How could quantum effects occur in the early universe without an observer?
In inflanatory cosmology, primordial quantum fluctuations in the process of inflation are considered responsible for the asymmetry and lumpiness of the universe that was shaped. However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; before observation, the quantum state is symmetric. So the question is, who has observed the universe while inflating? Obviously, there has been no conscious creature that time.
Actually, this problem is discussed in the paper below, and the proposed solution to the problem in said to be an observer-independent interpretation (the pilot-wave theory).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01017
quantum-mechanics quantum-field-theory cosmology big-bang cosmological-inflation
asked 4 hours ago
Ali LavasaniAli Lavasani
16119
add a comment |
In inflanatory cosmology, primordial quantum fluctuations in the process of inflation are considered responsible for the asymmetry and lumpiness of the universe that was shaped. However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; before observation, the quantum state is symmetric. So the question is, who has observed the universe while inflating? Obviously, there has been no conscious creature that time.
Actually, this problem is discussed in the paper below, and the proposed solution to the problem in said to be an observer-independent interpretation (the pilot-wave theory).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01017
quantum-mechanics quantum-field-theory cosmology big-bang cosmological-inflation
asked 4 hours ago
Ali LavasaniAli Lavasani
16119
What do you mean by "conscious"? Can you give a rigorous definition?
– safesphere
2 hours ago
@safesphere Obviously I can't answer your question! This is actually the "measurement problem" which has challenged many prominent physicists, like Steven Weinberg! Still no one knows what the "observation" exactly is.
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
In a double-slit experiment, when you put a detector near the slits, the interference disappears whether you looking at it or not.
– safesphere
1 hour ago
@safesphere You are actually observing it when you place the detectors.
– Ali Lavasani
51 mins ago
add a comment |
In inflanatory cosmology, primordial quantum fluctuations in the process of inflation are considered responsible for the asymmetry and lumpiness of the universe that was shaped. However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; before observation, the quantum state is symmetric. So the question is, who has observed the universe while inflating? Obviously, there has been no conscious creature that time.
Actually, this problem is discussed in the paper below, and the proposed solution to the problem in said to be an observer-independent interpretation (the pilot-wave theory).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01017
quantum-mechanics quantum-field-theory cosmology big-bang cosmological-inflation
asked 4 hours ago
Ali LavasaniAli Lavasani
16119
In inflanatory cosmology, primordial quantum fluctuations in the process of inflation are considered responsible for the asymmetry and lumpiness of the universe that was shaped. However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; before observation, the quantum state is symmetric. So the question is, who has observed the universe while inflating? Obviously, there has been no conscious creature that time.
Actually, this problem is discussed in the paper below, and the proposed solution to the problem in said to be an observer-independent interpretation (the pilot-wave theory).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01017
quantum-mechanics quantum-field-theory cosmology big-bang cosmological-inflation
quantum-mechanics quantum-field-theory cosmology big-bang cosmological-inflation
asked 4 hours ago
Ali LavasaniAli Lavasani
16119
asked 4 hours ago
Ali LavasaniAli Lavasani
16119
edited 4 hours ago
Ali Lavasani
asked 4 hours ago
Ali LavasaniAli Lavasani
16119
asked 4 hours ago
Ali LavasaniAli Lavasani
16119
asked 4 hours ago
Ali LavasaniAli Lavasani
16119
16119
What do you mean by "conscious"? Can you give a rigorous definition?
– safesphere
2 hours ago
@safesphere Obviously I can't answer your question! This is actually the "measurement problem" which has challenged many prominent physicists, like Steven Weinberg! Still no one knows what the "observation" exactly is.
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
In a double-slit experiment, when you put a detector near the slits, the interference disappears whether you looking at it or not.
– safesphere
1 hour ago
@safesphere You are actually observing it when you place the detectors.
– Ali Lavasani
51 mins ago
add a comment |
What do you mean by "conscious"? Can you give a rigorous definition?
