of the Wikipedia article on measurements in QM. To go beyond that, you need to study decoherence, e.g. the book by Schlosshauer and the review articles by Zurek. To do that, you will need to understand terms like "reduced density matrix".

The term "premeasurement" is used in that Wikipedia article, but it doesn't seem to be used in the books I own. So it may be a non-standard term.

 

[yuiop]

yuiop, I have been doing my best to find a reference of some kind to the experiment you describe, but I guess that my Googling skills just aren't up to the task.

I did manage to find a recent thread on this topic here at PF, but no reference to the experiment having actually been carried out.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=589870

If you have a source reference I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks

I am afraid I do not have a reference to an actual Mach–Zehnder interferometer experiment that includes mirrors that can actually detect the the reflection of a single photon. As far as know it is just a thought experiment and the prediction is just hypothetical. It is in some ways similar to the quantum bomb detector experiment, which I think you would find interesting to read up on. The physicsforums discussion on the subject that you found seems to fairly good and worth a read.

But reflection from a mirror is an interaction, isn't it? It's just that the effect on the mirror isn't large enough to create a record of what just happened. So I think it's more accurate to say that an observation is a special kind of interaction, the kind that produces a record of the result (a record that for all practical purposes can be treated classically).

I agree that reflection from a mirror is an interaction and clearly the thought experiment raises the issue of degree of interaction and the effect of the interaction on decoherence or collapse. For a normally mounted mirror, the inertia of the mirror is so great that any movement of the mirror due to deflection of a photon would be negligible and essentially undetectable especially if there is any background noise present. One has to wonder if there is some slight loss of the interference pattern even in this case, with a gradually increasing loss of interference with increasing sensitivity of the mirror to photon deflection or if there is a threshold value with a binary switch from interference plus no which way detection to no interference plus which way detection? There seems to be some hint in the literature of a grey scale with "weak measurements" that allow detection of which way information while still preserving an interference pattern, but I am not clear on this and it seems to violate some quantum principle.

 

[Fredrik]

One has to wonder if there is some slight loss of the interference pattern even in this case, with a gradually increasing loss of interference with increasing sensitivity of the mirror to photon deflection or if there is a threshold value with a binary switch from interference plus no which way detection to no interference plus which way detection?

It has to be the first option, I think. This is similar to the double-slit experiment with C70 molecules that I mentioned, where the pattern gets a little bit messed up when you increase the air pressure a little. In both of these experiments, the problem appears to be that some of the the "quantum weirdness" is moved into the environment, where it's unnoticeable. (Maybe a decoherence expert could explain it better than that. )

 

[Darwin123]

I know very little about QM, so forgive me if this question is a bit difficult to comprehend. I understand that there is some debate about whether a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave function. But I was wondering if there was any experimental evidence showing to what degree a conscious observer is actually able to collapse the wave function.

What I mean by this is, as an example, as I understand it, in the double slit experiment it doesn't matter if a device is set up to monitor which slit the particle went through, as long as the information about what the device "saw" is not available to an observer, then the device's observation alone is not sufficient to collapse the wave function. Basically if we turn on the device but do not record the information, then the wave function won't collapse. Turn on a recording device, and the wave function collapses. So is a conscious observer, i.e. a person, a sufficient recording device?

If we set up the double slit experiment so that a person gets a visual indication of which slit the particle went through, and then sees where on the detector the particle was found, is the observer's memory a sufficient recording device. In an experimental setting wouldn't we have to send many thousands of particles through the experiment in order to establish a clear interference, or non-interference pattern? Obviously a person would be unable to remember all the slit and detection information, and lacking that information, what type of pattern should we expect to see? If a mechanical recording device was unable to accurately record the information, wouldn't we expect the interference pattern to remain. Likewise a person might be able to collapse the wave function of one individual particle, but after a large number of particles, shouldn't we expect to see an interference pattern? So even with a person watching, might we not expect an interference pattern in the double slit experiment?

If the conscious observer is the key in collapsing the wave function, then we would expect to see a non-interference pattern, but if the observer is simply a recording device, (and an insufficient one) then wouldn't we still see an interference pattern in the double slit experiment?

To me it seems that the conscious observer is merely a recording device, which is why I ask if there is any experimental evidence indicating that a conscious observer can actually collapse the wave function. Is a conscious observer only able to collapse the wave function of that which they are currently observing, but on a long term scale wouldn't the system revert to a probability wave, as the observer's memory is an unreliable recording device?

As you can tell, I'm confused. Any information that might help me clear this up would be appreciated.

