Luc Turpin

Thanks for all of this. It is much more than I expected. I get the some-most of it, but have to read and re-read to fully understand. I will try and get my hands on the Wilczek book. Finally, If the above statement is still valid, this is still magic to a neophyte like me. Also, zero-point energy, non-locality, tunneling etc. (if I understand correctly) are, as well, magic to someone like me.

Yes! Also understood your explanation removing the “magic”.

Where is consciousness in the brain; no yet found it. Also, Penrose and Radin, for example, still play the game. By the way, I am very grateful of being able to have such conversations; i know that I am a bit off the beat and espouse radical ideas; but thanks all of you very much!

I was once one of them that misinterpreted words like the observer effect to be just that; this showed my weak science background in QM; however, I am still puzzled by the Roger Penrose, von Neumann, Wigner, Wheeler, Stapp and Kafatos of the world who espouse such aspect of the theory. Founder of the theory (Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Plank, JOrdan, Pauli and Dirac) also seemed to edge their bets toward a role of consciousness in QM. Also, Studiot's text provided above says: “By observing the world, we participate in making it”. I am unaware of the author's name And, finally, Dean Rarin’s five signa experimentation, although “quirky”, seems to show a very weak effect of consciousness in the double-slit experiment. If this line of experimentation pans out and I am not sure it will, then the question remains open.

Wish to continue our conversation. I am confused, because some see a role for consciousness in quantum mechanics and I see none.

Thank you all! I now have the answer

Swantsont indicated that there can’t be a pattern without the data. If you destroy the data, you have no pattern. But that has nothing to do with the wave function. The wave function collapses as soon as you detect the photon or electron. My response, only the data from the detector is destroyed after measurement, not the overall data from the experiment (e.g. photons going through slits and landing on back-plate remains intact)

I was having difficulty posting on the thread. Here is my response to comments received earlier for my original post: I am not sure that I obtained an answer to my question! Here is a different take on it! Again, in the double-slit experiment, if a detector just interacts with photon(s) or electron(s) going through either slits and does nothing else (e.g. does not keep nor share any information afterward), do we get an interference pattern on the back-plate? I am aware that if you physically ‘unplug’ a detector still placed between the slit-screen and back-plate, one does get an interference pattern! But an “unplugged” detector does not interact with photons or electrons! Right? So, what about a “plugged” detector that solely interacts with photons or electrons and then immediately destroys the information after the interaction without sharing any of it with an observer! Does this create an interference pattern? What I am driving at is who or what is collapsing the wave-function? The detector? The observer? Both? All of this might have a bearing on consciousness and the Observer Effect. Also, I would like to mention that Genady responded to an earlier version of this text in the following manner: “No it does not”. To this I would respond, has this been tested out in an experiment? To Studiot I do not know how to paste your last comment like others do, so I am responding in the best way that I can. You indicated in your last post, the following: Please let us know if you understand what a differential equation is. My answer: I have a very vague appreciation of what a differential equation is. Also, read with great interest the text that you provided. Two sections piqued my interest: 1. “……between an independent behavior of the objects and their interaction with the measuring instruments.” Bohr implies that the interaction is with the instruments (detector) and does not mention the observer. 2. “By observing the world, we participate in making it”. While this by the author implies that the observer is involved, This is essentially what I am trying to comprehend. I believe, maybe wrongfully, that if we can have an interference pattern coming out of a two-slit experiment when the detector is “on”, but not releasing any information, that this might have a bearing on “The Observer Effect”. It might help us delineate where the line is drawn. See diagram below.

Thank you! I will investigate entanglement with a system in a mixed state

In the double-slit experiment, what collapses the wave-function? The act of measurement? The information obtained from the measurement? Or the observer contemplating the information obtained from the measurement? The first is physical, the second informational and the third attributable to consciousness.