– safesphere
2 hours ago
@safesphere Obviously I can't answer your question! This is actually the "measurement problem" which has challenged many prominent physicists, like Steven Weinberg! Still no one knows what the "observation" exactly is.
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
In a double-slit experiment, when you put a detector near the slits, the interference disappears whether you looking at it or not.
– safesphere
1 hour ago
@safesphere You are actually observing it when you place the detectors.
– Ali Lavasani
51 mins ago
What do you mean by "conscious"? Can you give a rigorous definition?
– safesphere
2 hours ago
What do you mean by "conscious"? Can you give a rigorous definition?
– safesphere
2 hours ago
@safesphere Obviously I can't answer your question! This is actually the "measurement problem" which has challenged many prominent physicists, like Steven Weinberg! Still no one knows what the "observation" exactly is.
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
@safesphere Obviously I can't answer your question! This is actually the "measurement problem" which has challenged many prominent physicists, like Steven Weinberg! Still no one knows what the "observation" exactly is.
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
In a double-slit experiment, when you put a detector near the slits, the interference disappears whether you looking at it or not.
– safesphere
1 hour ago
In a double-slit experiment, when you put a detector near the slits, the interference disappears whether you looking at it or not.
– safesphere
1 hour ago
@safesphere You are actually observing it when you place the detectors.
– Ali Lavasani
51 mins ago
@safesphere You are actually observing it when you place the detectors.
– Ali Lavasani
51 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The Copenhagen interpretation isn't an essential part of quantum mechanics. It isn't required in order to make physical processes happen. It's just a way of describing what seems to happen when an observer makes a measurement. It's not even the only way of describing what it seems like to the observer.
However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; [...]
If you don't use the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics still works fine. In your example of the early universe, all the quantum-mechanical processes work in the same way. E.g., a hydrogen atom in an $n=3$ state will radiate light, and at a later time it will be in a superposition of $n=2$ and $n=1$. No randomness, just a superposition.
[...] before observation, the quantum state is symmetric.
I'm not sure what you mean by symmetric here. This seems like a nonstandard description.
answered 2 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
48.7k4151293
You say there has been a "superposition" of all possible outcomes in the inflation, so what has destroyed the superposition? In Copenhagen, ONLY observation can collapse the superposition. If you believe it has automatically collapsed, you are defending "objective collapse" interpretations, and another option is that the universe is still in superposition (the many worlds interpretation). Either way you are implying one of these two kinds of interpretations, aren't you?
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
@AliLavasani you can use the bohm interpretation too, it is less of a problem
– Wolphram jonny
46 mins ago
@Wolphram Yes, any interpretation other that Copenhagen has no problem. Copenhagen shouldn't also fail, so my question is how the observation can have been done at the beginning of the universe. I don't know, maybe observation is done NOW when we look at the universe!!
– Ali Lavasani
41 mins ago
@AliLavasani but why do you insist in interpreting it in the Copenhagen way, which is obviously the worst interpretation in physics ever!
– Wolphram jonny
37 mins ago
@Wolphram Notice that Copenhagen perfectly works. Interpretations like Bohmian mechanics have more serious problems (nonlocality, or retrocausality in transactional interpretation, etc).
– Ali Lavasani
28 mins ago
add a comment |
“Observe” oftentimes causes a lot of confusion for this exact reason. It doesn’t actually refer to some conscious entity making an observation.
Rather, think about how we actually make an observation about something. You have to interact with the system in some way. This can be through the exchange of photons, for example. This interaction is what constitutes an observation having taken place.
Obviously, particles can undergo their fundamental interactions without a nearby sentient entity.
For the sake of analogy, consider measuring air pressure in a tire. In the process of doing so, you let out some air — changing the tire pressure in the process.
answered 4 hours ago
Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob
3137
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapse is "subjective", it DOES depend on the act of observation, and doesn't have anything to do with physical and experimental imperfections like the exchange of photon. If you say that the wavefunction can collapse automatically, you are advocating "objective-collapse" interpretations, which are proposed by some people like Roger Penrose, but are not mainstream.
