Subatomic particles and the observer

[Derek P]

If the moon only exists when we can see it, there is no reason is expect it to come back after it has disappeared,
It does come back though and very predictably.
I think that is enough to conclude that the Moon exists. whether or not it can be seen.

Or some sort of hidden Moon-Creator field with a very good memory :)
Which, come to think of it, is very similar to some interpretations !

 

[Kenneth Boon Faker]

Please give specifics: which book, what chapter/page?

The book is called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An overview of the New Physics" by Gary Zukav, published by Rider in 1979.

The 'Participatory anthropic principle' of John Archibald Wheeler (the physicist behind the term 'black hole') says that consciousness plays some role in bringing the universe into existence. This principle, that consciousness causes the collapse, is the point of intersection between quantum mechanics and the mind/body problem, and researchers are working to detect conscious events correlated with physical events that, according to quantum theory, should involve a wave function collapse.

Am I right saying that this kind of conclusion has been drawn from the implications of Schrödinger's wave equation? The wave function gives a description of the things that could happen to an observed system. Before we interfere with (i.e. setup an experiment to observe) an observed system, it continues to generate possibilities in accordance with the Schrödinger wave equation. But as soon as we make a measurement, the probabilities of all the possibilities, except one, because zero, and the probability of that possibility becomes one, which means that it happens. This is when the wave function collapses.

How else can the wave function collapse without an observer looking at the observed system and then concluding that the wave function has collapsed?

 

[Nugatory]

The book is called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An overview of the New Physics" by Gary Zukav, published by Rider in 1979.

... Which is not an acceptable source under the physics forums rules.

Am I right saying that this kind of conclusion has been drawn from the implications of Schrödinger's wave equation? The wave function gives a description of the things that could happen to an observed system. Before we interfere with (i.e. setup an experiment to observe) an observed system, it continues to generate possibilities in accordance with the Schrödinger wave equation. But as soon as we make a measurement, the probabilities of all the possibilities, except one, because zero, and the probability of that possibility becomes one, which means that it happens. This is when the wave function collapses.

That the wave function collapses is one way of interpreting what Schrödinger's equation is telling us. It is by no means the only way, and indeed it is possible to interpret Schrödinger's equation without introducing the notion of collapse at all. To be fair, however, I have to add that none of the ways of interpreting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics are completely satisfactory to everyone, so giving up on the notion of collapse is not to going to bring any miraculous clarity to the problem. If you search for "quantum measurement problem" you will find many ways of stating the underlying problem, many interesting ways of thinking about it, but no definitive answers... search some of our old threads in which interpretations are discussed to see for yourself.

How else can the wave function collapse without an observer looking at the observed system and then concluding that the wave function has collapsed?

The discovery of quantum decoherence about a half-century ago went a long ways towards answering that question. As always, there is no substitute for actually learning the mathematical formalism of QM, but David Lindley's "Where does the weirdness go?" is a pretty good layman's introduction to the subject.

In any case, as this thread was started with misunderstandings from a source that never should have been used as the basis for a Physis Forums discussion, this thread is closed.