Consciousness and Uncertainty

M

Mike Honcho

Shut up and calculate
Registered Senior Member
Has anyone experimentally eliminated consciousness as the cause of the break down of the wave function (as occurs in the two slit experiment)?
 
No. But I would add that experiment has not shown 'consciousness' to be the cause of the theorized 'collapse' either. Adding it to the mix is pure conjecture and, I would say, unnecessary at this point.
 
Apparently I did not phrase my question correctly.
Has anyone ever performed a variation of the two slit experiment eliminating conciousness as the cause of the collapse of the wave function.
 
Noone has done such an experiment. Elvis hasn't been ruled out as a cause either, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.
 
BTW, BentheMan is a little move/lock happy. Is the above not a valid question that a student of physics might ask?
Who better than the physicists to answer it for me?
I really don't care for the psycho babble I'm likely to get here (no offense pseudo freaks).
 
Last edited:
CptBork said:
Noone has done such an experiment. Elvis hasn't been ruled out as a cause either, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.
Click to expand...

Ok. Here is where I'm going.
Particles behave as waves unless observed.
When observed they exhibit particle behaviour.
"Observed" is accomplished by various means- usually some type of detector between the slits and the screen (of couse you are familiar with the set up of the experiment). However the particle is observed, it requires an observer.
Hence consiousness itself should be ruled out as a potential cause of the breakdown of the wave function.
If the wavefunction only collapsed when gyrating hips where placed behind one slit or the other (no sexual innuendo intended) THEN I would highly suspect Elvis.
 
I was wondering about your question and thinking about the term "breakdown of the wave function". Does this simply mean that the waves that pass through the slit project spots on a screen which are interpreted as particles striking the screen?

The way I understand the experiment is that the interference pattern of the waves passing through the two slits and intersecting is causing high and low energy density patterns and the high energy density pattern appears on the screen as if a particle struck the screen, am I right?

I was thinking that when the waves travel toward the slits from the source they are spherical waves. When a sliver of the spherical wave passes through the slit, those slivers express a spherical wave pattern the proceeds from each slit. As the wave front expands spherically the waves from each slit intersect and there is an interference pattern whose characteristic interference zones correspond to the wavelength of the light. There are places in the pattern where the crest of the waves meet, there are places in the patter where the crest of one wave meets the trough of the other, and there are places where the troughs meet. The pattern of interference displays these various wave intersections.

Now on the screen, the wave fronts that proceed from the slits, interfere with each other, and reach the screen are really still waves but the energy density of the wave fronts now reflects the various energy densities of the interference pattern. The screen reflects more intensity striking the screen where the wave crests meet in the pattern and lower intensity where the wave troughs meet in the pattern.

On the screen the high intensity portion of the wave front interference pattern appears as if focused streams of particles where striking the screen.

That is how I understood the experiment but I could be off base.

Now the conscious observation of the experiment and whether on not that could affect the interference patten seems to be the question. Or even the uncertainty principle and the conscious observation and a conscious effort to affect the interference pattern may be part of the question. Is it?
 
Last edited:
Mike Honcho said:
Ok. Here is where I'm going.
Particles behave as waves unless observed.
When observed they exhibit particle behaviour.
"Observed" is accomplished by various means- usually some type of detector between the slits and the screen (of couse you are familiar with the set up of the experiment). However the particle is observed, it requires an observer.
Hence consiousness itself should be ruled out as a potential cause of the breakdown of the wave function.
If the wavefunction only collapsed when gyrating hips where placed behind one slit or the other (no sexual innuendo intended) THEN I would highly suspect Elvis.
Click to expand...

As far as we can tell, the detector interacts with the particle and causes its wave to become decoherent, i.e. gives the impression of a collapse. Noone knows what the mechanism behind this activity is, we only know how to calculate and predict the results. Since it's impossible to do an experiment without a human consciousness being involved at some stage of the process, we have no way of knowing if consciousness is involved in the wave collapse, but we have no specific reason to believe it is. It's the same problem as asking whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if noone's around to hear it (neglecting the minute large-distance effects the air vibrations would have).
 
Mike Honcho said:
BTW, BentheMan is a little move/lock happy. Is the above not a valid question that a student of physics might ask?
Who better than the physicists to answer it for me?
I really don't care for the psycho babble I'm likely to get here (no offense pseudo freaks).
Click to expand...

I'd like to answer you question, if i have understood it. You are asking whether the collapse of the wave function is somehow tied to consciousness itself?

There is certainly a conscious collapse model, and is perfectly a quantum subject. If we say ''consciousness is what caused the collapse,'' there are however instruments that can collapse the wave function without the aid of a conscious collapse.

However, the model is still alive today. Many physicists still attribute special collapses under the influence of specifically consciousness itself. It still remains a phenom of science exploration, as to how a simple observation made by an individual can even deflate the wave of probabilities. Some scientists (if not most in the study of psychophysics), state that the wave function itself is something that exists subliminally, as a way for us to statistically track experiments down.
 
Yes, as Reiku points out, there are still a few holdouts grasping at straws, desperate to make a connection between physics and their dying brand of spirituality.
 
CptBork said:
Yes, as Reiku points out, there are still a few holdouts grasping at straws, desperate to make a connection between physics and their dying brand of spirituality.
Click to expand...

You mean more desperate than you trying to avoid a connection? lol
Your just as bad as the ones who wish it were true...both you guys are silly.
 
No, there are simple experimental tests which could be conducted that wouldn't disprove conscious collapse, but could easily prove it. I have one in mind I thought of myself involving a Stern-Gerlach device. It would be quite simple to implement, the only difficult part would be convincing a university that it's worth their time to provide the necessary equipment.