– Ali Lavasani
4 hours ago
3
You have a misunderstanding. Collapse of the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation is caused by a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. I agree — it does depend on the act of observation. Observation just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
– Riley Scott Jacob
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f453410%2fhow-could-quantum-effects-occur-in-the-early-universe-without-an-observer%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Copenhagen interpretation isn't an essential part of quantum mechanics. It isn't required in order to make physical processes happen. It's just a way of describing what seems to happen when an observer makes a measurement. It's not even the only way of describing what it seems like to the observer.
However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; [...]
If you don't use the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics still works fine. In your example of the early universe, all the quantum-mechanical processes work in the same way. E.g., a hydrogen atom in an $n=3$ state will radiate light, and at a later time it will be in a superposition of $n=2$ and $n=1$. No randomness, just a superposition.
[...] before observation, the quantum state is symmetric.
I'm not sure what you mean by symmetric here. This seems like a nonstandard description.
answered 2 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
48.7k4151293
You say there has been a "superposition" of all possible outcomes in the inflation, so what has destroyed the superposition? In Copenhagen, ONLY observation can collapse the superposition. If you believe it has automatically collapsed, you are defending "objective collapse" interpretations, and another option is that the universe is still in superposition (the many worlds interpretation). Either way you are implying one of these two kinds of interpretations, aren't you?
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
@AliLavasani you can use the bohm interpretation too, it is less of a problem
– Wolphram jonny
46 mins ago
@Wolphram Yes, any interpretation other that Copenhagen has no problem. Copenhagen shouldn't also fail, so my question is how the observation can have been done at the beginning of the universe. I don't know, maybe observation is done NOW when we look at the universe!!
– Ali Lavasani
41 mins ago
@AliLavasani but why do you insist in interpreting it in the Copenhagen way, which is obviously the worst interpretation in physics ever!
– Wolphram jonny
37 mins ago
@Wolphram Notice that Copenhagen perfectly works. Interpretations like Bohmian mechanics have more serious problems (nonlocality, or retrocausality in transactional interpretation, etc).
– Ali Lavasani
28 mins ago
add a comment |
The Copenhagen interpretation isn't an essential part of quantum mechanics. It isn't required in order to make physical processes happen. It's just a way of describing what seems to happen when an observer makes a measurement. It's not even the only way of describing what it seems like to the observer.
However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; [...]
If you don't use the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics still works fine. In your example of the early universe, all the quantum-mechanical processes work in the same way. E.g., a hydrogen atom in an $n=3$ state will radiate light, and at a later time it will be in a superposition of $n=2$ and $n=1$. No randomness, just a superposition.
[...] before observation, the quantum state is symmetric.
I'm not sure what you mean by symmetric here. This seems like a nonstandard description.
answered 2 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
48.7k4151293
You say there has been a "superposition" of all possible outcomes in the inflation, so what has destroyed the superposition? In Copenhagen, ONLY observation can collapse the superposition. If you believe it has automatically collapsed, you are defending "objective collapse" interpretations, and another option is that the universe is still in superposition (the many worlds interpretation). Either way you are implying one of these two kinds of interpretations, aren't you?
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
@AliLavasani you can use the bohm interpretation too, it is less of a problem
– Wolphram jonny
46 mins ago
@Wolphram Yes, any interpretation other that Copenhagen has no problem. Copenhagen shouldn't also fail, so my question is how the observation can have been done at the beginning of the universe. I don't know, maybe observation is done NOW when we look at the universe!!
– Ali Lavasani
41 mins ago
@AliLavasani but why do you insist in interpreting it in the Copenhagen way, which is obviously the worst interpretation in physics ever!
– Wolphram jonny
37 mins ago
@Wolphram Notice that Copenhagen perfectly works. Interpretations like Bohmian mechanics have more serious problems (nonlocality, or retrocausality in transactional interpretation, etc).
