Lexovix Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 Hey there! I have two questions regarding the Double Slit Experiment and the Wave Function Collapse. How effective does a measuring device have to be to cause a collapse? As in, say that every second the device has a 50% chance to turn off or on for one second, does the collapse still occur when the device has shutoff? Similarly, suppose an observer has been awake for a few days and perhaps even on a drug trip that is rendering them in and out of consciousness, is there a threshold in which the observation does not occur? Thank you for your time! <3 Phillip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 Any efficiency. If you detect the photon, you can say the wave function has collapsed. If you don't detect the photon it still has an undetermined path. Observation does not require a conscious being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SergUpstart Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 5 hours ago, Lexovix said: Similarly, suppose an observer has been awake for a few days and perhaps even on a drug trip that is rendering them in and out of consciousness, is there a threshold in which the observation does not occur? The observer is another particle with which the photon interacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halc Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 The 'device' can be the far wall on which the interference pattern appears, which isn't something that can be 'turned on and off' 50% of the time. Perhaps you have a specific device in mind that can meaningfully be turned on and off, and thus allowing a more specific answer. And yes, there being a human involved anywhere or not makes no difference. The vast majority of quantum measurements/collapses take place without any human being immediately aware of them. This is true even with experiments set up in labs by humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexovix Posted March 31, 2021 Author Share Posted March 31, 2021 4 minutes ago, Halc said: The 'device' can be the far wall on which the interference pattern appears, which isn't something that can be 'turned on and off' 50% of the time. Perhaps you have a specific device in mind that can meaningfully be turned on and off, and thus allowing a more specific answer. And yes, there being a human involved anywhere or not makes no difference. The vast majority of quantum measurements/collapses take place without any human being immediately aware of them. This is true even with experiments set up in labs by humans. I only have a very basic understanding of the mechanics involved, mostly from a simplified introductory level youtube clip, Dr Quantum. So I was thinking the device was along the lines of an electron microscope or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 The quantum mechanical concepts are independent of the devices used; in general this is the same as assuming devices with 100% fidelity. A real detector will have limitations, and this has implications on how to carry out an experiment and/or analyze data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halc Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 54 minutes ago, Lexovix said: I only have a very basic understanding of the mechanics involved, mostly from a simplified introductory level youtube clip, Dr Quantum. So I was thinking the device was along the lines of an electron microscope or something. Great. A cartoon eye. No, an electron microscope can only see things sitting still since it works effectively by touch, not light as implied by the eye. What they're probably detecting for electrons is some kind of charge detector like is used by a ground-fault detector in your bathroom outlet. Not sure if you can turn it on and off since it is a passive device. If the device takes no measurement (has no effect on the electron) 50% of the time, then 50% of the time the electron will reach the target with a simple pattern and the other times with an interference pattern. If the electrons are coming continuously, you'd see the pattern change from one to the other as the sensing device is function or not for whole seconds at a time. If they're using photons, I know a diagonal polarizing filter at the slits is enough to eliminate the interference pattern. You can't turn a polarizing filter on and off either, unless there is some really weird gadget that does this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 1 hour ago, Halc said: If the device takes no measurement (has no effect on the electron) 50% of the time, then 50% of the time the electron will reach the target with a simple pattern and the other times with an interference pattern. If the electrons are coming continuously, you'd see the pattern change from one to the other as the sensing device is function or not for whole seconds at a time. Except you wouldn't, because you aren't seeing anything while the detector was off, so there's no way to see the pattern during that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Reza Sanaye Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 Measurement Probematic cannot be very easily explained away. It cannot be denied , NOR can it possibly be exaggerated\over-emphasized . . . I have ventured to google a bit : An analysis has been performed of the theories and postulates advanced by von Neumann, London and Bauer, and Wigner, concerning the role that consciousness might play in the collapse of the wave function, which has become known as the measurement problem. This reveals that an error may have been made by them in the area of biology and its interface with quantum mechanics when they called for the reduction of any superposition states in the brain through the mind or consciousness. Many years later Wigner changed his mind to reflect a simpler and more realistic objective position which appears to offer a way to resolve this issue. The argument is therefore made that the wave function of any superposed photon state or states is always objectively and stochastically changed within the complex architecture of the eye in a continuous linear process initially for most of the superposed photons, followed by a discontinuous nonlinear collapse process later for any remaining superposed photons, thereby guaranteeing that only final, measured information is presented to the brain, mind or consciousness. An experiment to be conducted in the near future may enable us to simultaneously resolve the measurement problem and also determine if the linear nature of quantum mechanics is violated by the perceptual process. Keywords Consciousness Euglena Linear Measurement problem Nonlinear Objective Retina Rhodopsin molecule Subjective Wave function collapse Link : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303264705000237 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now