Copenhagen

A natural philosopher is someone who thinks about physics with insufficient mathematical knowledge to know whether their theories are provable or not. I didn't think I was offfering a circular word argument. I was changing the order of things. Change happening due to observation indicates the observation came first, observation being possible due to change implies the change occurs first. Of course I don't have the maths for this, I didn't realise it was necessary, but maybe you could help me out and explain if this is wrong.

Hi I'm no scientist, just a natural philosopher who has had a nose around Wikipedia's entry on the Copenhage Interpretation and thinks he's come up with a solution to the quantum theory problem that wave functions collapse when observed. What I'd like to propose is that wave functions do not collapse when observed, but that it is the event of their collapse (or change of state) (through interacting with a photon (or whatever)) makes the collapsed state observable. After all this is what happens in the 'real' world. We don't really see things, we see things after they have been excited by photons and changed their state. We observe the release of energy. Turn off the light and things are not visible. If someone has proposed this before, then that's fine, but I can't find any evidence of it. If they have then why is it not a realistic solution, or why is it not on Wikipedia? As far as I can see this means that there is no need for the Copenhagen interpretation, plus it explains why we don't see dark matter. It doesn't change its state. In fact I'd go further and propose this as Ansell's Law: Nothing can be observed unless there has been a change of state with a release of energy from another thing to create the thing that is observed. Please celebrate my different thinking or shoot me down in flames.