– Ali Lavasani
28 mins ago
add a comment |
The Copenhagen interpretation isn't an essential part of quantum mechanics. It isn't required in order to make physical processes happen. It's just a way of describing what seems to happen when an observer makes a measurement. It's not even the only way of describing what it seems like to the observer.
However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; [...]
If you don't use the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics still works fine. In your example of the early universe, all the quantum-mechanical processes work in the same way. E.g., a hydrogen atom in an $n=3$ state will radiate light, and at a later time it will be in a superposition of $n=2$ and $n=1$. No randomness, just a superposition.
[...] before observation, the quantum state is symmetric.
I'm not sure what you mean by symmetric here. This seems like a nonstandard description.
answered 2 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
48.7k4151293
The Copenhagen interpretation isn't an essential part of quantum mechanics. It isn't required in order to make physical processes happen. It's just a way of describing what seems to happen when an observer makes a measurement. It's not even the only way of describing what it seems like to the observer.
However, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, any random quantum phenomenon only occurs when the system is observed; [...]
If you don't use the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics still works fine. In your example of the early universe, all the quantum-mechanical processes work in the same way. E.g., a hydrogen atom in an $n=3$ state will radiate light, and at a later time it will be in a superposition of $n=2$ and $n=1$. No randomness, just a superposition.
[...] before observation, the quantum state is symmetric.
I'm not sure what you mean by symmetric here. This seems like a nonstandard description.
answered 2 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
48.7k4151293
answered 2 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
48.7k4151293
answered 2 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
48.7k4151293
answered 2 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
48.7k4151293
48.7k4151293
You say there has been a "superposition" of all possible outcomes in the inflation, so what has destroyed the superposition? In Copenhagen, ONLY observation can collapse the superposition. If you believe it has automatically collapsed, you are defending "objective collapse" interpretations, and another option is that the universe is still in superposition (the many worlds interpretation). Either way you are implying one of these two kinds of interpretations, aren't you?
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
@AliLavasani you can use the bohm interpretation too, it is less of a problem
– Wolphram jonny
46 mins ago
@Wolphram Yes, any interpretation other that Copenhagen has no problem. Copenhagen shouldn't also fail, so my question is how the observation can have been done at the beginning of the universe. I don't know, maybe observation is done NOW when we look at the universe!!
– Ali Lavasani
41 mins ago
@AliLavasani but why do you insist in interpreting it in the Copenhagen way, which is obviously the worst interpretation in physics ever!
– Wolphram jonny
37 mins ago
@Wolphram Notice that Copenhagen perfectly works. Interpretations like Bohmian mechanics have more serious problems (nonlocality, or retrocausality in transactional interpretation, etc).
– Ali Lavasani
28 mins ago
add a comment |
You say there has been a "superposition" of all possible outcomes in the inflation, so what has destroyed the superposition? In Copenhagen, ONLY observation can collapse the superposition. If you believe it has automatically collapsed, you are defending "objective collapse" interpretations, and another option is that the universe is still in superposition (the many worlds interpretation). Either way you are implying one of these two kinds of interpretations, aren't you?
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
@AliLavasani you can use the bohm interpretation too, it is less of a problem
– Wolphram jonny
46 mins ago
@Wolphram Yes, any interpretation other that Copenhagen has no problem. Copenhagen shouldn't also fail, so my question is how the observation can have been done at the beginning of the universe. I don't know, maybe observation is done NOW when we look at the universe!!
– Ali Lavasani
41 mins ago
@AliLavasani but why do you insist in interpreting it in the Copenhagen way, which is obviously the worst interpretation in physics ever!
– Wolphram jonny
37 mins ago
@Wolphram Notice that Copenhagen perfectly works. Interpretations like Bohmian mechanics have more serious problems (nonlocality, or retrocausality in transactional interpretation, etc).
– Ali Lavasani
28 mins ago
You say there has been a "superposition" of all possible outcomes in the inflation, so what has destroyed the superposition? In Copenhagen, ONLY observation can collapse the superposition. If you believe it has automatically collapsed, you are defending "objective collapse" interpretations, and another option is that the universe is still in superposition (the many worlds interpretation). Either way you are implying one of these two kinds of interpretations, aren't you?
