[nilak (OP)]

Consciousness causes the wave function to collapse acording to this interpretation. The wave function of any quantum object says that it can go anywhere with a certain probability. Once we make a measurement we can predict future position drawing a probability distribution. Say we launch a 1kg copper ball at 10mps from towards a infinitely large flat screen 10m away. There is a probability p(1000) to land at 1km away from center is extremely low, but it not zero. The ball is a superposition of being everywhere in the universe until it is observed and pinpointed. The probability to be observed on a straight line is something like 10exp1000/10exp1001. The superposition seem to be true, otherwise quantum computers wouldn't work   . If we make a measurement at 5m and find the ball on center then p(1000) reduces further. I can now conclude that the whole universe is in a superposition of all possible states but only the consciousness reduces the wavefunctions of the quantum objects it observes to only one however obeying Heissenberg's principle . This needs to be consistent with the past. In the case of quantum eraser experiment it seems that the quantum objects predict what the consciousness will find out and reduce their superposition to only one posibility at the position of measurement then again it continues the wave function from there. All consciousness observers have their own "observed" universe that is always consistent with the past. When two consciousness observers exchange information, quantum eraser effects occur and they will not be able to tell the differences between their own "observed" universes.  Q bits for example are in a superposition of being equally 0 and 1 (up or down). Since the universe is made of quantum objects like that it means the whole universe is a quantum system. At a large scale we don't see the probabilities game and things seem certain. I think there a many other exciting conclusion we can draw.

[Samuel Bisson]

The Copenhagen interpretation is wrong.

We are not special and neither is our consciousness. The universe exists objectively, not subjectively.

The uncertainty principle confuses a lot of people. All it is saying is that measuring a particle alters its position or momentum. It doesn't mean that reality is undecided before observed. That's ludicrous. Whatever did the universe do before we even arrived on the scene?

If you want to know my thought it's that the future already exists. QM has devised numerous methods to try and trick the results of QM but these fail because the future cannot be tricked.

[Colin2B]

Consciousness causes the wave function to collapse acording to this interpretation. 

The interpretation does not refer to the consciousness of the observer but to the interaction with the device making the measurement. For example, a photon hits a detector and ceases to exist - its wave function has collapsed - and we know where it was when it hit. Bohr was very clear that the result can and should be described classically using ordinary language.
The wave function is only a probabilistic description.

[nilak (OP)]

Yes, you are right. It is actually the Neumann–Wigner interpretation derived from Copenhagen interpretation.
However in the delayed choice quantum eraser the measurement doesn't perturbe the path of the photon going to the screen.

[nilak (OP)]

If you want to know my thought it's that the future already exists. QM has devised numerous methods to try and trick the results of QM but these fail because the future cannot be tricked.

I also said that the quantum objects predict the future and this is seen in the DS quantum eraser. It suggests the future is already known or it already exists.

[geordief]

Consciousness causes the wave function to collapse acording to this interpretation. 

The interpretation does not refer to the consciousness of the observer but to the interaction with the device making the measurement. For example, a photon hits a detector and ceases to exist - its wave function has collapsed - and we know where it was when it hit. Bohr was very clear that the result can and should be described classically using ordinary language.
The wave function is only a probabilistic description.

Must  the interaction be with a "detector" or simply with another object?

The "observer" is an integral part of the physical universe ,is it not ? There is no such thing as a disembodied observer (or a pure observation) ,is there?

PS is there no way to format posts?

[alancalverd]

One of the problems of human vanity is that some people confuse mathematical approximations to reality with reality itself. Another is the introduction of "consciousness" into discussions of science, particularly if it is used without definition.

The word "observation" in physics simply means an interaction with a "third-party" object known as the observer. If that interaction is to have any effect on said object, it must involve the transfer of energy between the observed phenomenon and the observer so it must alter the nature of the interaction. We can model all this with collapsing wavefunctions but if we reduce the energy transfer to zero, there's nothing to prevent the interaction taking place in the absence of an observer.

[jeffreyH]

On topics such as this you will get the most straight forward answer from Alan. You should take it in and remember it.

