Can People Collapse Wave Functions with their Eyes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thenewdeal38
  • Start date Start date
Thenewdeal38
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
This can't be true!

This guy is talking about collapsing a wave function by just looking at it with your naked eye. This can't be true. When he refers to big eye, small blurry eye he's making a metaphor right? The person and the eye are the measuring device correct? I am going crazy this can't be true. People can't just look at double slit experiments and make them collapse!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Don't get crazy. Easy... As I already explained you in another thread: as long as you don't define precisely what do you mean (in terms of observables) by 'collapse', you can't talk about it responsibly. No such definition of 'collapse' is commonly accepted, so all such discussions always sink in metaphores and misunderstandings.

For me 'collapse' (for those rare situations I use this word) is caused not by a naked eye, but by hand equipped with a pencil.
 


Did you watch the video? I am talking about getting two bands of light instead of several. I am schizophrenic and this guy is telling me that my "counciess" knowledge of what slit the electron went throught after observing it with my naked eye causes the wave function collapse! I thought it was the electron/ photon interaction that causes the collapse not the "knowledege" of which slit the electron went through, its just a convinient coincidence that any electron/photon interaction that provides measurable date collapses the wave function not the "knowledege" of which slit the electron went through.
 


Thenewdeal38 said:
Did you watch the video?
Frankly: I got bored after first 2 mins...

All the answers (consciousness, eye observation, apparatus measurement, first photon/electron interaction, many more) may be correct for their respective meanings of 'collapse'. If you use 'collapse' to a measure of your knowledge about the process - I won't be worried by statements that 'collapse' is caused by naked eye observation, reading of experiment report made by someone else, receiving a phone call, etc.

As long, as you don't associate any metaphysical meaning to the 'collapse' - there is nothing weird in it.

If you are worried by 'collapse' caused by naked eye, phone conversation or planet positions at the moment of experimenter's birth, answer yourself basic question: "how may you distinguish between particles ruled by collapsed wavefunction and a noncollapsed one?"

EDIT>>
I see you may got confused by mixing two meanings of 'collapse':
1. operation on the wavefunction, replacing it with eigenstate, as an effect of our knowledge of measurement outcome;
2. 'real' physical interaction (like photon scattering on the electron) - which changes the process, and which leads to change of its further behaviour, which may be described by replacing the wavefunction with its eigenstate.
 
Last edited:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top