"Observer Effect" referring to two different things?

  • I
  • Thread starter Gerinski
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the term "observer effect" and how it may refer to two different concepts: "spontaneous collapse" and "consciousness-induced collapse". The first concept relates to the infamous "wavefunction collapse" and the second to the idea that conscious decisions can alter the outcome of an experiment. The speaker rejects the idea that consciousness causes collapse and believes in spontaneous collapse, but acknowledges that it is still unclear how it occurs. They also mention that the Many Worlds Interpretation denies the existence of collapse, but they have objections to this interpretation. The speaker would like to hear opinions on their distinction between the two concepts and why observers may not have an effect on the outcome of an experiment. They also recommend reading books on quantum mechanics
  • #1
Gerinski
323
15
Hi. I came to think that people use the term "observer effect", or "measurement problem", to talk about what I perceive as two distinct things, and I would like to hear opinions around here.

One sense people may use the term is the infamous "wavefunction collapse", why if quantum theory describes a world of waves we experience a world of particles. The dichotomy emerged in the early days of quantum experiments where "collapse" was related to the act of observation of experimental results, theory would predict some probabilities for certain outcomes and observations of the experimental results matched the predictions, and this was much before potential mechanisms for the "transition from waves to particles" like decoherence or the gravitational collapse proposed by Penrose would appear.
So some people deduced that it must be the actual measurement by the experimenter which caused the collapse.

Personally I like to think that the universe evolved in a definite state before any Life emerged, so I reject the "consciousness causes collapse" view. I believe in spontaneous collapse, I don't have enough knowledge to say whether it happens by decoherence, by gravity or any other mechanism. But I want to believe that the universe takes a definite state regardless whether there are any conscious observers or not.

The other sense people may use the term is what I would call, perhaps for lack of better words, "consciousness-induced collapse". It seems clear that given some identical experimental setup, we can decide what to do with it and our decision will change the outcome. We can decide whether to block one slit or whether to leave both open, and that decision will change what the future will be like.
Unless you believe in Superdeterminism, it seems that our conscious decisions can change what the evolution of a system will be like. This second sense is what to me represents "the real observer effect", not the first one regarding "spontaneous wavefunction collapse".

Whether all Life has the ability to cause such a collapse or not is a big question, surely many animals other than humans can take decisions which will alter the future, in a more or less conscious way. I guess this is a too difficult subject so I do not want to enter into it here, the purpose of the question is not this. It is only whether I am right in discerning two different subjects for what some people usually commonly describe as "observer effect" or "measurement problem", in my view two distinct subjects "spontaneous collapse" and "consciousness-induced collapse".

P.S. Of course I know that interpretations such as the Many Worlds Interpretation simply deny the existence of collapse. So replies along those lines, while welcome, will not offer much to the discussion subject. My main objection to MWI is that it still requires explanations as to in which realms does it manifest. We can observe superposition in "our universe", multitude of experiments show superposition. But we, ourselves, can not experience superposition. MWI suggests that the wavefunction extends to system plus observer, up to whatever scale. That each possible reality co-exists. But if so, we should not experience superposition in our universe, it should be a different universe for each state version. And yet, on small enough scales we do observe superposition. Why do realities in that tiny scale superpose in our universe but not superpositions on larger scales? In my humble opinion MWI runs into the same problems as those which decoherence wants to address. The MWI is not linear across the scale range, since it must explain why in anyone version of the universe we can still observe superposition in the small scales.

In summary, I would like to hear opinions about my distinction of the "observer effect" or "measurement problem" as two distinct subjects, "spontaneous collapse" and "consciousness-induced collapse", whether people agree with the distinction or nor, and in that case why so.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suppose that another observer determines the state of a system before you do. If they do it in such a way as to barely disturb it (this happens all the time with macroscopic systems so it could in principle be true for a system of any size including microscopic particles) then what result do you think a later observer will get?
Consistency in nature will require that, as long as no interaction occurs between observations, then they must get the same result as the earlier observer of course -- even if they personally have no knowledge of the outcome of the previous observation. (Or if the system is flipped in some way by the earlier detection, then the flipped state must be detected later.) In other words, the later observer has no "effect" on the outcome. In which case, how can we suppose that any observer will introduce any effect?

