B Understanding The Conscious Observer: Young's Double Slit Experiment

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of observation in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to Young's double slit experiment and the collapse of the wave function. Participants clarify that the act of observing does not require consciousness; rather, it involves any interaction that alters the state of a quantum system, such as using a photodiode. The term "collapse" is debated, with some arguing it misleadingly implies a catastrophic change, while it actually represents a mathematical transition to an eigenstate. The conversation also touches on philosophical implications of consciousness and its role in quantum events, with the consensus being that physics does not attribute special significance to consciousness in these processes. Overall, the complexity of quantum mechanics and the nature of observation remain key topics of exploration.
  • #31
Stephen Tashi said:
It's worth noting that that 2 and 4 involve consciousness - insofar as an "agent" is conscious of a belief or conscious of assigning a probability.
Indeed it is (there might be some dispute about #2, but "insofar" leaves much room for general agreement with your point).

However, this is involving consciousness in a different and much less pop-woo sense than in the question that started this thread.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Stephen Tashi said:
It's worth noting that that 2 and 4 involve consciousness - insofar as an "agent" is conscious of a belief or conscious of assigning a probability.
2 involves consciousness as much as Statistical Mechanics does, so I guess it depends on how much one thinks Statistical Mechanics involves a conscious agent.

4 does involve a reasoning agent, but it could be a non-conscious computer. It just depicts a large part of QM, especially the Born Rule, as normative rules for how such an agent should "mesh" their probabilities for different observations.

Note that it is still open whether experiments or measurements in QM have single objective outcomes. They may have multiple, e.g. Many Worlds, or they may only exist relative to the observer, e.g. QBism (though here it would be relative to all observers who share the same environmental context). So it might not make sense to speak of the objective "out there in the world" results of a measurement.
 
  • #33
Kely said:
Can we say instead that a wave function is a representation of an underlying group?

[...] I meant because basis states are linearly independent functions, maybe they can always provide a basis for a representation of a given group.
Advanced quantization is essentially a procedure of finding a unitary representation space (Hilbert space) for the dynamical group applicable to the (class of) systems being modeled. The group elements are represented by unitary operators acting on the Hilbert space.

The wave function by itself is not a "representation", rather the particular Hilbert space is chosen (constructed) such that it "carries" a unitary representation of the relevant dynamical group.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
7K
Replies
23
Views
7K
Replies
65
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K