I will answer the question in terms of an interpretation of quantum mechanics called “coherency theory”. The Copenhagen interpretation was an approach to the problem that came before coherency theory. This is the theory that uses the concept of consciousness. However, I think of it as merely a good working model. Not that it still isn't good as a short cut for most measurement problems. However, it has a few internal ambiguities. I am sure you are aware of them.
I am going to ignore the Copenhagen interpretation. Not because it isn't useful sometimes. To be honest, I never understood fully understood the Copenhagen interpretation to begin with.
According to Coherency theory, the measurement process is merely an interaction between two wave systems. The particle properties "emerge" from the wave properties.
The observer does not have to be intelligent or conscious. The observer is the complex system. Complex here means having a lot of degrees of freedom. The observer, like everything else in the universe, has a wave-particle duality. The observer can behave like a large number of particles moving at random velocities, or like a wave function with many quantum numbers that are constantly changing in time. When coupled to another system, it causes a wave front collapse the other system which is merely the result of the interaction.
Sometimes, the phrase measuring instrument is used instead of observer. The idea is the same. The measuring instrument is complex but has certain properties that define a measuring system.
There are some actual experiments that have been done to test "coherency theory".
Here is an article with a link where the investigators examined a beam of C60 molecules emitted from an oven. The molecules were still vibrating because of their high temperature when they were emitted by the oven.
The C60 molecules gave off electromagnetic radiation because of their vibrations. This was called thermal radiation. It probably came close to being a black body spectrum, although I am sure there were line spectra associated with it.
The “observer” was the thermal radiation given off by the C60 molecules. The thermal radiation consisted of thousands of photons per C60 molecule. The thermal radiation waves had thousands of modes with random phases in it. The quantum numbers probably varied randomly in time.
One could have located the atoms using this thermal radiation. Hence, the thermal radiation was effectively a measuring instrument. It was an observer, since the radiation could have been “seen” by a camera. However, there did not have to be an intelligence to observe it. There happened to be an intelligence around (the investigators), but they did not control the thermal radiation. There did not have to be someone with a mind to observe the thermal radiation.
The thermal radiation made the wave function of the C60 molecules collapse just because of the interaction between “EM waves” and “molecular waves”. In theory, the collapse could have been modeled by Schroedingers equation with a Hamiltonian that had thousands of degrees of freedom in it. However, the thermal radiation was so complex that there was no way to do that.
The thermal radiation was not conscious. It was not explicitly designed. It was not manipulated. The thermal radiation was just complex.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0412003.pdf
“Influence of molecular temperature on the coherence of fullerenes in a near-field interferometer
Abstract
…
This way the heating-dependent reduction of interference contrast can be compared with the predictions of quantum theory. We find that the observed loss of coherence agrees quantitatively with the expected decoherence rate due to the thermal radiation emitted by the hot molecules.”

This reference mentions both the C60 experiments and another series of experiments using superconductivity. Again, thermal waves of Cooper pairs acted as an unconscious “observer”.
http://www.maxschlosshauer.com/publications/DecoherenceExperimentsSchlosshauer.pdf
“Superpositions states and their decoherence have also been observed in superconducting devices whose key variable is charge (or phase), instead of the flux variable _ used in SQUIDs.”

More on C60 experiments.
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/2002-02.pdf
“Interferometry with Macromolecules: Quantum Paradigms Tested in the Mesoscopic World”

A more general treatment of coherency theory
http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2005/135/pdf/henkel.pdf
“Coherence theory of atomic de Broglie waves and electromagnetic near Fields”

 

[drphysica]

No no no the observer dosn't colapse the wave function! It is the "observing" that dose it, ie. the set up of the experiment which causes the colapse of the wf nothing to do with you.

 

[bhobba]

No no no the observer dosn't colapse the wave function! It is the "observing" that dose it, ie. the set up of the experiment which causes the colapse of the wf nothing to do with you.

Yes indeed,

And decoherence even explains how and resolves pretty much all the issues. The only issue left is it does not tell you which state it changes into as a result of an observation - all it gives is probabilities. However it is definitely in that state prior to observation and the observation reveals what it is - the only issue is we cannot predict with certainty what it is.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Meselwulf]

I know very little about QM, so forgive me if this question is a bit difficult to comprehend. I understand that there is some debate about whether a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave function. But I was wondering if there was any experimental evidence showing to what degree a conscious observer is actually able to collapse the wave function.

What I mean by this is, as an example, as I understand it, in the double slit experiment it doesn't matter if a device is set up to monitor which slit the particle went through, as long as the information about what the device "saw" is not available to an observer, then the device's observation alone is not sufficient to collapse the wave function. Basically if we turn on the device but do not record the information, then the wave function won't collapse. Turn on a recording device, and the wave function collapses. So is a conscious observer, i.e. a person, a sufficient recording device?