What this tells us is that quantum indeterminacy applies only to systems where there is a legitimate reason for missing information and only at a universe level, not at the level of individual observers. If nature produces an indeterminate system S, then an observer of S has no effect other than possibly being the first system in the universe to establish some of the information that it carries that was previously unknown in the observable universe.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #3
Hi

This is a I level thread so you should be capable of reading and understanding actual books on QM. Start with the following:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465075681/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465062903/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The issue is your post is full a a lot of, admittedly, common misconceptions.

I will name just a few:

1. The world is not made of waves - its made of Quantum Stuff and what that is only the actual theory of QM will tell you. QM is a theory about observations that occcur here in a common-sense classical world - what's going on when not observed the theory is silent about. So we have a genuine issue of QM - perhaps the genuine issue - how does the world around us emerge from a theory that assumes it in the first place? That's a real tough one, and not fully resolved although a huge amount of progress has been made. The book that explains it, and it is at the I level is:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540357734/?tag=pfamazon01-20

However to not keep you in suspense the issue is - why do we get any outcomes at all - or technically how does an improper mixed state become a proper one.

2. QM does not have collapse - its an interpretation thing - some interpretations have it, some don't - the formalism does not have it. I know you mention MW but its a general thing - not just to do with MW.

3. In QM observer, observation, measurement, etc all pretty much mean the same thing. So the answer to your direct question is - there is no difference. We now have a fully QM definition of what an observation is that takes care of all those situations - its just after decoherence has occurred.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and dextercioby
  • #4
@Gerinski

„Decoherence“ is at the end irrelevant when one deeply thinks about the measurement problem. That’s why some of the decoherence proponents slipped away to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The “problem” with quantum theory is a simple one: There is one equation and one quantity which define the theory – the Schroedinger equation and the associated wave function – and those don’t describe how we - as conscious observers - experience the world. That’s the essence of Schroedinger’s cat fable. That’s all, take it as it is in order to avoid to drift away to some “religious-like” stuff or "ironic science".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #5
Thanks to all. I seem to understand that all your answers sort of deny the existence of any "consciousness-induced collapse". That our apparent ability to produce different outcomes from identical initial conditions, not randomly but at will, is an illusion, a mirage and it's no different from natural decoherence which happens independently in systems devoid of any Life. That both kinds of decoherence are one and the same.
But "consciousness-induced collapse" (call it decoherence if you will), that is, the actual experiments performed by scientists which gave birth to quantum physics, were precisely that kind of decoherence, a decoherence triggered by human scientists in lab-controlled conditions. It was the observations made by humans, observing that our decision to close one slit or to leave both open, would yield different outcomes. Without the presence of human observers the world would decohere by itself, in one way or another depending if the electron finds only one path available or it finds two. That's it. But in the presence of humans the decoherence fate of the electron is not given, the human will decide whether to leave a single path for the electron or to leave two. So it is the conscious decision of the experimenter which defines what the fate of the electron will be. Isn't it? I see a non trivial difference between both cases of decoherence (unless you follow Superdeterminsm that is).
 
  • #6
Lord Jestocost said:
@Gerinski

„Decoherence“ is at the end irrelevant when one deeply thinks about the measurement problem. That’s why some of the decoherence proponents slipped away to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The “problem” with quantum theory is a simple one: There is one equation and one quantity which define the theory – the Schroedinger equation and the associated wave function – and those don’t describe how we - as conscious observers - experience the world. That’s the essence of Schroedinger’s cat fable. That’s all, take it as it is in order to avoid to drift away to some “religious-like” stuff or "ironic science".

Thanks but I don't quite agree. Decoherence is fine enough for me, it may not be the complete truth but for me it's enough to explain why systems described by the wavefunction acquire definite states. In other words, I don't like believing that for the first 8 billion years before the presence of any Life the universe existed in a superposition of all possible sates it might be in. And I don't like believing that it is still existing in an infinite superposition of alternative states. Decoherence solves that well enough for me. Without the presence of any Life, systems decohere by themselves in a probabilistic way. That's fine.

But the fact that at least we humans can direct and change the outcome of identical initial conditions is to me something qualitatively different. The precise outcome will still be probabilistic, but we can "narrow down" the possible futures. As I said in the most simple example, we can decide to perform an interference experiment or to perform a path-information generating experiment. The "direction fork" which the outcome will take depends on our decision. Then within the fork path we decided, the precise outcome will still have some probabilistic nature. And no, I am the first one wanting to avoid any religious-supernatural stuff or pseudo-science. Consciousness exists and if we observe it has physical and measurable effects, we need to take account of the fact.
 
