Effect of human perception on observer phenomena

[neutrinosalad]

 

So I was watching this video in an attempt to learn more about quantum mechanics.

 

One thing that I have noticed in this one and in other videos is that they bring up the fact that during experiments the introduction and removal of observers affected the behavior of the electrons in the double slit experiment.

 

What I have been pondering is that if we accept that we are not fully capable of properly perceiving the behavior of electrons due to our brains being wired to perceive reality on the scale that we currently live in, could it be possible that are brains are subconsciously interpreting data differently with the knowledge that we have introduced and removed an observer?

 

What I am trying to get at here is that is it possible that the behavior of electrons does not change with the introduction and removal of an observer, but out perception of how the electrons behave did?

[Klaynos]

By observer we do not necessarily mean a human observer or even a conscious observer. We mean measurement, that doesn't even have to be a measurement with a known result but if the interaction has the capacity to measure then they counts as an observer.

[neutrinosalad]

By observer we do not necessarily mean a human observer or even a conscious observer. We mean measurement, that doesn't even have to be a measurement with a known result but if the interaction has the capacity to measure then they counts as an observer.

 

I agree that an observer could be a human or a camera or anything that has the capacity to measure.

 

Without an observer, we recognize that the electrons appear to move in a probabilistic wave like manner, which is unintuitive to the human perception of reality.

 

When an observer is introduced, like a camera, the electrons move through the double slits in a manner which is intuitive to the human perception of reality.

 

What I am wondering is, could it be possible that the electrons behavior is actually the same in both cases (with an observer, without an observer) and the thing that really changes is how we perceive the data that has been collected?

[swansont]

I agree that an observer could be a human or a camera or anything that has the capacity to measure.

 

Without an observer, we recognize that the electrons appear to move in a probabilistic wave like manner, which is unintuitive to the human perception of reality.

 

When an observer is introduced, like a camera, the electrons move through the double slits in a manner which is intuitive to the human perception of reality.

 

What I am wondering is, could it be possible that the electrons behavior is actually the same in both cases (with an observer, without an observer) and the thing that really changes is how we perceive the data that has been collected?

How do you perceive a number differently?

[neutrinosalad]

How do you perceive a number differently?

 

I am not sure. Maybe I was getting to abstract in my thinking.

 

What I was imagining is that our brains would somehow subconsciously auto-correct the data set to align with a more intuitive understanding of how electrons behave when we consciously knew that there was something watching the electrons pass through the slits.

 

Thinking about it, it does not make too much sense. I was just having trouble picking apart how an observer could alter the behavior of electrons since it would make more sense (to me personally) that electrons would behave independently of the effects of observation.

[StringJunky]

 

... I was just having trouble picking apart how an observer could alter the behavior of electrons since it would make more sense (to me personally) that electrons would behave independently of the effects of observation.

If you observe, with photons say, you are most likely altering the electrons energy and hence their measured behaviour.

[swansont]

If you observe, with photons say, you are most likely altering the electrons energy and hence their measured behaviour.

That's the measurement effect, and is distinct from other phenomena.

[Klaynos]

Physics works by comparing mathematical models to numerical measurements. How consistent (other numbers) is not dependent on what a human thinks about them.

[geordief]

Sorry I need to think about that post (which I have deleted) again

Edited January 1, 2016 by geordief

[Kevin121569]

How do you perceive a number differently?

 

 

So I was watching this video in an attempt to learn more about quantum mechanics.

 

One thing that I have noticed in this one and in other videos is that they bring up the fact that during experiments the introduction and removal of observers affected the behavior of the electrons in the double slit experiment.

 

What I have been pondering is that if we accept that we are not fully capable of properly perceiving the behavior of electrons due to our brains being wired to perceive reality on the scale that we currently live in, could it be possible that are brains are subconsciously interpreting data differently with the knowledge that we have introduced and removed an observer?