If we set up the double slit experiment so that a person gets a visual indication of which slit the particle went through, and then sees where on the detector the particle was found, is the observer's memory a sufficient recording device. In an experimental setting wouldn't we have to send many thousands of particles through the experiment in order to establish a clear interference, or non-interference pattern? Obviously a person would be unable to remember all the slit and detection information, and lacking that information, what type of pattern should we expect to see? If a mechanical recording device was unable to accurately record the information, wouldn't we expect the interference pattern to remain. Likewise a person might be able to collapse the wave function of one individual particle, but after a large number of particles, shouldn't we expect to see an interference pattern? So even with a person watching, might we not expect an interference pattern in the double slit experiment?

If the conscious observer is the key in collapsing the wave function, then we would expect to see a non-interference pattern, but if the observer is simply a recording device, (and an insufficient one) then wouldn't we still see an interference pattern in the double slit experiment?

To me it seems that the conscious observer is merely a recording device, which is why I ask if there is any experimental evidence indicating that a conscious observer can actually collapse the wave function. Is a conscious observer only able to collapse the wave function of that which they are currently observing, but on a long term scale wouldn't the system revert to a probability wave, as the observer's memory is an unreliable recording device?

As you can tell, I'm confused. Any information that might help me clear this up would be appreciated.

Best not to use the word ''concious''... that kind of implies the idea that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function \int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2, which is a fallacy. Any kind of observation will collapse a state vector <\Psi>. Even particles act as observers irrespective of them having no consciousness... A good example of this fallacy is Wigners Friend, you should read up on it.

Another way to put it, is that particles act as observers but the terminology is really called quantum decoherence. If you stick a bunch of particles in a box and leave them long enough, their wave functions couple and become entangled and eventually the will condense into solid objects.

 

[Zmunkz]

Some of this conversation is suffering from a terminological problem. To be clear, we don't actually now if there is a "wave collapse" in reality... Mr. Schroedinger's equation is rather explicit that no wave can evolve from a standard superposition into a collapsed spike. The concept of wave collapse was merely an instrumentalist remedy hand-wavingly introduced by Niels Bohr, but it is not clear exactly how or even if that "event" translates into reality. Considering that the collapse could easily be an instrumental concept rather than a realist one, it's going to be hard to settle in a concrete way what "causes" the collapse. Such are the mysteries of quantum mechanics :-)

 

[Meselwulf]

Some of this conversation is suffering from a terminological problem. To be clear, we don't actually now if there is a "wave collapse" in reality...

There are countless experiments which prove there is a wave function collapse.

The double slit experiment, quantum eraser and decoherence are all examples of wave which collapse.

 

[Zmunkz]

There are countless experiments that demonstrate a measurement of a particle where the math told us there was a wave. I'm trying to separate between the instrumentalist formulation and the realist formulation. According to the math, a wave cannot spontaneously collapse. Obviously it does, because we don't see half of a particle, I'm just saying to talk about the collapse like its something actually happening might be premature. It's quite possibly a side effect of the math we use with no correlation in reality. I'm not saying that for sure either, of course, just putting it out there...

 

[bhobba]

There are countless experiments which prove there is a wave function collapse. The double slit experiment, quantum eraser and decoherence are all examples of wave which collapse.

That is interpretation dependant. The many worlds interpretation has no collapse - all outcomes occur - but we only ever experience one.

I think its mystical nonsense personally but as an interpretation it certainly doesn't require collapse.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

There are countless experiments that demonstrate a measurement of a particle where the math told us there was a wave. I'm trying to separate between the instrumentalist formulation and the realist formulation. According to the math, a wave cannot spontaneously collapse. Obviously it does, because we don't see half of a particle, I'm just saying to talk about the collapse like its something actually happening might be premature. It's quite possibly a side effect of the math we use with no correlation in reality. I'm not saying that for sure either, of course, just putting it out there...

First you have to understand what the wave is. Its not a wave in a real sense - its a wave of something called a system state. A system state is a property of a system that tells us the probabilities of possible observational outcomes. In most interpretations it has the same status as the probabilities we assign to the result of flipping a coin. Its simply a theoretical device - not something that exists out there in a real sense. It is of zero concern that it spontaneously changes to another state just as it is of zero concern once you flip a coin the 50-50 probability changes to a dead cert.

There are issues but that not one of them in most interpretations. One issue is exactly how does an observation accomplish this feat - Copenhagen simply assumes it does. Decoherence goes a long way in answering that.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Zmunkz]

Its simply a theoretical device - not something that exists out there in a real sense.