  • #7
Gerinski said:
But the fact that at least we humans can direct and change the outcome of identical initial conditions is to me something qualitatively different. The precise outcome will still be probabilistic, but we can "narrow down" the possible futures. As I said in the most simple example, we can decide to perform an interference experiment or to perform a path-information generating experiment. The "direction fork" which the outcome will take depends on our decision. Then within the fork path we decided, the precise outcome will still have some probabilistic nature.
It makes no difference whether an observer prepares a state or detects it. What matters is that there is an interaction the result of which is to reduce uncertainty (generate information) in the knowable universe.
 
  • Like
Likes AlexCaledin, bhobba and dextercioby
  • #8
Lord Jestocost said:
Decoherence“ is at the end irrelevant when one deeply thinks about the measurement problem.

You and Ballentine will probably get along well - he thinks so also.

But then again I don't think you would get along too well because he believes (as I do) the ensemble interpretation solves the measurement problem by basically saying - who cares. By that I mean all theories have an assumption so why get so upset about this one ie in the Ensemble interpretation exactly how is the outcome chosen.? Where Ballentine and I differ is I am with Schlosshauer in that the measurement problem has a number of parts - decoherence solves some - but not all. The version of the ensemble interpretation that takes that into account is called the ignorance ensemble without going into the details - but its just a slight variation of the ensemble applying it to just after decoherence. Ballentine thinks that's of no relevance at all.

Interesting isn't it.

As I always say the reason to study interpretations is not that it resolves anything - it won't - its to gain a deeper understanding of the formalism.

I much prefer to discuss quantum issues when an actual interpretation is specified - that is answerable - others don't really lead anywhere. But that pretty much never happens and we have long threads that to a large extent rehash the same stuff over and over with maybe slight variations.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes dlgoff
  • #9
bhobba said:
But then again I don't think you would get along too well because he believes (as I do) the ensemble interpretation solves the measurement problem by basically saying - who cares. By that I mean all theories have an assumption so why get so upset about this one ie in the Ensemble interpretation exactly how is the outcome chosen.?

When hearing about the „ensemble interpretation“, I always have the feeling that the “hidden variables” humbug is still lurking somewhere in the shadows. To assume that a theory which is inherently probabilistic is “a priori” a theory of ensembles is nothing but a “desperate attempt” to re-establish Einstein’s “classical” world. Why not stating that in a clear and concrete way; then it would be easy to avoid rehashing the same stuff over and over again.
 
  • #10
Lord Jestocost said:
When hearing about the „ensemble interpretation“, I always have the feeling that the “hidden variables” humbug is still lurking somewhere in the shadows.

Actually you are not wrong - see Ballentines original 1970 paper on it:
http://www.psiquadrat.de/downloads/ballentine70.pdf

His book is a bit more subtle and is what most call the ensemble interpretation these days.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #11
Lord Jestocost said:
I always have the feeling that the “hidden variables” humbug is still lurking somewhere in the shadows.

Just to be more explicit as the paper makes clear the ensemble interpretation makes no claim to the state being a complete description of a quantum system like Copenhagen. As Ballentine points out Einsteins position on QM is often misrepresented - it changed a bit over time. His final view wasn't a concern about probabilities or anything like that - after all statistical mechanics is in the same boat - it was Bohr's insistence the state is a complete description of a quantum system. Einstein refused to believe that - his view is it wasn't, but scientifically the correct view is neither - which the Ensemble interpretation accounts for easier - well I think it does anyway although it isn't hard to see how Copenhagen can also despite Bohr's insistence it was a central tenant of the interpretation. I think the Bayesian interpretation may be Copenhagen without that unnecessary assumption - aside from that I can't see much difference between them.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #12
bhobba said:
Actually you are not wrong...

So, the "ensemble interpretation" is just a "hidden variables interpretation" hiding the "hidden variables" in the deepest darkness?
 
  • Like
Likes AlexCaledin
  • #13
Lord Jestocost said:
So, the "ensemble interpretation" is just a "hidden variables interpretation" hiding the "hidden variables" in the deepest darkness?

No.