 

What I am trying to get at here is that is it possible that the behavior of electrons does not change with the introduction and removal of an observer, but out perception of how the electrons behave did?

I'm not a Scientist, Engineer, or Physicist. I am very intrigued by this subject however. I always wondered what could be if space ends. I have come to a conclusion which may relate to this topic. Again I didn't arrive at this hypothesis by mathematical computation. So here is my hypothesis. If our universe ends that means whatever is outside the universe is void of all matter and energy. It's a dark, silent, formless infinity. However if we were to travel there and enter that space we would, in theory, expand our universe as we are made of matter and, therefore, the laws of physics would suddenly apply to that space that was previously devoid of any physical law. In the act of observing, we are involved in that space which alters that environment in much the same way we would alter space outside our universe by entering it.

 

[KipIngram]

I ran across some really nice papers on quantum information theory that presented wave function collapse as a very natural outcome. There were several papers by the same author - I can't remember right now which one seemed the "tightest," but this one will get you started:

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605039v2.pdf

 

From there look for other papers by the same authors.

 

I really think the information theory guys are onto something.

[AbnormallyHonest]

 

I am not sure. Maybe I was getting to abstract in my thinking.

 

What I was imagining is that our brains would somehow subconsciously auto-correct the data set to align with a more intuitive understanding of how electrons behave when we consciously knew that there was something watching the electrons pass through the slits.

 

Thinking about it, it does not make too much sense. I was just having trouble picking apart how an observer could alter the behavior of electrons since it would make more sense (to me personally) that electrons would behave independently of the effects of observation.

 

Because the light is actually just the potential of the photon to to be anywhere it could be. The probability of this is equal for all possibilities. Measurement creates an imbalance in the probability that it has traveled along one specific possibility. In order for it to be perceived at that point, it would stand to reason that it must've also had to travel along every point to get there... specifically. So measurement effects the distribution of probability to create a specific possibility more probable. (Actually, it's the act of recording the information somewhere else, because if you measure it, but do not record any information, it does collapse the waveform.)

[Strange]

 

Because the light is actually just the potential of the photon to to be anywhere it could be. The probability of this is equal for all possibilities. Measurement creates an imbalance in the probability that it has traveled along one specific possibility. In order for it to be perceived at that point, it would stand to reason that it must've also had to travel along every point to get there... specifically. So measurement effects the distribution of probability to create a specific possibility more probable. (Actually, it's the act of recording the information somewhere else, because if you measure it, but do not record any information, it does collapse the waveform.)

 

 

Please stop posting ignorant crap.

[Itoero]

What I have been pondering is that if we accept that we are not fully capable of properly perceiving the behavior of electrons due to our brains being wired to perceive reality on the scale that we currently live in, could it be possible that are brains are subconsciously interpreting data differently with the knowledge that we have introduced and removed an observer?

This idea Brian Greene mentioned in this video:

Around 31:40, he points out that we evolved to deal with a world governed by Newtonian dynamics.

 

In this thread Delta1212 explains pretty clear the effect of measuring (by detectors)

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102278-can-you-make-light-that-behaves-as-particle/

 

"

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:36 PM

 

Roughly, photons interact as particles, but travel between interactions as waves. That's overly simplified, but I think it works for the sake of this example.

 

The double-slit experiment allows us to observe the wave behavior of individual photons by allowing them to interfere with themselves on their way to being detected as if they were a wave passing through both of the slits. This affects where the final interaction takes place on the screen at the end.

 

By placing a detector, you are creating an interaction at one of the slits. It's no longer a wave with a double slit between it and the screen it will eventually hit and interact with. It's a wave traveling to the slits where it interacts with the detector and then sends out a new wave from that point which has a clear path from the slit it passed through to the screen, so no interference pattern.