[geordief]

One of the problems of human vanity is that some people confuse mathematical approximations to reality with reality itself. Another is the introduction of "consciousness" into discussions of science, particularly if it is used without definition.

The word "observation" in physics simply means an interaction with a "third-party" object known as the observer. If that interaction is to have any effect on said object, it must involve the transfer of energy between the observed phenomenon and the observer so it must alter the nature of the interaction. We can model all this with collapsing wavefunctions but if we reduce the energy transfer to zero, there's nothing to prevent the interaction taking place in the absence of an observer.

If the object is "third-party" what are the other two parties ?

Are they two particles (or fields?) that meet one another?

It seems strange that a third party needs to be involved. Is there any way to explain why this should be so other than apparently it is?

Do you have an example of  an interaction  where the energy transfer is zero?

Might that be when positive transfers exactly match negative transfers?

[Bill S]

Murray Gell-Mann's quantum flapdoodle is still alive and well.  Unfortunately, there are experts who perpetuate it.

I've just finished Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality".  New Scientist describes it as: "by turns irreverent, erudite and funny".  In my opinion, it is by turns promising, disappointing and misleading.  He certainly gives the impression that the reality of the Universe is the result of our observation/interpretation of information. 

[geordief]

Murray Gell-Mann's quantum flapdoodle is still alive and well.  Unfortunately, there are experts who perpetuate it.

I've just finished Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality".  New Scientist describes it as: "by turns irreverent, erudite and funny".  In my opinion, it is by turns promising, disappointing and misleading.  He certainly gives the impression that the reality of the Universe is the result of our observation/interpretation of information.

If I understand the gist of your contribution ,I myself have in the past  been the victim (a self victim ,probably)  of this wishful belief (that we create the world by observing it)

Can we put this idea to bed by pointing out its internal contradictions? -there must surely be a few .

Does anyone have one or two to hand ? (aside from the obvious absurdity)

[alancalverd]

Let's nail down the coffin on this one.

Common sense, evolution, and even the bloody bible, tell us that the universe created us, therefore reality cannot be a construct of the human mind. It's obviously the other way round.   

[alancalverd]

One of the problems of human vanity is that some people confuse mathematical approximations to reality with reality itself. Another is the introduction of "consciousness" into discussions of science, particularly if it is used without definition.

The word "observation" in physics simply means an interaction with a "third-party" object known as the observer. If that interaction is to have any effect on said object, it must involve the transfer of energy between the observed phenomenon and the observer so it must alter the nature of the interaction. We can model all this with collapsing wavefunctions but if we reduce the energy transfer to zero, there's nothing to prevent the interaction taking place in the absence of an observer.

If the object is "third-party" what are the other two parties ?

Are they two particles (or fields?) that meet one another?

Any two things that interact

It seems strange that a third party needs to be involved. Is there any way to explain why this should be so other than apparently it is?

I explicitly said that there is no need for a third party, but the presence of one will inevitably alter the outcome (sorry, I said nature. nonsense!) because it absorbs energy emanating from the interaction.

Do you have an example of  an interaction  where the energy transfer is zero?

Can't think of one, but I'm talking about the energy transferred to the observer, not betwen the interacting bodies.

Might that be when positive transfers exactly match negative transfers?

Now you mention it, I can imagine some chemical process where two configurations of a molecule are in a dynamic equilibrium

[Bill S]

Can we put this idea to bed by pointing out its internal contradictions?

I think Alan covers this quite succinctly, including Zowie's question:

Whatever did the universe do before we even arrived on the scene?

I never thought I would see Alan resort to the Bible to support an argument, but "if it's there, use it", seems a good motto.

[geordief]

I explicitly said that there is no need for a third party, but the presence of one will inevitably alter the outcome (sorry, I said nature. nonsense!) because it absorbs energy emanating from the interaction.

Excuse my lack of familiarity with the process but  if there are potentially 3 objects involved in the interaction,does this require the process to be synchronous  with all three objects  contributing to the same event (I realize "event" is a term from Spacetime  and Relativity and so anticipate it may not be applicable to this situation but I am out of my depth and so hope  the odd mistake  in terminology or maybe concept can be allowed -and corrected)

By the way ,am I venturing into Feynman diagram territory at all ?(I understand they are extremely useful but I have not really learned much about them)

[Bill S]

Definition of an Inertial Observer

I don’t remember who said it, but I have just found this among some notes. 