It rejects, like Copenhagen asserts, the state is a complete description of a quantum system. Its agnostic to it which means it doesn't care one way or the other. IMHO that's more scientific, but of course as always in this stuff opinions will vary. For example its true if BM was true, but since Copenhagen asserts the state is a complete description its not compatible with BM. Einstein, who I think originated the interpretation, of course thought it incomplete, which is partly why he championed it, but it really works just as well if QM is complete.

As I said you can do the same for Copenhagen and then you get something like the Bayesian interpretation.

I have mentioned it before, but I am with John Baez, who thinks much of the differences between interpretations is simply differences in interpretations of probability taken to QM:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

It always amuses me you have a lot of discussion about QM but virtually none about what probability is. Most applied mathematicians, including me, ascribe to the frequentest interpretation but will, if the problem is better suited to another view such as Bayesian for Bayesian inference, or decision theory for credibility theory actuaries use, use that. To me that's much more rational.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #14
bhobba said:
No.

It rejects, like Copenhagen asserts, the state is a complete description of a quantum system. Its agnostic to it which means it doesn't care one way or the other. IMHO that's more scientific, but of course as always in this stuff opinions will vary. For example its true if BM was true, but since Copenhagen asserts the state is a complete description its not compatible with BM. Einstein, who I think originated the interpretation, of course thought it incomplete, which is partly why he championed it, but it really works just as well if QM is complete.

As I said you can do the same for Copenhagen and then you get something like the Bayesian interpretation.

I have mentioned it before, but I am with John Baez, who thinks much of the differences between interpretations is simply differences in interpretations of probability taken to QM:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

It always amuses me you have a lot of discussion about QM but virtually none about what probability is. Most applied mathematicians, including me, ascribe to the frequentest interpretation but will, if the problem is better suited to another view such as Bayesian for Bayesian inference, or decision theory for credibility theory actuaries use, use that. To me that's much more rational.

Thanks
Bill

It would be cool if QM is just about probability or frequentist vs Bayesian. This means we can go back to the days of Newton where the world is made of bolts and nuts (just like throwing dice) and the probability is just ignorance or frequentest vs Bayesian probability? Newtonian world is very comforting as we don't have to deal with quantum state and how particle really moves (because there are no atoms in Newtonian world).
 
  • #15
fanieh said:
It would be cool if QM is just about probability or frequentist vs Bayesian.

Unfortunately as John Bayez says:
Quantum theory is more general than classical probability theory. It presents a lot of new puzzles of its own. But, at the very least, we need a clear understanding of what "probability" means before we can tackle these quantum quandaries.

Technically see:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6562

That said I still think the attitude of choosing your interpretation to fit the problem is probably the most rational. For me I never have found the Ensemble interpretation to be lacking, but, if my memory is not faulty I seem to recall @Demystifier did write a book where he showed some problems are best solved using BM - but he is best suited to comment on that.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #16
Gerinski said:
Thanks but I don't quite agree. Decoherence is fine enough for me, it may not be the complete truth but for me it's enough to explain why systems described by the wavefunction acquire definite states.

They don't gain definite states. See pages 215-218 of Jeffrey Bub's "Bananaworld: Quantum Mechanics for Primates" published last year by Oxford University Press. You may also want to google FAPP (for all practical purposes), started by the famous John Bell.
 
  • #17
bhobba said:
Unfortunately as John Bayez says:
Quantum theory is more general than classical probability theory. It presents a lot of new puzzles of its own. But, at the very least, we need a clear understanding of what "probability" means before we can tackle these quantum quandaries.

Technically see:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6562

That said I still think the attitude of choosing your interpretation to fit the problem is probably the most rational. For me I never have found the Ensemble interpretation to be lacking, but, if my memory is not faulty I seem to recall @Demystifier did write a book where he showed some problems are best solved using BM - but he is best suited to comment on that.

Thanks
Bill

But when you use Ensemble or statistical interpretation. you don't need to think in terms of particles.. for example.. in the double slit experiments.. you don't have to worry or be concerned what happened between emission and detection and just focus on the detector. So in a way this is back to Newtonian physics with the difference Quantum Theory is about seeing the detector results and simply saying if you perform it 100 times.. you get equal interference pattern and the rest is blanked out.
Anyway. May I know what is the title of Demystifier book?
 
  • #18
bhobba said:
No.

