Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Copenhagen interpretation

  1. Nov 30, 2016 #1
    does it matter if a person or a computer looks at the result
    I guess i'm asking if something needs consciousness to have the same outcome
    in the case that i'm not making any sense please ask and I will try to seaplane in more detail

    and thank you for anyone that respons
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 30, 2016 #2
    There is an interpretation that includes consciousness as a solution to the measurement problem. However, this view isn't supported by many in the Quantum Mechanical field, but is still a valid interpretation.
     
  4. Nov 30, 2016 #3
    well I guess the next question would be is what is considered as consciousness...? lol but I know that is not a good question for this forum. Maybe my next question should be, what is considered or counts as observing or an observation??
     
  5. Dec 1, 2016 #4

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    This is unsolved, and it is called the measurement problem.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0149
     
  6. Dec 1, 2016 #5
    What is considered as consciousness? Good question. I cannot give an answer to that.

    But as atyy states above, the measurement problem has not been solved yet.
     
  7. Dec 1, 2016 #6
    One argument against the requirement of consciousness being necessary goes as follows:
    The observation is done by a simple machine, and what it observes is recorded, for example on digital media.
    No human participant in the experiment knows what was recorded.
    100 years later none of the experimenters are still alive, the recorded observation is copied thousands of times and viewed separately by thousands of people.
    Do they all see the same thing?, or is the result dependent on the person looking at it.
     
  8. Dec 1, 2016 #7
    They all see the same thing. In the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, we can say all those copies were "entangled" in a large GHZ-type state, and the first observation (100 years later) collapsed the entire state. There are other ways to treat it; for instance, attribute some rudimentary consciousness to the recording computer. Of course all other interpretations give this same result, in their own ways.
     
  9. Dec 1, 2016 #8
    Well put - a better answer than what I was going to give. Agree with your statements 100%
     
  10. Dec 3, 2016 #9
    can two measurements be taken of the same (particle / wave) say at two different points in the same path ??:oldconfused:
     
  11. Dec 3, 2016 #10
    Yes, but with major caveats! The same particle can certainly be measured twice - assuming you have some way to know it's "the same" particle, which is not always possible. However usually the second measurement encounters a different wavefunction, because it got changed by the first measurement. The only way it could be the same wavefunction, as well as the same particle, is if the second measurement gives the same eigenvalue as the first one.
     
  12. Dec 3, 2016 #11
    ???well you had me all the way up to their:oldconfused: lol but its ok it will give me something else to look up and read and learn:partytime:
     
  13. Dec 3, 2016 #12
    Yes eigenvalue is a real fundamental concept you need to learn in this topic. Hopefully you'll only need to brush up on your linear algebra - as opposed to learning it for the first time! But that sentence could say, instead, "The only way it could be the same wavefunction, as well as the same particle, is if the second measurement is exactly the same type of measurement as the first one." The phrase "exactly the same" could use some unpacking - and there are other hair-splitting details that could be mentioned - but this should give the right idea.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted