I Layperson's Question -- The wave function requires observation to collapse?

Se7enthSon
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
If wave function requires observation to collapse, who or what may have been the observer during the billions of years before the emergence of life?
If wave function requires observation to collapse, who or what may have been the observer during the billions of years before the emergence of life?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Answer: The observation does not require a conscious observer to have the collapse.
 
Moderator's note: Thread level changed to "I".
 
It depends in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In some interpretations there is not even a collapse.
 
Se7enthSon said:
TL;DR Summary: If wave function requires observation to collapse, who or what may have been the observer during the billions of years before the emergence of life?

If wave function requires observation to collapse, who or what may have been the observer during the billions of years before the emergence of life?
You might want to try David Lindley's layman-friendly book "Where does the weirdness go?". It won't quite answer your question, but it will explain more about how we think about wave function collapse these days.

You might also google for "quantum decoherence", but most of what you find will be less layman-friendly.
 
This post is a spin-off of the original post that discussed Barandes theory, A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for any details about the interpretation in general PLEASE look up for an answer there. Now I want this post to focus on this pre-print: J. A. Barandes, "New Prospects for a Causally Local Formulation of Quantum Theory", arXiv 2402.16935 (2024) My main concerns are that Barandes thinks this deflates the anti-classical Bell's theorem. In Barandes...