It rejects, like Copenhagen asserts, the state is a complete description of a quantum system. Its agnostic to it which means it doesn't care one way or the other. IMHO that's more scientific, but of course as always in this stuff opinions will vary. For example its true if BM was true, but since Copenhagen asserts the state is a complete description its not compatible with BM. Einstein, who I think originated the interpretation, of course thought it incomplete, which is partly why he championed it, but it really works just as well if QM is complete.

As I said you can do the same for Copenhagen and then you get something like the Bayesian interpretation.

I have mentioned it before, but I am with John Baez, who thinks much of the differences between interpretations is simply differences in interpretations of probability taken to QM:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

It always amuses me you have a lot of discussion about QM but virtually none about what probability is. Most applied mathematicians, including me, ascribe to the frequentest interpretation but will, if the problem is better suited to another view such as Bayesian for Bayesian inference, or decision theory for credibility theory actuaries use, use that. To me that's much more rational.

Thanks
Bill

Again, why all these wordings? The "ensemble interpretation" rejects that the quantum mechanical wave function is a complete description of a quantum system. Thus, the "ensemble interpretation" isn't agnostic, because – physically - it implicitly assumes: "Quantum objects in the same state are physically different." Why else the fallback to "classical ignorance" concepts?
 
  • #19
Lord Jestocost said:
Again, why all these wordings? The "ensemble interpretation" rejects that the quantum mechanical wave function is a complete description of a quantum system.

Your logic escapes me. Just because its compatible with it not being a complete description it does not follow its not also compatible with it being a complete description. Why exactly can't it also be a complete description?

Lord Jestocost said:
because – physically - it implicitly assumes: "Quantum objects in the same state are physically different." Why else the fallback to "classical ignorance" concepts?

I think you need to carefully explain that one.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #21
fanieh said:
Can you please recommend a professional book/textbook or work on Bohm Implicate Order.
I don't think there is such a book, unless by "professional" you mean a book by professional philosopher.

fanieh said:
This is the only thing that makes sense and powerful enough to explain most...
It doesn't make much sense to me.
 
  • Like
Likes Heinera, bhobba and fanieh
  • #22
bhobba said:
You and Ballentine will probably get along well - he thinks so also.

But then again I don't think you would get along too well because he believes (as I do) the ensemble interpretation solves the measurement problem by basically saying - who cares.

If that counts as a resolution, then there are no irresolvable problems.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Heinera
  • #23
stevendaryl said:
If that counts as a resolution, then there are no irresolvable problems.

In QM, as I know you are aware, there are people that think what others consider issues are non events, and conversely.

That's one of its strange characteristics and why we have these long threads that go no-where and you as staff-emeritus, for the sanity of all, and actually having a great resource this forum is, end up closing them because they just ramble on going around in circles.

I know this only too well, because to my occasional discomfort, I have participated in them.

Some of my, especially early posts, I am embarrassed about, but on the plus side have learned a lot.

Even eminent well known professionals are not beyond the same 'ramblings' eg:


Its just one of those areas that generates a lot of debate. I have reached some conclusions after much thought, reading, and many many false starts but know only too well there are those that, well, let's be diplomatic, have not reached the view I have which is simply - we have this central issue - how an improper state becomes a proper one. I accept it just does - that's all. I am fine with it - but others disagree. Formally the issue is resolved - but what it means o0)o0)o0)o0)o0)o0)o0)o0).

For forum newbies welcome to the strange, wacky, and occasionally heated area of quantum interpretations. For the old hands like me - oh no - not this again. I remember reading where one professor told a student after attending his QM class - you have now learned QM - you will spend thee rest of your life struggling with what you have been taught.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes Heinera and stevendaryl
  • #24
Demystifier said:
It doesn't make much sense to me.

Me as well.

When Bohm was good he was very good, but unlike May West when he was 'bad' he was most definitely not better - I would characterize it as borderline physics.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #25
..
bhobba said:
In QM, as I know you are aware, there are people that think what others consider issues are non events, and conversely.

That's one of its strange characteristics and why we have these long threads that go no-where and you as staff-emeritus, for the sanity of all, and actually having a great resource this forum is, end up closing them because they just ramble on going around in circles.

I know this only too well, because to my occasional discomfort, I have participated in them.

Some of my, especially early posts, I am embarrassed about, but on the plus side have learned a lot.

