# Quantum Physics When I Am Asleep? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 30, 2019, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693 "2019-10-30T11:48:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/21 "2019-10-31T16:56:35Z")
If there be any misconception here, not that I think there is, it is that there is ever any instance where quantum mechanics is _not_ in full effect. So it is compatible with conscious observers to the extent that you imagine yourself a conscious observer, but it also works fine in situations where there is no such observer, e.g., the very early universe. There need not even be a “classical” system to interact with it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/22 "2019-10-31T17:35:31Z")
All interpretations of quantum mechanics are exactly equivalent, and mathematically proven to be so. Some of them make no reference whatsoever to anything that could be interpreted as relating to “consciousness”. And yet, they make exactly the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation. Thus, if one understands anything in the Copenhagen interpretation to be dependent upon consciousness, then that understanding must be incorrect. And there’s no consensus among physicists about which interpretation is “best”, because the consensus among physicists is that the question of which is “best” is nonsensical to begin with. Because they all make exactly the same predictions. ---
**Author:** ![tampora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@tampora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tampora)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/23 "2019-10-31T19:32:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > All interpretations of quantum mechanics are exactly equivalent, and mathematically proven to be so… Only **some** interpretations of quantum mechanics are equivalent. An example of one that isn’t is The Gremlin Interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/24 "2019-10-31T20:31:17Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The question is where do the boundaries apply between classical and quantum views of reality. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=644232&highlight=quantum](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=644232&highlight=quantum) > **[Heisenberg's microscope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_microscope)** > > Heisenberg's microscope is a thought experiment proposed by Werner Heisenberg that has served as the nucleus of some commonly held ideas about quantum mechanics. In particular, it provides an argument for the uncertainty principle on the basis of the principles of classical optics. > The concept was criticized\[clarification needed\] by Heisenberg's mentor Niels Bohr, and theoretical and experimental developments have suggested that Heisenberg's intuitive explanation\[clarification needed\] of his ma... _A_ boundary can be illuminated by the following thought experiment: A large object like an asteroid can be tracked through space with radar or optical frequencies; light does not deflect it’s trajectory in a meaningful way. But the smaller the object, the smaller the wavelength of radiation needed to resolve the imaging process…and smaller wavelengths have higher energies. At a certain microscopic level, the object observed has such small mass and the imaging wavelength has so much punch that the object is in fact deflected…resulting in position and momentum having mutual uncertainty. _But, as stated, don’t rely on the narrative or intuition: the mathematics are there to resolve the system more accurately._ ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/25 "2019-10-31T22:11:30Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Schrödinger’s cat is an example of a problem raised by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely used, but there are serious problems with it that have never been resolved. > > However, there are many alternative [interpretations of quantum mechanics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics), and no consensus among physicists about them, despite many decades of intense debate. > > For a good book about this, see _[What is Real?](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073P4GBPD/) The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics_ by Adam Becker There’s lots of stuff in that book that ought to be approached with some caution, though. While it does an OK job with most topics, the narrative is often rather one-sided, and it drops the ball on a few important topics—notably, the EPR thought experiment and the issue of nonlocality in quantum mechanics. For my money, a better, albeit somewhat more technical recent book on the various interpretations of quantum mechanics is _Quantum Ontology_ by Peter J. Lewis. Although he’s a bit too quick to dismiss the Copenhagen interpretation, in my opinion. For an older, but eminently readable account, there’s always David Albert’s _Quantum Mechanics and Experience_. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/26 "2019-10-31T22:16:22Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And there’s no consensus among physicists about which interpretation is “best”, because the consensus among physicists is that the question of which is “best” is nonsensical to begin with. Because they all make exactly the same predictions. There are, despite great efforts, still some physicists who hold that opinion, but it’s certainly far from a consensus, as evidenced by the copious numbers of papers, books, and talks by physicists arguing that their particular interpretation is the best one. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2019, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/27 "2019-10-31T23:54:10Z")
I’m not familiar with the Gremlin Interpretation, but if it makes different predictions than the others, then whatever it’s an interpretation of, it’s not an interpretation of quantum mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/28 "2019-11-01T00:42:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > All interpretations of quantum mechanics are exactly equivalent, and mathematically proven to be so. Some of them make no reference whatsoever to anything that could be interpreted as relating to “consciousness”. And yet, they make exactly the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation. Thus, if one understands anything in the Copenhagen interpretation to be dependent upon consciousness, then that understanding must be incorrect. > > And there’s no consensus among physicists about which interpretation is “best”, because the consensus among physicists is that the question of which is “best” is nonsensical to begin with. Because they all make exactly the same predictions. It seems that you don’t understand what is meant by interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is shown by the fact fact that you talk about interpretations making predictions. They don’t make predictions. If they did, there wouldn’t be any controversy. I speak as someone who did postgraduate theoretical physics, including a huge amount of quantum mechanics. It was many years ago, certainly, and I’ve forgotten a lot of the details of the mathematics, but I do know something about the subject. You are confusing the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics (which makes predictions) with semantic understanding of the meaning of the mathematics. I suggest you at least read through the [wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics) and understand what we are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/29 "2019-11-01T00:52:22Z")