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
You say there has been a "superposition" of all possible outcomes in the inflation, so what has destroyed the superposition? In Copenhagen, ONLY observation can collapse the superposition. If you believe it has automatically collapsed, you are defending "objective collapse" interpretations, and another option is that the universe is still in superposition (the many worlds interpretation). Either way you are implying one of these two kinds of interpretations, aren't you?
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
@AliLavasani you can use the bohm interpretation too, it is less of a problem
– Wolphram jonny
46 mins ago
@AliLavasani you can use the bohm interpretation too, it is less of a problem
– Wolphram jonny
46 mins ago
@Wolphram Yes, any interpretation other that Copenhagen has no problem. Copenhagen shouldn't also fail, so my question is how the observation can have been done at the beginning of the universe. I don't know, maybe observation is done NOW when we look at the universe!!
– Ali Lavasani
41 mins ago
@Wolphram Yes, any interpretation other that Copenhagen has no problem. Copenhagen shouldn't also fail, so my question is how the observation can have been done at the beginning of the universe. I don't know, maybe observation is done NOW when we look at the universe!!
– Ali Lavasani
41 mins ago
@AliLavasani but why do you insist in interpreting it in the Copenhagen way, which is obviously the worst interpretation in physics ever!
– Wolphram jonny
37 mins ago
@AliLavasani but why do you insist in interpreting it in the Copenhagen way, which is obviously the worst interpretation in physics ever!
– Wolphram jonny
37 mins ago
@Wolphram Notice that Copenhagen perfectly works. Interpretations like Bohmian mechanics have more serious problems (nonlocality, or retrocausality in transactional interpretation, etc).
– Ali Lavasani
28 mins ago
@Wolphram Notice that Copenhagen perfectly works. Interpretations like Bohmian mechanics have more serious problems (nonlocality, or retrocausality in transactional interpretation, etc).
– Ali Lavasani
28 mins ago
add a comment |
“Observe” oftentimes causes a lot of confusion for this exact reason. It doesn’t actually refer to some conscious entity making an observation.
Rather, think about how we actually make an observation about something. You have to interact with the system in some way. This can be through the exchange of photons, for example. This interaction is what constitutes an observation having taken place.
Obviously, particles can undergo their fundamental interactions without a nearby sentient entity.
For the sake of analogy, consider measuring air pressure in a tire. In the process of doing so, you let out some air — changing the tire pressure in the process.
answered 4 hours ago
Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob
3137
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapse is "subjective", it DOES depend on the act of observation, and doesn't have anything to do with physical and experimental imperfections like the exchange of photon. If you say that the wavefunction can collapse automatically, you are advocating "objective-collapse" interpretations, which are proposed by some people like Roger Penrose, but are not mainstream.
– Ali Lavasani
4 hours ago
3
You have a misunderstanding. Collapse of the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation is caused by a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. I agree — it does depend on the act of observation. Observation just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
– Riley Scott Jacob
4 hours ago
add a comment |
“Observe” oftentimes causes a lot of confusion for this exact reason. It doesn’t actually refer to some conscious entity making an observation.
Rather, think about how we actually make an observation about something. You have to interact with the system in some way. This can be through the exchange of photons, for example. This interaction is what constitutes an observation having taken place.
Obviously, particles can undergo their fundamental interactions without a nearby sentient entity.
For the sake of analogy, consider measuring air pressure in a tire. In the process of doing so, you let out some air — changing the tire pressure in the process.
answered 4 hours ago
Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob
3137
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapse is "subjective", it DOES depend on the act of observation, and doesn't have anything to do with physical and experimental imperfections like the exchange of photon. If you say that the wavefunction can collapse automatically, you are advocating "objective-collapse" interpretations, which are proposed by some people like Roger Penrose, but are not mainstream.
