Is There A Study Showing The Observer Effect Ignoring Conscious Intent?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Observer Effect in quantum mechanics, specifically questioning the necessity of conscious observation in experiments like the Double Slit Experiment. Participants argue that the Observer Effect can occur without conscious intent, citing experiments such as Young's Double-Slit Experiment with single photons and quantum erasers. They assert that the wave function's behavior is determined by physical interactions rather than conscious measurement. The consensus is that the concept of the Observer Effect is often misrepresented and does not require a conscious observer to collapse the wave function.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the Double Slit Experiment
  • Knowledge of wave function behavior in quantum physics
  • Basic concepts of quantum erasers and polarization
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Double Slit Experiment on quantum mechanics
  • Study Giancarlo Ghirardi's book "Sneaking a Look at God's Cards"
  • Explore the concept of quantum erasers and their role in the Observer Effect
  • Investigate the Heisenberg microscope and its relation to measurement in quantum physics
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of consciousness in scientific measurement.

Adon
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Is there a study which shows that consciousness does not play a role in the Observer effect?
It's obvious that the Observer Effect can take place without conscious observation, for example with a photon and electron out in the wild, but I'm trying to find a single study which disproves the role of conscious measurement within the observer effect.

An experiment which I think would answer my question is this: the Two Slit Experiment but only one slit is observed while the other is not. If an electron passes through the slit which is not observed is detected as being a wave function but without the double slit interference pattern (since the possibility of the electron having come through the observed slit was eliminated when it was not detected), this would prove that the intent of detection does not play a role in collapsing the wave function, but material observation confirms where the electron is not, thus tightening the wave function. If the electron comes through the unobserved slit as a particle, then the intent of observation must play a role in the observer effect, since the particle would not have reacted with anything but the wave function would have collapsed simply because it "knew" it was being monitored indirectly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no "Observer Effect". It's an urban legend perpetuated by non-technical and oversimplified descriptions of the theory, and you likely have been misled by these.

The double-slit experiment is usually misrepresented in these descriptions. In fact there is no "detected as a particle" versus "detected as a wave function" going on, there is no "wave-particle duality".
The particle-like behavior is that detections happen when a dot appears at a single point on the screen so we say that a particle landed there; and this happens whether there is one slit or two, whether there is a conscious observer or not, whether there are detectors at the slit or not.
When we send many particles through one at a time the dots build up a pattern, more dots in some areas and fewer in others. The wave function determines, by its interactions with whatever slits and detectors are present, what that pattern will look like, that is, what areas on the screen have a high probability of detecting a particle and which have a low probability.

There is no substitute for a real textbook, but if you have any interest in understanding what quantum mechanics really is, you might give Giancarlo Ghirardi's book "Sneaking a look at God's cards" a try.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, mattt, Vanadium 50 and 3 others
Adon said:
TL;DR Summary: Is there a study which shows that consciousness does not play a role in the Observer effect?

It's obvious that the Observer Effect can take place without conscious observation, for example with a photon and electron out in the wild, but I'm trying to find a single study which disproves the role of conscious measurement within the observer effect.

An experiment which I think would answer my question is this: the Two Slit Experiment but only one slit is observed while the other is not. If an electron passes through the slit which is not observed is detected as being a wave function but without the double slit interference pattern (since the possibility of the electron having come through the observed slit was eliminated when it was not detected), this would prove that the intent of detection does not play a role in collapsing the wave function, but material observation confirms where the electron is not, thus tightening the wave function. If the electron comes through the unobserved slit as a particle, then the intent of observation must play a role in the observer effect, since the particle would not have reacted with anything but the wave function would have collapsed simply because it "knew" it was being monitored indirectly.
I think it is important to note that there is another effect that is often called "observer effect" and it is also very well known in quantum physics. It is related to the Heisenberg microscope and it is also misleading, but it also has nothing to do with consciousness.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lord Jestocost
Adon said:
TL;DR Summary: Is there a study which shows that consciousness does not play a role in the Observer effect?

It's obvious that the Observer Effect can take place without conscious observation, for example with a photon and electron out in the wild, but I'm trying to find a single study which disproves the role of conscious measurement within the observer effect.

An experiment which I think would answer my question is this: the Two Slit Experiment but only one slit is observed while the other is not. If an electron passes through the slit which is not observed is detected as being a wave function but without the double slit interference pattern (since the possibility of the electron having come through the observed slit was eliminated when it was not detected), this would prove that the intent of detection does not play a role in collapsing the wave function, but material observation confirms where the electron is not, thus tightening the wave function. If the electron comes through the unobserved slit as a particle, then the intent of observation must play a role in the observer effect, since the particle would not have reacted with anything but the wave function would have collapsed simply because it "knew" it was being monitored indirectly.
Without disagreeing with anything said by Nugatory or pines-demon: Yes, there is proof that a conscious observer of which path in the Double Slit Experiment is not needed to "collapse" the pattern from one showing interference (wave-like) to one without interference (particle like).

Young's double-slit experiment with single photons and quantum eraser

In this experiment, polarizers are placed over each of the slits. At no time after is polarization observed or measured in any way. When the polarizers are oriented parallel, there IS interference. When the polarizers are perpendicular, there is NO interference (Fig. 9 in the reference).

Note that at NO time is the which slit information known or knowable (in this setup), regardless of orientation. It is possible to design the setup to gain which slit information and inform a conscious observer. But obviously the conscious observer is not necessary. QED.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: haushofer, pines-demon and PeterDonis

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K