Determining wether consciousness is required in the double-slit experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of consciousness in the double-slit experiment, particularly focusing on whether the presence of a measuring device or the observation of its results by a human is necessary to collapse the wavefunction and destroy the interference pattern. The scope includes theoretical implications and experimental considerations related to quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the presence of a measuring device alone is sufficient to collapse the wavefunction, suggesting three scenarios for consideration.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the idea that consciousness is necessary for wavefunction collapse, indicating that this view is not widely accepted.
  • A participant asserts that experiments have shown that the mere presence of a measuring device is sufficient to eliminate the interference pattern, regardless of whether the results are observed.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of isolating the measuring device from the environment, raising concerns about decoherence and the conditions under which measurement can be defined.
  • There are conflicting views on whether a measurement device can still function as intended if it is isolated or placed in extreme conditions, such as a black hole.
  • One participant introduces the concept of non-locality of the wavefunction, suggesting that it may still interact with the environment in ways that challenge previous assertions about measurement and observation.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the implications of the discussion, particularly regarding the nature of measurement and its relationship to entangled particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the necessity of consciousness in the measurement process, with some asserting that the presence of a measuring device is sufficient while others challenge this notion. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the role of measurement in quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the definitions of measurement, the effects of decoherence, and the implications of extreme conditions on the behavior of quantum systems. These factors contribute to the complexity of the discussion without reaching a consensus.

entropy1
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
72
Considering the double-slit-experiment version whereby only one electron is fired at once, and a measuring device is placed by one of the slits, which can determine through which slit te electron travels.

My question would be: Which case is sufficient to qualify as an observation that will collapse the wavefunction of the observed electrons, thereby destroying the interference-pattern?
1) The presence of a measuring device that is switched on and measuring by one of the slits, or
2) The observation of the results of the measurement from this device by a human being,
3) Otherwise?

This experiment could be relatively easy to do. Just place a measuring device by one of the slits, turn it on, totally discard the measuring results, and watch the surface behind the slits for an interference pattern to emerge or not. In my opinion, it will reveal wether consciousness is required to make an observation in the QM sense.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
As far as I can tell (at the risk of making some concrete assertion about the problem of measurement!) it would. But to be honest, I don't think consciousness causing collapse is really an idea anyone takes seriously any more. Most people are quite happy to write it off as an ugly sollipsism.
 
entropy1 said:
Considering the double-slit-experiment version whereby only one electron is fired at once, and a measuring device is placed by one of the slits, which can determine through which slit te electron travels.

My question would be: Which case is sufficient to qualify as an observation that will collapse the wavefunction of the observed electrons, thereby destroying the interference-pattern?
1) The presence of a measuring device that is switched on and measuring by one of the slits, or
2) The observation of the results of the measurement from this device by a human being,
3) Otherwise?

This experiment could be relatively easy to do. Just place a measuring device by one of the slits, turn it on, totally discard the measuring results, and watch the surface behind the slits for an interference pattern to emerge or not. In my opinion, it will reveal wether consciousness is required to make an observation in the QM sense.
Such experiments have already been done. 1) turns out to be the correct answer. There will be no interference pattern even if you do not look at the result of the measuring device on the slit. The mere presence of this device turns out to be sufficient.
 
Demystifier said:
Such experiments have already been done. 1) turns out to be the correct answer. There will be no interference pattern even if you do not look at the result of the measuring device on the slit. The mere presence of this device turns out to be sufficient.

Does anyone have reference(s) to research on this?
 
entropy1 said:
Does anyone have reference(s) to research on this?
It is so trivial that it does not really need a reference.
 
Demystifier said:
The mere presence of this device turns out to be sufficient.

No, if the device is isolated from the environment (which is really difficult to achieve, there decoherence leaks even thru the thermal radiation) and is dropped into a black hole then there is no path information
 
Dmitry67 said:
No, if the device is isolated from the environment (which is really difficult to achieve, there decoherence leaks even thru the thermal radiation) and is dropped into a black hole then there is no path information
First, if the device is isolated from the environment, then it is not even justified to call it a "measurement device".
Second, if the device is in the black hole, than the hole through which the wave function should pass is also in the black hole, so the wave function will not be able to escape from the hole, implying that there will be no interference pattern again.
 
Demystifier said:
1
First, if the device is isolated from the environment, then it is not even justified to call it a "measurement device".
2
Second, if the device is in the black hole, than the hole through which the wave function should pass is also in the black hole, so the wave function will not be able to escape from the hole, implying that there will be no interference pattern again.

1
It can be an ordinary measurement device, just far enough so it can not interact - FOR SOME TIME. After it enters out lightcone we can get a result of a measurement.

2
Nope... Wavefunction is non local so it can pass thru the event horizon.
For example imagine a Bell experiment with 2 electons, but 1 electorns is directed into a black hole...
 
Dmitry67 said:
1
It can be an ordinary measurement device, just far enough so it can not interact - FOR SOME TIME. After it enters out lightcone we can get a result of a measurement.
I don't get a picture. Far enough from WHAT? Lightcone of WHAT?

Dmitry67 said:
2
Nope... Wavefunction is non local so it can pass thru the event horizon.
For example imagine a Bell experiment with 2 electons, but 1 electorns is directed into a black hole...
Are you talking about experiments of the type of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9903047
where interference in encoded in the coincidences between two entangled particles? If you do please let me know, because this is something very different from which we were talking about so far.
 
  • #10
My bad, it is just double slit experiment... You're right.
 
  • #11
It is a pleasure to discuss with you because we arrive at a consensus very soon. :smile:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Which-Path from Global Momentum Measurement in Double Slit
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Is There A Study Showing The Observer Effect Ignoring Conscious Intent?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Undergrad Single vs. Double slit coherence clarification please
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Why is there no single slit interference when one slit is closed in a double slit experiment?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
High School Yet another double slit thought experiment...
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
High School Double-slit experiment and time
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
High School Q - Double slit experiment, delayed slit selection observation
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Double Slit Experiment: Dumb question that needs to be asked
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K
Undergrad Double-slit experiment, determining which slit an electron passed thru
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Undergrad "Wave-particle duality" and double-slit experiment
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K