 “It is important to realize that an “observer” is a huge information-gathering system, not simply one man with binoculars.  In fact, we shall remove the human element entirely from our definition, and say that an inertial observer is simply a coordinate system for spacetime, which makes an observation simply by recording the location (x, y, z) and time (t) of an event.”

I find myself wondering to what extent "recording" is relevant.

[nilak (OP)]

One of the problems of human vanity is that some people confuse mathematical approximations to reality with reality itself. Another is the introduction of "consciousness" into discussions of science, particularly if it is used without definition.

The word "observation" in physics simply means an interaction with a "third-party" object known as the observer. If that interaction is to have any effect on said object, it must involve the transfer of energy between the observed phenomenon and the observer so it must alter the nature of the interaction. We can model all this with collapsing wavefunctions but if we reduce the energy transfer to zero, there's nothing to prevent the interaction taking place in the absence of an observer.

I was initially strongly angainst the " consciousness collapsing the wave function" or even against the observer collapsing the wave function , which makes more sense, but I couldn't find a convincing better explanation yet for the double slit experiment, delayed choice  and for the quantum spin.
The mathematical approximations are the result of the experiments interpretations. "Superposition" is a mathematical concept that emerged from interpretation of experiments, but can you tell whether it is real or not ?

[nilak (OP)]

Let's nail down the coffin on this one.

Common sense, evolution, and even the bloody bible, tell us that the universe created us, therefore reality cannot be a construct of the human mind. It's obviously the other way round.

The universe exists independently of the human mind but it is different than what we observe.

[alancalverd]

I explicitly said that there is no need for a third party, but the presence of one will inevitably alter the outcome (sorry, I said nature. nonsense!) because it absorbs energy emanating from the interaction.

Excuse my lack of familiarity with the process but  if there are potentially 3 objects involved in the interaction,does this require the process to be synchronous  with all three objects  contributing to the same event (I realize "event" is a term from Spacetime  and Relativity and so anticipate it may not be applicable to this situation but I am out of my depth and so hope  the odd mistake  in terminology or maybe concept can be allowed -and corrected)

Two billiard balls collide. No observer. Sound waves emanate and dissipate into space. Outcome 1.

Two billiard balls collide. Microphone and tape recorder. Some sound energy is converted to electrical signal thence to magnetic signal. Outcome 2.

Tree falls in forest. Bugs eat tree. Outcome 1

Tree falls in forest. Zen master observes photons and phonons emanating from event, wonders what would have happened if he hadn't been there, writes book, causes confusion among entire human race. Outcome 2.

No simultaneity required. The observation takes place some time after the event.

Now someone is bound to raise the question of the double slit experiment. Here's my interpretation.

There is no question of the photon "interfering with itself". That is confusing two models of photon behavior: a wave can interfere constructively or destructively but a particle cannot interfere destructively with itself or an identical particle. The use of an integrating observer (a photographic plate) confuses the issue because a single photon cannot interact with several film grains - it only has enough energy to blacken one grain. So what you are seeing is the spatial probability distribution of photons  integrated over time. Now cover one slit. Since the probability of a photon passing through that slit is now 0 the spatial probabilty function downstream of the slits must revert to the function associated with one slit. 

[geordief]

Are all observations equal ?


Do some observations share more than others in the overall energy transfer of the reactions?

On the face of it an observation of a single photon from a supernova seems of less consequence than  that of a delicate microphone placed next to a nuclear explosion....

When  the description is of a collapse of a waveform as a result of an observation does this description apply equally to the mechanics involved in the making of the observation or (as I think I may have heard ) is it possible to make the observation without any physical connection at all  to the event that is being "observed" -a sort of "passive or deduced  observation" if I  heard it right?

I mean does  the waveform of the observing mechanism collapse along  with or as well as   the waveform of the thing that  has been observed?