– Ali Lavasani
4 hours ago
3
You have a misunderstanding. Collapse of the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation is caused by a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. I agree — it does depend on the act of observation. Observation just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
– Riley Scott Jacob
4 hours ago
add a comment |
“Observe” oftentimes causes a lot of confusion for this exact reason. It doesn’t actually refer to some conscious entity making an observation.
Rather, think about how we actually make an observation about something. You have to interact with the system in some way. This can be through the exchange of photons, for example. This interaction is what constitutes an observation having taken place.
Obviously, particles can undergo their fundamental interactions without a nearby sentient entity.
For the sake of analogy, consider measuring air pressure in a tire. In the process of doing so, you let out some air — changing the tire pressure in the process.
answered 4 hours ago
Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob
3137
“Observe” oftentimes causes a lot of confusion for this exact reason. It doesn’t actually refer to some conscious entity making an observation.
Rather, think about how we actually make an observation about something. You have to interact with the system in some way. This can be through the exchange of photons, for example. This interaction is what constitutes an observation having taken place.
Obviously, particles can undergo their fundamental interactions without a nearby sentient entity.
For the sake of analogy, consider measuring air pressure in a tire. In the process of doing so, you let out some air — changing the tire pressure in the process.
answered 4 hours ago
Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob
3137
answered 4 hours ago
Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob
3137
answered 4 hours ago
Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob
3137
answered 4 hours ago
Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob
3137
3137
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapse is "subjective", it DOES depend on the act of observation, and doesn't have anything to do with physical and experimental imperfections like the exchange of photon. If you say that the wavefunction can collapse automatically, you are advocating "objective-collapse" interpretations, which are proposed by some people like Roger Penrose, but are not mainstream.
– Ali Lavasani
4 hours ago
3
You have a misunderstanding. Collapse of the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation is caused by a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. I agree — it does depend on the act of observation. Observation just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
– Riley Scott Jacob
4 hours ago
add a comment |
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapse is "subjective", it DOES depend on the act of observation, and doesn't have anything to do with physical and experimental imperfections like the exchange of photon. If you say that the wavefunction can collapse automatically, you are advocating "objective-collapse" interpretations, which are proposed by some people like Roger Penrose, but are not mainstream.
– Ali Lavasani
4 hours ago
3
You have a misunderstanding. Collapse of the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation is caused by a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. I agree — it does depend on the act of observation. Observation just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
– Riley Scott Jacob
4 hours ago
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapse is "subjective", it DOES depend on the act of observation, and doesn't have anything to do with physical and experimental imperfections like the exchange of photon. If you say that the wavefunction can collapse automatically, you are advocating "objective-collapse" interpretations, which are proposed by some people like Roger Penrose, but are not mainstream.
– Ali Lavasani
4 hours ago
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction collapse is "subjective", it DOES depend on the act of observation, and doesn't have anything to do with physical and experimental imperfections like the exchange of photon. If you say that the wavefunction can collapse automatically, you are advocating "objective-collapse" interpretations, which are proposed by some people like Roger Penrose, but are not mainstream.
– Ali Lavasani
4 hours ago
3
3
You have a misunderstanding. Collapse of the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation is caused by a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. I agree — it does depend on the act of observation. Observation just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
– Riley Scott Jacob
4 hours ago
You have a misunderstanding. Collapse of the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation is caused by a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. I agree — it does depend on the act of observation. Observation just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
– Riley Scott Jacob
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f453410%2fhow-could-quantum-effects-occur-in-the-early-universe-without-an-observer%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What do you mean by "conscious"? Can you give a rigorous definition?
– safesphere
2 hours ago
@safesphere Obviously I can't answer your question! This is actually the "measurement problem" which has challenged many prominent physicists, like Steven Weinberg! Still no one knows what the "observation" exactly is.
– Ali Lavasani
1 hour ago
In a double-slit experiment, when you put a detector near the slits, the interference disappears whether you looking at it or not.
– safesphere
1 hour ago
@safesphere You are actually observing it when you place the detectors.
– Ali Lavasani
51 mins ago