It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The idea of consciousness being involved in quantum mechanics dates back to Von Neumann in the 1930s, but the idea was more recently popularized by Wigner. However people citing Wigner may not realize he dropped this opinion in his final years:
It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer's consciousness.
The paper goes on to cite heated debates about the subject of consciousness in quantum mechanics that span decades, and notes that:
Wigner popularized this link between consciousness and collapse of wave function passionately (Esfeld, 1999). Wigner suggested that “It is the entering of an impression into our consciousness which alters the wave function.” and “It is at this point that consciousness enters the theory unavoidably and unalterably.”(cited from Shimony, 1963). Importantly, however, Wigner dropped this opinion completely at his final years (Esfeld, 1999).
Since philosophy wouldn't ever resolve this question, an empirical approach was needed:
Many of them address this issue from the philosophical point of view. Although they went to deep and interesting levels and brought up exciting ideas about fundamental aspects of the relationship between the mind and the physical world, those profound analyses failed to reach a simple and clear conclusion that would be widely accepted.
In the present paper, we do not aim to provide another philosophical argument. Instead, we attempt to address this issue from an empirical perspective. We reformulate von Neumann’s hypothesis as an empirically testable problem. We then attempt to falsify the hypothesis on the basis of the existing empirical evidence, as already suggested elsewhere (Mandel, 1999; Zeilinger, 1999a; Brukner and Zeilinger, 2002).
The analysis in the paper is a bit technical, but for a simplified explanation see the video below which explains the experimental results in layman terms and the implications for consciousness.
We first derived a proposition about the relationship between the collapse of thewave function and conscious perception. Our subsequent analysis lead to the conclusion that this proposition is already disproved by the existing empirical results, which forces us to conclude tentatively the following: Conscious access to the information about the outcome of a measurement of a quantum state is not necessary for the collapse of wave function– –conclusion similar to those suggested else- where (Mandel, 1999; Zeilinger, 1999a; Brukner and Zeilinger, 2002).
What seems odd is that some people try to cite the quantum eraser experiment as proof that consciousness is needed in quantum mechanics but it actually shows the opposite, that it's not. That's ok, you can have other reasons to feel special about yourself, without the need to feel that the universe revolves around you because of your consciousness.
In this video I'll explain the basics of the quantum eraser experiment and then explain what it means. If you want to understand the full experimental set up, check out my previous video: youtu.be...
So we do see "particle-like" behavior, but even this is the result of the wave function.
The aim of this set of experiments (Ref. 5) is similar to that of the Wheeler Delayed-Choice Experiment in that if one assumes the existence of particles, then one gets into causality (and locality) troubles. Before explaining the experiments, we should reiterate that there is No Evidence for Particles; all the particle-like properties of matter can be shown to be properties of the wave function. So our view is that, as in the Wheeler delayed-choice experiment, one is using an unsupported idea—particles—to derive seemingly surprising results.
It took me a while to figure out that when physicists say "particle" or "particle-like" they are not necessarily inferring marble like objects though this is the impression one might get from seeing sources over-simplified for popular consumption. Quantum mechanics has the wave function at its heart and the key to understanding the quantum eraser is to stop thinking of "particles" as little marbles, and start thinking of them as manifestations of the wave function. The sooner you realize that a photon has very little in common with a small marble, the faster you'll be able to grasp interpretations of quantum experiments using the wave function.
If one postulates particles, and if one requires that each particle be in a definite state at each instant, then experiment 3 seems to require action-at-a-distance between the two particles. And experiment 4 seems to require retroactive action-at-a-distance. But if one postulates no-particle quantum physics, the experiments simply verify the correlations predicted by quantum physics between the two entangled photon-like wave functions.
In conclusion, the available evidence does not indicate that the observer’s explicit phenomenal representation about the outcome of a measurement plays a role in collapsing the wave function. We also suggest that the observer does not serve a more fundamental function in quantum mechanics than that in the classical theory. Thus, the idea that by mere observation the experimenter creates physical reality is not viable. This supports Wigner’s opinion in his later years and promises to fulfill his hopes– –that we “will not embrace solipsism” and “will let us admit that the world really exists” (cited from Primas and Esfeld, 1997).
originally posted by: stormcell
There was a experiment some time ago, where people though they could control the automatic detection of cosmic rays. Either the rate of detection would increase or decrease simply because they believed it would happen.
I've seen nothing scientific about the work done by Walter Russell, but if you have any scientific papers instead of a youtube video, I'll take a look.
originally posted by: starswift
A better theory, Russelian Science.
a reply to: Arbitrageur
The example I use is that you can put a video camera in the box along with Schrodinger's cat and the decay-activated poison.
originally posted by: Kukri
So would conscious awareness of a quantum state have an effect on that state? or inversely would the quantum state have an effect on ones awareness of that state?
She fell into the trap I mentioned right after that video of thinking the particles must behave as particles, but as the explanation which follows the video states, quantum mechanics explains this via the wave functions.
originally posted by: hknudzkknexnt
even at the end of the video they disproved there own explanation... seeing that things can be contradictory I would say its safe to say that your statement can and most likely is wrong
Use a simpler analogy, classical Newtonian physics and Relativity. We are pretty sure that many aspects of relativity are experimentally verified, yet, you still find many engineers everywhere making calculations of non-relativistic velocities based on classical newtonian mechanics. Why? Because even though relativity gives what we know to be truer results, the differences are irrelevant in in non-relativistic applications. (We have to account for the differences in some cases like GPS and the LHC).
originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I dont know why you so desire to say; "consciousness doesnt require quantum mechanics"
If quantum mechanics is the fundamental basis of reality; Everything requires quantum mechanics.