Even eminent well known professionals are not beyond the same 'ramblings' eg:


Its just one of those areas that generates a lot of debate. I have reached some conclusions after much thought, reading, and many many false starts but know only too well there are those that, well, let's be diplomatic, have not reached the view I have which is simply - we have this central issue - how an improper state becomes a proper one. I accept it just does - that's all. I am fine with it - but others disagree. Formally the issue is resolved - but what it means o0)o0)o0)o0)o0)o0)o0)o0).

For forum newbies welcome to the strange, wacky, and occasionally heated area of quantum interpretations. For the old hands like me - oh no - not this again. I remember reading where one professor told a student after attending his QM class - you have now learned QM - you will spend thee rest of your life struggling with what you have been taught.

Thanks
Bill


Inspite of that.. Oppenheimer and company could still develope nukes. I mean.. what if they spent all their time instead debating about quantum interpretations.. then we still won't have nukes now and the world would be a safer place. Do you know we have enough nukes to destroy the planet 10 times over. Maybe it was Born fault for suggesting the probability interpretation.. if he hasn't done that.. maybe most physicists would still debate (and fighting) about quantum theory, then we'd have less physicists to ponder on splitting the atom...
 
  • #26
fanieh said:
what if they spent all their time instead debating about quantum interpretations.

Quantum interpretations is not, how to put it. exactly what preoccupies most physicists minds. Its applying it. It attracts a lot of interest here with 'newbies' but for professors etc, who also post here, it not quite of the same importance.

We know very well how to use it - that's no problem at all.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #27
bhobba said:
Quantum interpretations is not, how to put it. exactly what preoccupies most physicists minds. Its applying it. It attracts a lot on interest here with 'newbies' but for professors etc, who also post here, it not quite of the same importance.

We know very well how to use it - that's no problem at all.

Thanks
Bill

Who are the list of professors participating here.. do their students know they are here.. I guess the professors are:

1. Demystifier?
2. Neumaier?
3. Vanhees71? Is he?
4. Who else... just curious
 
  • #28
fanieh said:
1. Demystifier?
2. Neumaier?
3. Vanhees71? Is he?

More than you probably think.

All the above are. Detercoiby, who you for sure would think is one, but likely isn't - he said his occupation is not science related, one of my personal favorites Urs Schreiber probably is, of course John Baez when he does post which unfortunately is not often - there are tons of others who if I thought longer could probably name. Trouble is they often don't advertise it - you have to glean it from what they say - like when one said when he teaches Noether there is stunned silence. Some are researchers - I don't know if that conferes the title of professor - I am not even sure if Freeman Dyson has the title of professor, but he is as good as one, he certainly, and famously doesn't have a PhD, but by simple application would, if he so desired (and obviously doesn't) get the even higher award DSc because of his publications. As you can see its not that simple a question to answer.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes fanieh
  • #30
bhobba said:
I am not even sure if Freeman Dyson has the title of professor, but he is as good as one,

Freeman Dyson was appointed professor at IAS Princeton, where he spent almost all of his career:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/dyson

Also, regarding professors attending the forum here, Richard Gill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Gill
sometimes contributes. He told me that the forum's low tolerance for crackpots had taken some of the fun out of it. He thinks that arguing with crackpots can teach us something about how we should convey physics and matemathics. I agree.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #31
Heinera said:
Freeman Dyson was appointed professor at IAS Princeton, where he spent almost all of his career:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/dyson

Also, regarding professors attending the forum here, Richard Gill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Gill
sometimes contributes. He told me that the forum's low tolerance for crackpots had taken some of the fun out of it. He thinks that arguing with crackpots can teach us something about how we should convey physics and matemathics. I agree.

I know Richard. We were on the same "team" combating the goofiness of Joy Christian's refutation of Bell's theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #32
Gerinski said:
And no, I am the first one wanting to avoid any religious-supernatural stuff or pseudo-science. Consciousness exists and if we observe it has physical and measurable effects, we need to take account of the fact.

Maybe, there was a severe misunderstanding. I completely agree with you that consciousness exists. What I meant with “religious-like” stuff was "denying the obvious".
 
  • #33
Heinera said:
He thinks that arguing with crackpots can teach us something about how we should convey physics and matemathics. I agree.

I once posted a lot on sci.physics.relativity which has an infestation of them.

