Very interesting. I may have missed something, but it sounded like Penrose was thinking it had to be a physical/human observer? If so, that doesn’t m necessarily have to be the case does it? Is it possible that an omnipresent consciousness might have the same effect? Just a thought.
That reminds me of a famous limerick written by Ronald Cox addressing Bishop Berkeley's philosophical principle that "to be is to be perceived." The title is "God in the Quad." It goes like this:
There was a young man who said, "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."
But the Wigner interpretation of quantum physics assumes a living observer who is part of our spacetime universe. And I suppose if God’s perception were sufficient to collapse the wave function, then it would always collapse instantly since God is all-seeing.
Now I’m officially far beyond my pay grade here so I may be miles out. Has anyone ever seen an uncollapsed wave function? If not, then how would we know whether it was always collapsed or not? Asking for an invisible friend…..
The idea of wave function collapse derives from the famous double-slit experiments, which show that light behaves like a wave in some circumstances and like discrete particles in other circumstances. The experiments themselves are well established, but their interpretation remains controversial.
He could choose to delay his observation. I asked ChatGPT to explain the delayed choice experiment. Here’s what it generated:
The delayed choice experiment, first proposed by physicist John Archibald Wheeler, is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics that explores the strange and counterintuitive nature of quantum observation and measurement. It is based on the classic double-slit experiment but adds a twist: the experimenter decides whether to observe the system or not *after* the particle has already entered the experimental setup.
The Original Double-Slit Experiment
In the double-slit experiment, particles (such as electrons or photons) are fired one by one at a screen with two slits. If the particles are not observed, they behave like waves and create an interference pattern on a detector, as though each particle passed through both slits simultaneously. However, if the particles are observed (for example, by placing a detector at the slits to determine which slit each particle goes through), the wave-like behavior disappears, and the particles behave like classical particles, going through one slit or the other and forming two distinct bands on the detector.
Delayed Choice Experiment
Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment builds on this by asking: What happens if the decision to observe or not is made *after* the particle has passed through the slits? In this setup, the particle’s behavior (wave-like or particle-like) would seem to depend on a measurement made after the particle has already passed the point where it “decided” to behave as a wave or particle.
How It Works:
1. Setup: A particle is fired toward a double-slit apparatus. In the standard double-slit experiment, a detector could be placed near the slits to determine which slit the particle goes through (particle behavior), or the detector could be absent, allowing an interference pattern to form (wave behavior).
2. Delayed Choice: The experiment is arranged so that the decision to either measure the particle’s path or not is made after the particle has passed through the slits, but before it hits the detector screen.
3. Results: If an experimenter decides to measure which slit the particle went through (even after the particle has passed through), it behaves as a particle, and no interference pattern is seen. If the decision is made not to observe which path the particle took, an interference pattern appears, as if the particle behaved like a wave and passed through both slits.
Implications
The delayed choice experiment suggests that the particle’s behavior (whether it acts like a particle or a wave) is influenced by a measurement made after it has traveled through the slits. This challenges our classical intuition about cause and effect. In quantum mechanics, it appears as though the particle “decides” how to behave (as a particle or a wave) based on the future action of the experimenter.
This reinforces the idea that quantum systems are not in definite states until they are measured and that the act of observation plays a fundamental role in determining the outcome. It also raises deep questions about the nature of reality, causality, and time in the quantum world.
Very interesting. I may have missed something, but it sounded like Penrose was thinking it had to be a physical/human observer? If so, that doesn’t m necessarily have to be the case does it? Is it possible that an omnipresent consciousness might have the same effect? Just a thought.
That reminds me of a famous limerick written by Ronald Cox addressing Bishop Berkeley's philosophical principle that "to be is to be perceived." The title is "God in the Quad." It goes like this:
There was a young man who said, "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."
But the Wigner interpretation of quantum physics assumes a living observer who is part of our spacetime universe. And I suppose if God’s perception were sufficient to collapse the wave function, then it would always collapse instantly since God is all-seeing.
Ha very good!
Now I’m officially far beyond my pay grade here so I may be miles out. Has anyone ever seen an uncollapsed wave function? If not, then how would we know whether it was always collapsed or not? Asking for an invisible friend…..
The idea of wave function collapse derives from the famous double-slit experiments, which show that light behaves like a wave in some circumstances and like discrete particles in other circumstances. The experiments themselves are well established, but their interpretation remains controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
See the section titled "Interpretations of the experiment" in the Wikipedia article for alternative interpretations of the data.
….also….. could this friend choose whether to observe or not…😄
He could choose to delay his observation. I asked ChatGPT to explain the delayed choice experiment. Here’s what it generated:
The delayed choice experiment, first proposed by physicist John Archibald Wheeler, is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics that explores the strange and counterintuitive nature of quantum observation and measurement. It is based on the classic double-slit experiment but adds a twist: the experimenter decides whether to observe the system or not *after* the particle has already entered the experimental setup.
The Original Double-Slit Experiment
In the double-slit experiment, particles (such as electrons or photons) are fired one by one at a screen with two slits. If the particles are not observed, they behave like waves and create an interference pattern on a detector, as though each particle passed through both slits simultaneously. However, if the particles are observed (for example, by placing a detector at the slits to determine which slit each particle goes through), the wave-like behavior disappears, and the particles behave like classical particles, going through one slit or the other and forming two distinct bands on the detector.
Delayed Choice Experiment
Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment builds on this by asking: What happens if the decision to observe or not is made *after* the particle has passed through the slits? In this setup, the particle’s behavior (wave-like or particle-like) would seem to depend on a measurement made after the particle has already passed the point where it “decided” to behave as a wave or particle.
How It Works:
1. Setup: A particle is fired toward a double-slit apparatus. In the standard double-slit experiment, a detector could be placed near the slits to determine which slit the particle goes through (particle behavior), or the detector could be absent, allowing an interference pattern to form (wave behavior).
2. Delayed Choice: The experiment is arranged so that the decision to either measure the particle’s path or not is made after the particle has passed through the slits, but before it hits the detector screen.
3. Results: If an experimenter decides to measure which slit the particle went through (even after the particle has passed through), it behaves as a particle, and no interference pattern is seen. If the decision is made not to observe which path the particle took, an interference pattern appears, as if the particle behaved like a wave and passed through both slits.
Implications
The delayed choice experiment suggests that the particle’s behavior (whether it acts like a particle or a wave) is influenced by a measurement made after it has traveled through the slits. This challenges our classical intuition about cause and effect. In quantum mechanics, it appears as though the particle “decides” how to behave (as a particle or a wave) based on the future action of the experimenter.
This reinforces the idea that quantum systems are not in definite states until they are measured and that the act of observation plays a fundamental role in determining the outcome. It also raises deep questions about the nature of reality, causality, and time in the quantum world.