Understanding The Conscious Observer: Young's Double Slit Experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the conscious observer in the context of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on Young's double slit experiment and the implications of observation on the wave function collapse. Participants explore the philosophical and technical aspects of measurement in quantum mechanics, including the nature of observation and its effects on particle behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the act of observing can collapse the wave function of photons, referencing Richard Feynman's challenges regarding probability calculations in the double slit experiment.
  • Another participant challenges the use of the term "mere act" in relation to observation, prompting a discussion on the methods of observing photons, such as using a photodiode.
  • It is noted that observing a photon through a photodiode results in the photon being absorbed, which raises questions about the nature of observation compared to observing macroscopic objects.
  • A participant explains that the term "collapse" can be misleading, suggesting that it implies a catastrophic change to the wave function, whereas it is a mathematical change to an eigenfunction of an observable's operator.
  • One participant elaborates on the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics, discussing how interference terms affect probabilities and how observation can eliminate these terms, leading to classical probability interpretations.
  • A newcomer to the forum expresses interest in the metaphysical implications of the conscious observer concept, indicating a lack of technical background but a desire to understand the philosophical aspects of quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of the role of observation in quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on the implications of consciousness in the measurement process, and the discussion remains open with multiple competing views on the nature of wave function collapse and observation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants acknowledge the complexity of the measurement process in quantum mechanics and the lack of universal agreement on the topic. The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of observation and the mathematical underpinnings of quantum mechanics, which may not be fully accessible to all participants.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, students seeking to understand the nuances of wave function collapse, and those curious about the intersection of consciousness and physics.

  • #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 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
4K