You landed exactly where I was trying to get -- thanks for clarifying the language!

 

[Meselwulf]

That is interpretation dependant. The many worlds interpretation has no collapse - all outcomes occur - but we only ever experience one.

I think its mystical nonsense personally but as an interpretation it certainly doesn't require collapse.

Thanks
Bill

This is true, but the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely accepted theory in quantum physics today.

Parallel universes have... or I should say, has little experimental back-up .The fact you can disturb a particles wave function is sufficient enough to say that there has been a sudden reduction to the probabilities that they equal 1.

 

[Meselwulf]

You landed exactly where I was trying to get -- thanks for clarifying the language!

Wrong, we have observed the wave function, it is not a mathematical anomaly.

I suggest you read up on the ''Quantum Resonator''. An object small enough but not too small, that we have seen these quantum effects. The wave function is definitely real!

... and physical.

 

[Meselwulf]

First you have to understand what the wave is. Its not a wave in a real sense - its a wave of something called a system state. A system state is a property of a system that tells us the probabilities of possible observational outcomes. In most interpretations it has the same status as the probabilities we assign to the result of flipping a coin. Its simply a theoretical device - not something that exists out there in a real sense. It is of zero concern that it spontaneously changes to another state just as it is of zero concern once you flip a coin the 50-50 probability changes to a dead cert.

There are issues but that not one of them in most interpretations. One issue is exactly how does an observation accomplish this feat - Copenhagen simply assumes it does. Decoherence goes a long way in answering that.

Thanks
Bill

Also, you want to talk about the quantum flip of a coin?

If you flip a coin 100 times, you create slightly over 10^{30} universes. This disturbed Hoyle yet this is in the fact of the rational theory you seem to not be defending very well.

 

[bhobba]

I suggest you read up on the ''Quantum Resonator''. An object small enough but not too small, that we have seen these quantum effects. The wave function is definitely real!

I think a number of people such as Ballentine would disagree. See chapter 9 - Ballentine - Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Development - The Interpretation Of The State Vector - page 239 - where he proves any other view leads to problems. Even bog standard Copenhagen disagrees.

My view is not that fatalistic in that I think a view of a state vector as real can be part of a valid interpretation but it is far from certain such must be. In fact most interpretations like the Ensemble Interpretation or Copenhagen don't buy into its reality. My personal interpretation - being the Ensemble interpretation combined with Decoherence - doesn't either.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Also, you want to talk about the quantum flip of a coin?

If you flip a coin 100 times, you create slightly over 10^{30} universes. This disturbed Hoyle yet this is in the fact of the rational theory you seem to not be defending very well.

I don't want to talk about MW - nor am I defending it - it's pure hokum IMHO for all sorts of reasons. The huge number of universes it requires is one of those reasons - but it does not disprove it. I am simply pointing out it is an interpretation that no generally accepted refutation exists for and it does not require wavefunction collapse.

The coin analogy is also just that - an analogy. The Kochen-Sprecker theorem proves by itself an observation is not like a flip of a coin in that it does not have the property of head or tail prior to observation. However if you take into account decoherence you can say it has the property prior to observation - but that of course requires more work to understand.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Wrong, we have observed the wave function, it is not a mathematical anomaly.

That would be an interesting trick - observing something in QM without requiring an observable - and once you do that Copenhagen, the Ensemble interpretation, and others (not all of course) say the only thing that can be predicted is probabilities and it is the state that tells you that via the usual trace formula Tr(pR) that gives the average - p the state, R the observable.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Meselwulf]

I think a number of people such as Ballentine would disagree. See chapter 9 - Ballentine - Quantum Mechanics - A Modern Development - The Interpretation Of The State Vector - page 239 - where he proves any other view leads to problems. Even bog standard Copenhagen disagrees.

My view is not that fatalistic in that I think a view of a state vector as real can be part of a valid interpretation but it is far from certain such must be. In fact most interpretations like the Ensemble Interpretation or Copenhagen don't buy into its reality. My personal interpretation - being the Ensemble interpretation combined with Decoherence - doesn't either.

Thanks
Bill

To be honest, if he disagree's, he is disagreeing with proven experimental fact. So you can continue to believe in what he says, but he has been proven wrong in his speculations.

Quantum wave function of semi-classical objects have been proven and observed. Please, look up the ''Quantum Resonator.''

 

[Meselwulf]

That would be an interesting trick - observing something in QM without requiring an observable - and once you do that Copenhagen, the Ensemble interpretation, and others (not all of course) say the only thing that can be predicted is probabilities and it is the state that tells you that via the usual trace formula Tr(pR) that gives the average - p the state, R the observable.