I think what’s at issue is the difference between a theory’s predictive and explanatory power. All flavours of quantum theory will (I presume) have exquisite predictive power. But some may offer additional unique perspectives or ‘explanations’ that could help guide research directions, or simply be interesting in themselves. ETA: e.g. the many worlds interpretation ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/30 "2019-11-01T03:09:04Z")
> [@Enola\_Straight](#): > > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=644232&highlight=quantum](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=644232&highlight=quantum) > [Heisenberg's microscope - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_microscope) > > _A_ boundary can be illuminated by the following thought experiment: > > A large object like an asteroid can be tracked through space with radar or optical frequencies; light does not deflect it’s trajectory in a meaningful way. > > But the smaller the object, the smaller the wavelength of radiation needed to resolve the imaging process…and smaller wavelengths have higher energies. > > At a certain microscopic level, the object observed has such small mass and the imaging wavelength has so much punch that the object is in fact deflected…resulting in position and momentum having mutual uncertainty. > _But, as stated, don’t rely on the narrative or intuition: the mathematics are there to resolve the system more accurately._ Actually I keep hearing that it’s NOT merely a matter of any possible measuring device being too blunt to not alter what’s it’s measuring; that there really is an inherent uncertainty in pairs of certain values such as position/momentum. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/31 "2019-11-01T04:34:25Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > This is one of the grand questions in Physics. Quantum Mechanics clearly works at the atomic level. It doesn’t seem to apply at the cat level. Which is one of the major points of Schrödinger’s thought experiment. (It’s pointing out a problem with some QM models. Not establishing a fact.) > [@Chronos](#): > > Quantum mechanics _does_ work at the cat level. It’s just that, if you take the laws of quantum mechanics and apply them to a cat, you get results very close to identical to what you’d get from applying classical laws the the cat. Of course quantum mechanics works at the cat level. It’s the only explanation for why cats are so weird. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/32 "2019-11-01T06:48:54Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > I think what’s at issue is the difference between a theory’s predictive and explanatory power. All flavours of quantum theory will (I presume) have exquisite predictive power. But some may offer additional unique perspectives or ‘explanations’ that could help guide research directions, or simply be interesting in themselves. ETA: e.g. the many worlds interpretation There is only ONE quantum theory. There is only one mathematical formulation of it. It makes extremely accurate predictions, and everyone is agreed about the theory itself. There is no dispute about it. If you use the right equations to describe a specific physical system and plug in the right numbers, you will get an answer that exactly matches experiment. But the mathematics predicts some weird results, and we find the same weird results by experiment. (In fact the weird results from experiments gave rise to the theory, which then predicted further weird results, which turned out to be verified by experiment.) The question is what does that mathematics mean in the ‘real world’? How can we understand the nature of reality? Reality seems to be weird at some fundamental level, but how do we understand this weirdness and what implications does it have? Some physicists don’t even want to think about it. “Shut up and calculate.” You do the calculations and you get the right results, so just put your fingers in your ears and forget about what it ‘means’. But there are very different opinions about what it means. What exactly is the ‘wave function’? Is it the probability of getting a certain result? Is it a something physical? Does it imply non-locality? Does it imply many universes? Does it imply that consciousness is a factor? What causes the wave function to collapse? Does it in fact collapse? Is this a physical collapse, or just a mathematical convenience? Etc. There a useful [comparison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison) on the wiki of the major interpretations. Some are deterministic, some are random. Some regard the wave function as a physical reality, some don’t. Some have collapse of the wave function, some don’t. Some mean that the observer has a role, some don’t. Some have a wave function for the whole universe, some don’t. There is no experimental evidence to say which interpretation is correct. They are different ways of understanding the exact same mathematical theory. The question is how that mathematics corresponds with “physical reality”, and what do we mean by “physical reality”? ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/33 "2019-11-01T14:16:02Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Actually I keep hearing that it’s NOT merely a matter of any possible measuring device being too blunt to not alter what’s it’s measuring; that there really is an inherent uncertainty in pairs of certain values such as position/momentum. Is this true? Or is it that there exists no way to take a measurement with a fundamental particle, that doesn’t interact with it? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/34 "2019-11-01T14:34:24Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Is this true? Or is it that there exists no way to take a measurement with a fundamental particle, that doesn’t interact with it? [Here’s one explanation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.](https://www.britannica.com/science/uncertainty-principle) It’s not the same thing as the measurement affecting what you measure. I can’t explain this stuff but the various explanations boil down to this, random things will happen when particles interact. > [@](#): > > Every particle has a wave associated with it; each particle actually exhibits wavelike behaviour. The particle is most likely to be found in those places where the undulations of the wave are greatest, or most intense. The more intense the undulations of the associated wave become, however, the more ill defined becomes the wavelength, which in turn determines the momentum of the particle. So a strictly localized wave has an indeterminate wavelength; its associated particle, while having a definite position, has no certain velocity. A particle wave having a well-defined wavelength, on the other hand, is spread out; the associated particle, while having a rather precise velocity, may be almost anywhere. A quite accurate measurement of one observable involves a relatively large uncertainty in the measurement of the other. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/35 "2019-11-01T14:42:26Z")