I don't care if people want to believe in baseless crap and junk science. What pisses me off is when a multitude of ignorant people with no background in the subject start buying into this hocus pocus, creating a massive waste of time, space, energy and productivity. Worse is that these people come bug real scientists and to an extent can get in the way of people performing real, legitimate science.
 
I will exchange the notion, and say cptbork is correct, because too many scientists are forgetting about the non-collapse models that exist.

You can observe the electron with a naked eye by theory, and collapse its wave function, but these subliminal acts have no direct effect in the physical world, other than being a special device capable of reducing the probabilistic wave function of nature. Don't get me wrong: I like the conscious collapse model. I just won't cite it as being ''absolute.''
 
quantum_wave said:
I was wondering about your question and thinking about the term "breakdown of the wave function". Does this simply mean that the waves that pass through the slit project spots on a screen

which are interpreted as particles striking the screen?
The way I understand the experiment is that the interference pattern of the waves passing through the two slits and intersecting is causing high and low energy density patterns and the high energy density pattern appears on the

screen as if a particle struck the screen, am I right?QUOTE]

No. What you are refering to is superposition and interference of waves. Wave dynamics are well understood and are used diagnostically in the case of the two slit experiment to examine much deeper questions. Most

importantly the question-what is light? Is it a particle or a wave? This question is (imo) the ultimate question standing between quantum physicists and any kind of unifying theory. It could be argued that light is the purest, most

fundamental form of energy and that everything in the universe is composed entirely of energy (mass and energy are equivalent). Even forces resolve to energy exchanges. Furthermore, the photon is considered fundamental and

cannot be divided into simpler components.
Hence, if one completley defines/describes/understands light then one has completely described/understood everything within the universe. This is where you start, not off in the eleventh dimension of string theory.
//Insert Outraged scoffs of mainstream QED snobs here// -I'll explain your blindness in subsequent posts. How can you be sure you've built a sound building when you don't know what a brick is? Much less explain to me the

geometric beauty of the crown moulding in one of its 11th floor bathrooms.... I digress.
The two slit experiment (TES) is performed by shooting large numbers of photons at a screen through a barrier containing two slits. The photons are shot one at a time. The cumulative effect of the numerous dots results

in a wave interference pattern when no attempt is made to determine which slit the various photons are actually going through. If ANY method is employed to determine which slit the so called particles are actually going through,

the interference pattern breaks down and we find two clumps of dots- one directly behind each slit. Contrary to what most people think, this is NOT because the observation apparatuses physically impart some energy into the

system and thereby change it. There are ways around that. I'm not going to say more about that because I'm too lazy to go cite references and the real physicists here already know the uncertainty principle does not state that. The

uncertainty principle and the wave function merely state that as the quantities defining location gets more precise, the quantities defining energies get more vague (and vise versa). The mathmatics offers no implication as to WHY.
Why is this interesting? Because:
1) The very, very, very, very foundation of all of QED and hence String and Brane theory all began with the concept of one quanta (a photon) leaving an electron. The goal was to define/describe/understand- "what is an atom?"
That was back when scientists wanted to truly understand the world, not tweak funky mathematics.
2) The TSE illustrates the point that no one knows exactly what light (photons) is (are). When we look they are well behaved little particles. When we are not watching they are magical waves of nothing popping in and out of every imaginable possibility. Even worse, they somehow "know" the difference.
Click to expand...
 
Good explanation. You don’t need to cite any references. What I was getting at was wondering what you were getting at; thinking that you were wondering if anyone had performed that experiment by attempting to collapse the wave function mentally instead of by using the apparatus to break it down.

I have no doubt that light is expanding spherical waves.
 
Well I have doubts about everything.
Nonetheless, my prevailing inclination is that you are right.
Furthermore, I believe that all so called particles are standing quantum waves at thier most fundamental level. (Nice name btw)
Thats a concievable mechanism for carving physical reality out of nothing.
I'm lately of the opinion that no truly fundamental particles actually exist. Particulate properties such as mass and gravity and nuclear interaction and so on are acquired attributes realized when systems of the truly fundamental waveforms interact synergistically. Harmonies if you will.

To me this is easier to believe than the fact that a song is the combination of vibrating metal strings, wooden reeds and vocal chords as manipulated by evolved strands of random DNA... (do i rant? again?)

A good (baited) question is: What is the ultimate nature of these fundamental waves of energy and how could they erupt from utter nothing anyway?
Shall we discuss further?
 
Last edited:
It is a subject worth discussing and we are both open to the same possibility, i.e. the wave structure of the universe.

I don't think that the waves erupt from "utter nothing" but I understand the concept. Spontaneous symmetry breaking, matter/antimatter pairs, virtual particles, etc. are interesting subjects that you run across as you do research into the wave structure of particles.

Energy, energy density, energy density fluctuations, and energy density equalization are concepts that I am very familiar with. One of my favorite speculations is that the universe contains nothing but energy, and because energy density is variable and fluctuates I like to build my cosmology and quantum wave action on the concept that energy can be infinitely fine and so there are no voids. Such an environment gives rise to my concept of an energy background which I describe in that thread.
 
I agree with the concept that there can be no void. Energy must permiate all of space.
But there is no way around the fact that the energy had to come from nothing.
 
Mike Honcho said:
I agree with the concept that there can be no void. Energy must permiate all of space.
But there is no way around the fact that the energy had to come from nothing.
Click to expand...
I go with the simple answer, energy has alway existed :D.

But energy always existing doesn't explain why matter exists. IMHO there is too much energy at the average energy density of the universe for matter not to exist. A characteristic that I attribute to energy is energy density equalization, meaning that in a given energy density environment, the energy density changes to equalize the density across the environment.

In an infinite universe where the average energy density is above the equalization threshold, matter must form. So effectively matter has always existed too :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top