Unraveling the Mystery of Observation & Wave Function Collapse

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the role of observation and measurement in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of the double slit experiment and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. Participants explore the implications of wave function collapse, the influence of detectors, and the nature of measurement in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the act of observation causes the wave function to collapse, while others question this assumption and suggest that measurement may not require consciousness.
  • There is mention of "quantum decoherence" as a potential explanation for wave function behavior, though it does not resolve the measurement problem.
  • A participant argues that the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment indicates that the timing of measurement does not affect the formation of interference patterns, only the availability of "which path" information.
  • Another participant challenges the idea that future events can influence present outcomes, asserting that quantum physics is a causal theory.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of detectors on the results, with discussions about whether the detectors themselves cause changes in the observed patterns.
  • There is a consensus among some that the interference pattern appears based on whether the "which path" information is accessible, rather than the specific nature of the measurement itself.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the role of observation and measurement in quantum mechanics. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of wave function collapse and the influence of detectors.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on how measurement leads to wave function collapse and the dependence on interpretations of quantum mechanics. The discussion also highlights unresolved questions about the implications of quantum decoherence and the nature of causality in quantum experiments.

Jbeats245
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi, I've done a lot of personal research on the internet trying to understand what exactly is happening in this experiment but I keep seeing contrasting information about what the role of observation actually had on the experiment.

What I understand is that when they try to figure out which slit the particles actually went through before they appear on the screen, the wave function collapses because the detectors use light to read its position and that affects the particles somehow.

How do the detectors actually affect the position of the particle?

Certain explanations like in this video assert that when the detectors were turned on but the data wasn't collected then the wave function still didn't collapse. He thinks its the fact that someone is consciously interpreting the experiment that affects the results. I'm pretty sure that's false but I really don't know why.

Edit:

Or do the detectors even affect the outcome? according to this video the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment proves that it wasn't the detector that collapsed the wave function.

According to http://www.highexistence.com/the-fallacy-of-delayed-choice-and-the-quantum-eraser/,
"The big mind**** here is that an interference patterns appears even when the which-slit information is removed in the far future! It is as if the electron knows that IN THE FUTURE the information about which slit it went through will be erased, and decides to act differently in the present moment!"

Does science have explanations for these phenomena other than the natural assumption that it must be the act of conscious observers affecting the results of the experiment?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Jbeats245 said:
What I understand is that when they try to figure out which slit the particles actually went through before they appear on the screen, the wave function collapses because the detectors use light to read its position and that affects the particles somehow.

Actually, we don't know how measurement causes wavefunctions to collapse, if indeed they do collapse. At the moment, it's just a convenient description. It is probably does not require consciousness to happen (though I suppose I can't really justify that "probably"). There is something called "quantum decoherence" where a quantum system being entangled with its environment causes its wavefunction to evolve (unitarily) in a manner that looks kind of like wavefunction collapse—but it's not the same thing, and doesn't really address the fundamental issue of how a quantum state goes from a superposition of states to an eigenstate. It's called the measurement problem and at the moment all we have are number of proposed resolutions from a variety of different possible interpretations of quantum mechanics.
 


In response to your edit: the mysterious nature of wavefunction collapse notwithstanding, the article containing the quotation in your edit (which you didn't actually link to, FYI) can probably be safely dismissed as garbage. Quantum physics is a fully causal theory, and suggesting the quantum eraser experiment requires the future to affect the present is utter nonsense.
 


Hey thanks for the replies! I fixed my post if you want to take a look at the article.

Are you familiar with the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? I haven't taken a good look at it yet because my brain is really fried tonight from trying to understand all of this. Does the experiment prove that the detectors were not the cause of the change in pattern?
 


Jbeats245 said:
Hey thanks for the replies! I fixed my post if you want to take a look at the article.

Are you familiar with the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? I haven't taken a good look at it yet because my brain is really fried tonight from trying to understand all of this. Does the experiment prove that the detectors were not the cause of the change in pattern?

It is evidence that the formation of the interference pattern does NOT depend on WHEN either particle was detected. It only depends on whether the slit a particle goes through can be determined or not. If it can, then no interference pattern will appear. If it cannot, then an interference pattern WILL appear.
 


I am familiar with the delayed choice experiment—but I don't really understand your question. I glanced at your article, and a word of advice: if you ever read anything about quantum physics that cites the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" you would advised to stop reading and not waste your time.
 


Yea but doesn't it also mean that the detectors themselves aren't what's causing the change in pattern? In the double slit experiment when they put detectors in front of the 2 slits to see which slit it went through it made a clump pattern and went through one slit. In this experiment, they didn't do anything to see beforehand which slit it went through. They shot entangled particles at different detectors which eventually showed a pattern that changed depending on if we could know which slit it went through. It was the actual act of measurement that changed the result, not the way we measured it, right?

Quantum_Eraser.png


150px-Detector0RawResults.svg.png


Also, to be clear, the detector at D0 showed a pattern that wasn't discernible until you corresponded each photon to it's entangled partner at a different detector that had it's own pattern as shown in the photo, right?
 


I think you're right. Each particle goes through one of two identical detectors, one where the "which path" info is erased and one where it's not. The first path still creates an interference pattern even though it still went through a detector. This proves that the detector isn't doing something funky to the particle to collapse the wave function, no?
 


rabcarl said:
I think you're right. Each particle goes through one of two identical detectors, one where the "which path" info is erased and one where it's not. The first path still creates an interference pattern even though it still went through a detector. This proves that the detector isn't doing something funky to the particle to collapse the wave function, no?

The light doesn't go "through" the detector, its path ends at the detector. By detector I mean the sensor that records the light.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How non-conscious can an Observer be and cause wave function collapse?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
9K
High School The wave function of the electron doesn't collapse when passing through air?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Is There A Study Showing The Observer Effect Ignoring Conscious Intent?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
High School Why does anyone think gravity might collapse wave function?
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
High School Can we say a photon doesn't exist until the wavefunction collapses?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Undergrad Would this experiment prove consciousness causes collapse
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad How Do We Model Wave Function Collapse After Measuring Particle Location?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Can someone please explain to me the motion of an electron?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate Can particles appear and disappear "with" a cause?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Wave Function Collapse using faulty recording devices.
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K