If you are looking for an intuitive knowledge of QM you better be ready for disappointment
But to be clear as I can be, the observer does not need to be a “who” it can be a what. You are trying to apply QM concepts to the macro world and that just doesn’t work.
The observer could be anything and schrodinger’s cat would still be dead or alive. No matter if there is any form of intelligence behind the observer.
A photon counter does not have a mind or any form of intelligence but it still collapses the wave function.
Your attempt to apply this to some “consciousness” is pure wishful thinking.
The Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation hasn’t exactly been refuted, but neither has the idea that there is a giant teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and mars.
But per your request here is a particle physicist explaining why this line is thinking is bunk.
Even if there were…if we have no way to be aware of that observer, then he doesn’t have any effect on our own measurements. Suppose he (somehow) knows which slit the electron passed through in the double-slit experiment. Does he have any way to tell us this?
It’s an idea that doesn’t advance our knowledge.
Bring us a universal observer who’s willing to talk to us, and things get very different!
The Universe makes jokes all the time, you just have to pay attention.
How do we know the counter doesn’t possess awareness?
More accurately, how do we know the counter doesn’t act as a “channel” for our own conscious observation, which leads to the collapse? Does the waveform collapse if nobody ever looks at the data recorded by the counter? And how could anyone find out, if no one ever observes it?
Ok, but that makes about as much sense as a universal observer. Both are pretty dubious, at least to Deists.
I figure Von Neumann didn’t do teapot theorizing, but I’m willing to be corrected.
Thanks, but I don’t do You Tube vids. Sorry. But sincere thanks anyway. …okay I looked at the first 5 seconds: the guy disses a Daily Mail article on physics (“QM proves afterlife”). For me that’s like shooting fish in barrels.
Trinopus: You could have a universal observer as an as-if theoretic construct. Though maybe that might not be necessary, I dunno. The point I’m trying to make is that the OP needs a somewhat more granular response. Something like, “The Copenhagen interpretation says “X”. “X” is not as nutty as it sounds and here’s why”.
Or: “Von Neumann-Wigner is better explained by Y, so we can (provisionally) rule out Von Neumann-Wigner.” Sort of like Bell(?) ruled out one interpretation of QM (to my boundless confusion).
I can read SDMB physics threads all day and if I pick up 20% of the material I’m doing well.
The same way I know that I am no married to Kim Gordon, there is no evidence that we have ever met nor is there any evidence that we were ever married.
This is the difference between woo and objective science.
Plus, if there was a universal observer, why would there be a wave function at all, the act of that universal observer would collapse the wave function.
That right there is evidence of an absence of a universal observer. Now that does not completely disprove some universal higher power but you are making an appeal to ignorance.
The burden of proof is on the argument’s proponent, and so far you have given zero evidence to even believe that your position is correct. Without a shred of evidence that is objectively testable we can discount your argument as being purely wishful thinking.
If you are willing to provide such tests, and to test your null-hypnosis the scientific world would be more than willing to hear your theory.
Lacking that we can discount your beliefs as a side effect of “Hypersensitive agency detection” which has been demonstrated to be a “real” human behavior by said scientific processes.
Ok here’s my hypothesis. God exists, but He spends all his time observing particles and physics experiments, leaving no residual attention for other human affairs or the afterlife. Sorry.
No, a universal observer would have agency, there is no agency required to collapse a wave function.
The base “the universe is made of consciousness” is the exact argument that was proposed by the author of the paper that was reported in the daily mail story.
The base misuse of QM ideas is exactly the same.
Listen to the whole video…he goes into why some of the common misunderstandings are common later in the video.
“Or were you just opining on a unrelated topic which would be better placed in IMHO?” I was presenting a wisecrack.
Okay, I’ll make an exception and view the vid.
For completeness, I’ll also note that the OP didn’t really present Planke’s argument, which was apparently part of a longer public lecture. I couldn’t find any articles or speeches by Planke on the subject online: perhaps I didn’t search hard enough. So basically we are left with an argument from authority - and that’s it. Longer cite please.
The video was entertaining, but Von Neumann ain’t stem-cell biologist turned armchair physicist Robert Lanza. Nobody here has demonstrated why QM doesn’t require a conscious observer and how exactly an instrument can observe a particle interaction. (Incidentally, does the natural world observe particle interactions? This isn’t just happening in physics labs, right?)
Look, I understand that Von Neumann-Wigner has fallen from favor and I put a reasonably large weight on that fact. But I am dubious about the allegation that those guys were engaging in woo. Planke? Sure: I can see that in his quotes and the forums he expressed them in.
I also concede that I’m asking for a lot (explain quantum entanglement!) and am keeping that in mind.
Planke really thought his theories on quanta were going to be replaced with wave theory, he did not agree with “Copenhagen interpretation” that many of the current generation of this line of religous thinking base their claims on.
He was the “father” of quantum mechanics but couldn’t deal with his own discovery.
This is why most physicists will completely discount these claims. They are religion and not science, the base their entirety on a cult of personality and ignore newer discoveries.
Number one, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Number two – how do I know you’re not lying? How do you know you’re not lying to yourself? Can you adequately prove that you and Kim Gordon have never met, let alone tied the knot? And how does your example in any way relate to this debate?
No, you are the one who put forth the argument that “a photon counter does not have a mind or any form of intelligence.” The onus is on you to prove it.
Why must I prove anything? If I were privy to some hidden knowledge about The Universal Consciousness, and this hypothetical knowledge gave me some kind of financial (or other type of) advantage, do you think I’d bother sharing it with anyone? And besides, I’m not the one who started this debate, I’m merely pointing out flaws in the ideas presented so far.
There was, for a time, the “Engineering Solution” argument, that quantum effects broke down at the macroscopic scale. You can have interference fringes from electrons, but not bowling balls. This idea bypasses the “observer” problem. I think this is what you mean when you ask if the natural world observes interactions. I think this idea has become less popular, as QM effects are observed at larger and larger scales.
There’s also the “Many Worlds” interpretation, which bypasses nearly all other objections, but which outrages Occam’s Razor, for being the most extravagant theory of them all.
At very least, you should drop one last “I told you so” on your old SDMB debating buddies. Then ascend to a higher plane of consciousness. We’re hoping you won’t decohere our entire reality as a parting shot (the Buddha wouldn’t step on a snail, would he?)
It is also a possibility that QM and relativity are not as incompatible as currently thought.
I have spent hours trying to figure out how to explain this possibility but basically by measuring an entangled photon you enter a time reference with them. So to you it appears that they both react in a faster than light fashion but it would not appear to do so for someone with an external clock.
Unfortunately my language skills are not of the caliber to explain this to someone with no background in physics. I am sure that there are others who would posses the skills to do so.
The best I can do is suggest that you google “Relativistic train and tunnel paradox” and work through that part of relativity.
The concept is not exactly the same but it is similar.
I do want to make it clear, this is unsettled science, we do not know how it works but the math shows that a god like observer would not see any thing happen according to my current understanding, entanglement is likely to be an artifact of your frame of reference.
And also, while particles that travel faster than light are unknown at this moment is “information” is not subject to that limit.
As an example, if, from the earth, you take a laser pointer and flick it across the surface of the moon (please do not do this in case there are airplanes in the path) the beam will cross the moon at faster than the speed of light. The photons going there will not but the actual beam is hitting the surface will. This is not exactly related but the easiest to explain example I can think of right now.