 

If you place a detector at the beginning of the experiment, the wave will travel to the detector, interact with the detector and then propagate again as a wave with the detector as a starting point. If there is a double slit after the detector, then you'll get the interference pattern exactly as normal. If you don't have the double slits in between, then you won't get the interference pattern. Obviously. "

Edited April 20, 2017 by Itoero

[koti]

If you observe, with photons say, you are most likely altering the electrons energy and hence their measured behaviour.

That's the measurement effect, and is distinct from other phenomena.

I was always convinced that the act of measurement which has to involve applying some kind of energy to the observable object is the whole idea behind altering the state of that object. Surely perception/consciousness/qualia cannot have anything to do with the act of observing or am I missing something here?

Edited April 20, 2017 by koti

[swansont]

 

I was always convinced that the act of measurement which has to involve applying some kind of energy to the observable object is the whole idea behind altering the state of that object. Surely perception/consciousness/qualia cannot have anything to do with the act of observing ?

 

 

You have to detect something, which will have energy, in order to observe. So yes, it involves energy. I've never seen any convincing argument that consciousness has to be involved, though many insist that this is the case.

 

Mainly I was trying to head off any confusion of the measurement affecting the electron state and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which are often substituted for each other but are distinct.

[koti]

 

 

You have to detect something, which will have energy, in order to observe. So yes, it involves energy. I've never seen any convincing argument that consciousness has to be involved, though many insist that this is the case.

 

Mainly I was trying to head off any confusion of the measurement affecting the electron state and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which are often substituted for each other but are distinct.

 

The act of observing anything with any method has to involve emitting and/or receiving energy or radiation and that causes the change in particle state right?

My unscientific opinion is that the idea that consciousness is somehow involved is mumbo jumbo.

[swansont]

 

The act of observing anything with any method has to involve emitting and/or receiving energy or radiation and that causes the change in particle state right?

 

 

Yes, but that change can be quite small. A visible photon absorbed and re-emitted from an atom in a gas can change its speed by a cm/sec or something of that order, typically. Not a big change at room temperature.

[koti]

 

 

Yes, but that change can be quite small. A visible photon absorbed and re-emitted from an atom in a gas can change its speed by a cm/sec or something of that order, typically. Not a big change at room temperature.

 

Not much to see using just one photon though.

[KipIngram]

koti: "My unscientific opinion is that the idea that consciousness is somehow involved is mumbo jumbo."

 

As far as I've been able to tell from my reading the consciousness crowd's argument runs something like this:

 

1) In describing a quantum measurement, you need to draw a line between "the observed" and "the observer." Then you treat the internal evolution of "the observed" using Schrodinger's equation, and when "the observer" extracts a piece of information from "the observed" you say that collapse has occurred.

 

2) Someone (von Neumann?) showed that you can draw that line anywhere; you just wind up with a more-or-less complex system to evolve with Schrodinger's equation. But you always wind up with the same basic outcome (accounting for your different definitions of observed and observer, of course) when whatever's left outside finally observes and the wave function collapses.

 

3) Then someone pointed out that you could move everything physical inside the boundary. So now you have the entire universe evolving via Schrodinger's equation. So what's left to be the observer?

 

All of the various interpretations of quantum theory come from one way or another of resolving this quandary. You can either 1) assume that there's something else called "consciousness" which is inherently non-physical and thus always outside the cut, no matter where you place it, or 2) propose that no such thing as collapse ever occurs and everything remains a quantum superposition forever (this is basically Many Worlds).

 

Usually combined with #2 is the notion that decoherence with the environment produces effects that "look" like collapse, in order to explain why everyone in every part of the superposition would perceive something that looked like collapse. I also so a pretty good quantum information paper that gave a really good presentation of how by the time a quantum system has become entangled with a many-particle instrument and that has become further entangled with "the environment" you wind up with a "collapse looking" result. This one, I think:

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9605039v2.pdf

 

But yeah, invoking consciousness is invoking something completely outside our theories of physics, and I guess that's as good a definition of "mumbo jumbo" as anything.