Determining wether consciousness is required in the double-slit experiment

818
46
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:
606
1
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.
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
9,533
2,650
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.
 
818
46
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?
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
9,533
2,650
Does anyone have reference(s) to research on this?
It is so trivial that it does not really need a reference.
 
2,455
1
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
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
9,533
2,650
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.
 
2,455
1
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...
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
9,533
2,650
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?

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.
 
2,455
1
My bad, it is just double slit experiment... You're right.
 

Demystifier

Science Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
9,533
2,650
It is a pleasure to discuss with you because we arrive at a consensus very soon. :smile:
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top