As a very minor dilletante who suffered long with popular misconceptions about QM from reading pop-science books and watching 10-minute YouTube videos, I want to clear up one thing which I only found 10 answers deep in a closed (of course) Stack Exchange question: There’s a misconception that there is something special about conciousness or the act of measurement in collapsing a wave function. It isn’t “measurement” per se that collapses the wave function, it’s interaction with ANY particle (at least the basic ones - someone fill me in if it’s universal). There is nothing special about the particles in the cell of a retina, a particle detector, or anything else. A dog’s turd does as much to create our physical universe as we do. Now I’ll just sit back and wait for someone to quote my post and begin their reply with “Actually,…” ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/36 "2019-11-01T15:17:19Z")
Thanks, **TriPolar.** I couldn’t remember if such a thing was an intrinsic aspect to nature, or that there’s simply no way to measure something so fundamental without poking it and collapsing its function. Or is that a difference without a distinction? ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/37 "2019-11-01T16:59:29Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > As a very minor dilletante who suffered long with popular misconceptions about QM from reading pop-science books and watching 10-minute YouTube videos, I want to clear up one thing which I only found 10 answers deep in a closed (of course) Stack Exchange question: There’s a misconception that there is something special about conciousness or the act of measurement in collapsing a wave function. It isn’t “measurement” per se that collapses the wave function, it’s interaction with ANY particle (at least the basic ones - someone fill me in if it’s universal). There is nothing special about the particles in the cell of a retina, a particle detector, or anything else. A dog’s turd does as much to create our physical universe as we do. Now I’ll just sit back and wait for someone to quote my post and begin their reply with “Actually,…” Actually… 🙂 … if it was as simple as all that, some of the most brilliant minds in the world wouldn’t have spent decades over the question… only for it not to be resolved yet… Only some interpretations of QM involve wave function collapse in the first place. Only some interpretations have a role for the observer. See the columns ‘Collapsing wave functions?’ and ‘Observer role?’ [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison). Also see [Measurement problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem) [Wave function collapse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse) > [@](#): > > The cluster of phenomena described by the expression _wave function collapse_ is a fundamental problem in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and is known as the measurement problem. > > The problem is deflected by the Copenhagen Interpretation, which postulates that this is a special characteristic of the “measurement” process. Everett’s many-worlds interpretation deals with it by discarding the collapse-process… > > Originating from de Broglie–Bohm theory, but no longer tied to it, is the physical process of decoherence, which causes an _apparent_ collapse. Decoherence is also important for the consistent histories interpretation. … > > The significance ascribed to the wave function varies from interpretation to interpretation, and varies even within an interpretation (such as the Copenhagen Interpretation). … > > If the wave function is physically real, in some sense and to some extent, then the collapse of the wave function is also seen as a real process, to the same extent. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/38 "2019-11-01T17:14:51Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Thanks, **TriPolar.** I couldn’t remember if such a thing was an intrinsic aspect to nature, or that there’s simply no way to measure something so fundamental without poking it and collapsing its function. > > Or is that a difference without a distinction? You’re asking the wrong person about this. If I have it right, there is a difference between the [Observer Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics))and the [Uncertainty Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle). Hopefully someone who knows what they are talking about will clarify all this. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/39 "2019-11-01T17:22:02Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Actually… 🙂 > > … if it was as simple as all that, some of the most brilliant minds in the world wouldn’t have spent decades over the question… only for it not to be resolved yet… > > Only some interpretations of QM involve wave function collapse in the first place. Only some interpretations have a role for the observer. See the columns ‘Collapsing wave functions?’ and ‘Observer role?’ [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison). > > Also see > > [Measurement problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem) > [Wave function collapse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse) I wasn’t sure whether wave function collapse was the best term to use but my main point is correct, no? ---
**Author:** ![pigtwo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pigtwo/32/18234_2.png) [@pigtwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pigtwo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693/40 "2019-11-01T18:10:39Z")
I don’t see how or why consciousnesses would have anything to do with QM. What defines consciousnesses? It seems silly to say ‘The observer has to be conscious to collapse the wave function. What is consciousnesses? I don’t know.’ So the thought experiment for this I came up with is: Say we get a machine that can run the double slit experiment all by itself. It does this in a completely sealed box except for one light it can turn on on the outside. When it sees an interference pattern it turns on an light outside the box. Will it ever turn on the light? For it to see the interference pattern the wave function must collapse each photon to a single location. But if no ‘conscious’(IE humans/dogs/cats/bugs) can observe it and the wave function only collapses on conscious observers then it will never turn on the light as the wave functions will never collapse. Given this experiment hasn’t been done(to my knowledge) there is probably some problem with it. But I’d be curious to know why or why not this could prove a conscious observer is required. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-physics-when-i-am-asleep/842693.md?page=3)