Thanks
Bill

The definition of observing something requires there being an observable. There cannot be a logical dispute about that!

 

[bhobba]

The definition of observing something requires there being an observable. There cannot be a logical dispute about that!

Then how do you know via observation a state is real?

Thanks
Bill

 

[Meselwulf]

Then how do you know via observation a state is real?

Thanks
Bill

Is that a real question? The answer is self-explanatory, if you see it, and it exists by testing it experimentally, over and over again, why would one not think it is real?

This is not a rhetorical question. It's a matter of fact. Scientists have a certain proclavity to understanding how real things exist. Observables for instance are represented by Hermitian matrices, spin is an example of such a phenomenon. If spin was not real, we would not be able to measure it and know it was a real artefact of the world.

 

[bhobba]

To be honest, if he disagree's, he is disagreeing with proven experimental fact. So you can continue to believe in what he says, but he has been proven wrong in his speculations. Quantum wave function of semi-classical objects have been proven and observed. Please, look up the ''Quantum Resonator.''

I believe his argument because it is very good - you should acquaint yourself with it. I do believe there are a number of ways to evade it such as MW's but they all seem a bit contrived to me. However to each there own - if you want to believe the state is real - feel free - but just don't say it must be so because quite simply QM does not demand that view - in fact most interpretations I am aware of - the generally trotted out Copenhagen among them - deny it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Is that a real question? The answer is self-explanatory, if you see it, and it exists by testing it experimentally, over and over again, why would one not think it is real?

This is bog standard basic QM. If you see it you are observing it and hence are subject to collapsing the wave function issue and all other quantum weirdness. If you are not observing it all you can say is it is in a certain state and via the usual trace formula predict probabilities if you were to observe it. The issue here is if the state is real like an electric field or simply a theoretical device - many - probably even most interpretations - do not require its reality.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Meselwulf]

I believe his argument because it is very good - you should acquaint yourself with it. I do believe there are a number of ways to evade it such as MW's but they all seem a bit contrived to me. However to each there own - if you want to believe the state is real - feel free - but just don't say it must be so because quite simply QM does not demand that view - in fact most interpretations I am aware of - the generally trotted out Copenhagen among them - deny it.

Thanks
Bill

Many Worlds interpretation is not sensible for a number of reasons.I won't go over them all, but for the greatest problem concerning it, it surely be can be classed on the league of string theory, M-theory or whatever you wish to call the the five-model string theory.

It's on the same league because, there is actually no way of experimentally-proving it - the universe is what we call, ''intrinsically closed'' or ''self contained'' - usually the latter is used in cosmological terminology. This means anything which happens in anyone universe, must stay within that universe, and whilst it may only seem like a conjecture, it is pivotal that things do not leek between universe because information, just like a Black Hole swallong matter and energy, can never be truly lost.

The basis reason for scientists questioning the possibility of MWI is purely the question ''why do many probabilities show up, when, clearly only one state is ever observed?'' Everette the III then decided well, what if the universe has a wave function itself, which then led him to the idea that maybe all the wave functions in the dynamic universe was determined by playing out the possible events in other universes.

To do so however, the problems which is not even sensible (like tossing a coin 100 and finding you create staggering amount of universes by a series of splittings and merging off our own), it also implied but also not sensible because it cannot be manifestly physical. The reason why is because it actually requires and infinite amount of universes, and infinity doesn't exist in closed universes, in closed universes, everything is finite. So by this reasoning, there can be nothing isomorphic to our universe and besides, our universe has a certain proclavity to abhore infinities in general.

Copenhagen however, has been a true success, from decoherence, observed collapsing of the wave function, the uncertainty principle which is a cornerstone of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Hardly any faults on the top of my head even exist for this Interpretation, but you don't like it and your reasons seem aloof to me.

 

[Meselwulf]

This is bog standard basic QM. If you see it you are observing it and hence are subject to collapsing the wave function issue and all other quantum weirdness. If you are not observing it all you can say is it is in a certain state and via the usual trace formula predict probabilities if you were to observe it. The issue here is if the state is real like an electric field or simply a theoretical device - many - probably even most interpretations - do not require its reality.

Thanks
Bill

When you are not observing it, don't you mean, that it's location is uncertain.

And I don't agree with this:

''The issue here is if the state is real like an electric field or simply a theoretical device - many - probably even most interpretations - do not require its reality.''

It makes no sense. If it is real, then it's real. There can be no question about it, and if you are saying it is real by interpretation, I am not quite sure what is truly meant by that. Interpretations make assertions on what can be measured. If the theory does not match what is measured, either it needs to be adjusted, or scrapped.