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

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept that the wave function requires observation to collapse, raising the question of who or what acted as the observer before life existed. It is clarified that a conscious observer is not necessary for this collapse, as interpretations of quantum mechanics vary, with some suggesting that collapse may not even occur. The conversation suggests exploring David Lindley's book "Where does the weirdness go?" for a more accessible understanding of wave function collapse. Additionally, the term "quantum decoherence" is mentioned as a relevant topic, though it may be complex for laypersons. The nature of observation in quantum mechanics remains a debated topic with various interpretations.
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.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
5K
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
24K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
8K