It soon lost its appeal of being fun. It eventually drove away genuine scientists like Steve Carlip and John Baez. I stopped as well once they left - it was useless conversing with nothing but 'idiots'.

Then out of sheer luck I found here. I was replying to a post about Quantum Darwinian on of all places the philosophy forums. I think I got the context a bit wrong and one regular there got stuck into me saying we had an orderly thread and I ruined it. Well that sort of really got up my goat and I decided to see what he actually knew about QM - it wasn't much. But he did suggest we take the discussion over here where I was warned they had a low tolerance for crackpots. He soon left when it was obvious he was out of his depth, but I really enjoyed my experience here precisely because crackpots are soon shut down.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes MrRobotoToo
  • #34
Heinera said:
Freeman Dyson was appointed professor at IAS Princeton, where he spent almost all of his career:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/dyson

Also, regarding professors attending the forum here, Richard Gill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Gill
sometimes contributes. He told me that the forum's low tolerance for crackpots had taken some of the fun out of it. He thinks that arguing with crackpots can teach us something about how we should convey physics and matemathics. I agree.
I disagree. The bickering can really put you off reading.
 
  • #35
Heinera said:
Freeman Dyson was appointed professor at IAS Princeton, where he spent almost all of his career:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/dyson

Good to know there is sanity in the system where not actually having a PhD but obvious ability means you can still get the title you deserve.

I always remember reading in Feynman's biography how when Dyson was explaining his ideas that unified Feynman's, Tomonaga, and Schwinger's approach Feynman was joke cracking and making everyone laugh in the back of the room. At the end he said - your in Doc. I always thought that was a strange remark - until I found out Dyson never got a PhD - like I said he could get a DSc anytime he wanted one with the quality of his published work - but it never seemed to worry him.

Thanks
Bill
 
<h2>1. What is the "Observer Effect" in physics?</h2><p>The "Observer Effect" in physics refers to the concept that the act of observing or measuring a system can alter its behavior or properties. This is often seen in quantum mechanics, where the act of measuring a particle's position can change its momentum.</p><h2>2. How does the "Observer Effect" relate to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?</h2><p>The "Observer Effect" is closely related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute certainty. This is because the act of measuring one of these properties will inevitably affect the other.</p><h2>3. Can the "Observer Effect" be avoided?</h2><p>In quantum mechanics, the "Observer Effect" is considered to be an inherent part of the universe and cannot be avoided. However, scientists have developed techniques to minimize its impact, such as using indirect measurements or advanced technology.</p><h2>4. How does the "Observer Effect" differ from the "Hawthorne Effect"?</h2><p>The "Hawthorne Effect" is a social phenomenon where individuals change their behavior when they know they are being observed. This is different from the "Observer Effect" in physics, which refers to the impact of observation on the system being observed.</p><h2>5. What is the significance of the "Observer Effect" in scientific research?</h2><p>The "Observer Effect" is important to consider in scientific research, as it can affect the accuracy and reliability of experimental results. Scientists must carefully design experiments to minimize the impact of observation on the system being studied in order to obtain valid and meaningful results.</p>

1. What is the "Observer Effect" in physics?

The "Observer Effect" in physics refers to the concept that the act of observing or measuring a system can alter its behavior or properties. This is often seen in quantum mechanics, where the act of measuring a particle's position can change its momentum.

2. How does the "Observer Effect" relate to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

The "Observer Effect" is closely related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute certainty. This is because the act of measuring one of these properties will inevitably affect the other.

3. Can the "Observer Effect" be avoided?

In quantum mechanics, the "Observer Effect" is considered to be an inherent part of the universe and cannot be avoided. However, scientists have developed techniques to minimize its impact, such as using indirect measurements or advanced technology.

4. How does the "Observer Effect" differ from the "Hawthorne Effect"?

The "Hawthorne Effect" is a social phenomenon where individuals change their behavior when they know they are being observed. This is different from the "Observer Effect" in physics, which refers to the impact of observation on the system being observed.

5. What is the significance of the "Observer Effect" in scientific research?

The "Observer Effect" is important to consider in scientific research, as it can affect the accuracy and reliability of experimental results. Scientists must carefully design experiments to minimize the impact of observation on the system being studied in order to obtain valid and meaningful results.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
5
Replies
143
Views
5K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
762
Replies
4
Views
797
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
22
Views
950
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top