Concerning concioussnes and the double slit experiment.

[bobos1997]

Hello there,

I have a question about the double-slit experiment and conscioussnes.
Excuse me if I don't formulate things right and might come over as a total fool for asking this (English is not my native language and i don't study physics).
I just saw this video: <Moderator's note: link removed>
It states the observation of a conscious being affects the behavior of a quantum-scale particle (wave-particle duality). Complementary to this the man in the video states that the conscious part is essential in the proces of changing/determening the behavior.
My common sense and leading physicists of today tell me this is not true and are attributing the change to the "brutal" act of measuring.
However considering the confusion around this subject I was wondering if there is any experiment that proves my common sense and leading physicists of today are right.
My question in short is: Is there a double slit-experiment done with all of the measuring equipment in place and all of the equipment activated but without the conscious observer?
This way proving the results are the same and the light/matter behaves like a particle with or without a conscious observer.
I just want to clarify this for myself since there is a lot of debate about this on the internet.

Thank you in advance

 

[jfizzix]

The data in modern double-slit experiments (with light) can be recorded electronically, so that no one needs to be in the lab while the experiment is taking place.

That said, if any information even exists as to whether the particle went through one slit or the other, the interference pattern would be destroyed.

In order for such information to exist, the light will have to interact with some measurement device, disturbing that state. The more information a measurement device can obtain about which path the particle went through, the stronger the interaction must be between the measurement device and the state of the particle, increasing the disturbance.

The question of where quantum behavior ends, and a somewhat random, but classical experience begins is a fundamental philosophical question at the heart of quantum physics, about which there is no broad consensus. Indeed, there are multiple competing interpretations besides "consciousness causes collapse". Two of the more popular ones might be the many worlds interpretation, and qubism. The many worlds interpretation would say there's no real collapse, and that our subjective experience is a function of the information physically encoded in our brains, which interact, however indirectly, with the rest of the universe. Qubism (or quantum bayesianism) takes a very conservative approach, saying that quantum mechanics is only a framework for generating probabilities of different outcomes of events, and that further interpretation is unnecessary.

I don't understand any of these interpretations well enough to come down solidly on one side or the other (third sides being possible too), but I use quantum physics like a qubist, and imagine quantum physics like a many-worlds enthusiast.

 

[DrClaude]

The video you linked to is pure pseudoscience. No consciousness does not affect the double slit experiment.

Discussion of pseudoscience is against PF rules. Thread closed.