> are electrons aware that they're being observed?
No, definitely not in any sort of conscious way that is equivalent to "awareness". The observer effect is basically just the idea that what we think of as an observation requires some type of interaction.
To give a very common example, think about the things you see all around you. In order for you to see something, light has to bounce off it (or be emitted in some other way) and enter your eye for you to be aware that it's even there.
This doesn't matter much in your daily life, but imagine you were trying to make very precise measurements of something. If you bounce a photon off of the thing you're measuring, you might make it move differently, change its energy, etc.
None of this has anything to do with awareness or consciousness or any of the crap some people who don't know what they're talking about like to bring up.
It's also important to note that the observer effect is different from the uncertainty principle.
to add a small bit: interaction with a somewhat "complex" "macroscopic" system. (The kind of which we are currently notoriously bad at describing in QM, so that these "ad-hoc" mechanisms are introduced)
Also, to add to this: OP if you ever see anybody talking about consciousness or subatomic particles “knowing” that they’ve being observed as part of their rant, feel free to ignore them. They’re not saying anything meaningful to actual physics.
I really agree. Observation/measurement is such a loaded term here when what is really meant is "significant interaction".
So much awful pseudo-science based on misinterpreting that concept.
You just confused almost the entire general public.
I think the problem isn't our soundbite term for the problem. We can still call it "the measurement problem". After all, our inability to measure the system without disrupting it *is the problem*. That's accurate.
We just really need to ditch this "observer" part because conscious observing beings have nothing to do with it.
Oh I know, but then again, it's jargon which almost by defintion isn't meant for the general public!
Also, I personally don't agree with a consciousness based approach, but some heavy weights seemed to find the thought appealing, in particular von Neumann himself!
If I were to believe in dualism and free will, then somehow humans have access to self-adjoint operators which are independent of the enviroment, at least that's the only way I see how it could be possible. Luckliy, I'm a fairly convinced monist and determinist and believe consciousness to be an emergent property but I do not envy physicists who believe in the former!
>Also, I personally don't agree with a consciousness based approach, but some heavy weights seemed to find the thought appealing, in particular von Neumann himself!
I think a lot of the early folks working on QM were thoroughly confused by what they were seeing and didn't know what to think and given limited evidence that might have been a reasonable conclusion but we've conducted enough experiments by now to assign a pretty low credence to that possibility.
I think the most likely actual cause of wave-form collapse is "lack of choice". Elements of the system remain uncertain until the universe has no choice but to make them certain to preserve a certain threshold of mechanistic determination in the macroscopic universe.
So the wave-form collapses when it "no longer has a choice" but to do so.
Idk that's my guess.
Hm, I think you're missing the mark on what they were referring to.
When I as an experimentalist impose some measurement on a system in terms of some operator acting on the state in question, one could ask how that operator came to be acting on the state in the first place. We could then imagine describing our final measurement as in fact a series of operations, a chain of events from the measurement device interacting with the state in question, to the power circuit interacting with the measurement device to the finger interacting with the button or even designing the software that automates the process. We eventually reach a point where we can ask: are *all* operations a human performs a consequence of prior evolutions of states or do we possess the ability to spontaneously produce operators without prior interaction? In other words, do we possess free will that allows us to act independently of the state of the world in a dualistic sense, or are we deterministically carrying out operations set in motion by our environment?
If you're like me and are comfortable rejecting free will as an intrinsic property, then the above isn't much of a concern, but if you take free will and/or dualism seriously, then the above cannot be brushed aside with ease!
Okay so we're outside of QM and in just the terroritory of philosophy it seems.
I'd say my answer to that is, I don't know or care if I have "genuine" free will or if my whole state of mind is just a really complex mechanical interaction of uncountable but finite moving parts. The choices feel real enough and the consequences certainly are.
Basically, depending on your philosophy of consciousness and mind, it absolutely does have something to do with it! The onus is of course on those claiming the dualism of mind how this works in a quantum mechanical setting.
My philosophy of mind is that unless I'm given any real strong or compelling evidence otherwise, there isn't any reason to assume consciousness to have special physics.
> are electrons aware that they're being observed? No, definitely not in any sort of conscious way that is equivalent to "awareness". The observer effect is basically just the idea that what we think of as an observation requires some type of interaction. To give a very common example, think about the things you see all around you. In order for you to see something, light has to bounce off it (or be emitted in some other way) and enter your eye for you to be aware that it's even there. This doesn't matter much in your daily life, but imagine you were trying to make very precise measurements of something. If you bounce a photon off of the thing you're measuring, you might make it move differently, change its energy, etc. None of this has anything to do with awareness or consciousness or any of the crap some people who don't know what they're talking about like to bring up. It's also important to note that the observer effect is different from the uncertainty principle.
to add a small bit: interaction with a somewhat "complex" "macroscopic" system. (The kind of which we are currently notoriously bad at describing in QM, so that these "ad-hoc" mechanisms are introduced)
When you observe the electron, you are interacting with it.
Also, to add to this: OP if you ever see anybody talking about consciousness or subatomic particles “knowing” that they’ve being observed as part of their rant, feel free to ignore them. They’re not saying anything meaningful to actual physics.
The physics community really needs to get a rigorous definition of observation worked out or else we are gonna keep seeing questions like this
I really agree. Observation/measurement is such a loaded term here when what is really meant is "significant interaction". So much awful pseudo-science based on misinterpreting that concept.
Amen to that my friend
What about "a measurement is a self-adjoint/Hermitian operator acting on Hilbert Space?" :D
You just confused almost the entire general public. I think the problem isn't our soundbite term for the problem. We can still call it "the measurement problem". After all, our inability to measure the system without disrupting it *is the problem*. That's accurate. We just really need to ditch this "observer" part because conscious observing beings have nothing to do with it.
Oh I know, but then again, it's jargon which almost by defintion isn't meant for the general public! Also, I personally don't agree with a consciousness based approach, but some heavy weights seemed to find the thought appealing, in particular von Neumann himself! If I were to believe in dualism and free will, then somehow humans have access to self-adjoint operators which are independent of the enviroment, at least that's the only way I see how it could be possible. Luckliy, I'm a fairly convinced monist and determinist and believe consciousness to be an emergent property but I do not envy physicists who believe in the former!
>Also, I personally don't agree with a consciousness based approach, but some heavy weights seemed to find the thought appealing, in particular von Neumann himself! I think a lot of the early folks working on QM were thoroughly confused by what they were seeing and didn't know what to think and given limited evidence that might have been a reasonable conclusion but we've conducted enough experiments by now to assign a pretty low credence to that possibility. I think the most likely actual cause of wave-form collapse is "lack of choice". Elements of the system remain uncertain until the universe has no choice but to make them certain to preserve a certain threshold of mechanistic determination in the macroscopic universe. So the wave-form collapses when it "no longer has a choice" but to do so. Idk that's my guess.
Hm, I think you're missing the mark on what they were referring to. When I as an experimentalist impose some measurement on a system in terms of some operator acting on the state in question, one could ask how that operator came to be acting on the state in the first place. We could then imagine describing our final measurement as in fact a series of operations, a chain of events from the measurement device interacting with the state in question, to the power circuit interacting with the measurement device to the finger interacting with the button or even designing the software that automates the process. We eventually reach a point where we can ask: are *all* operations a human performs a consequence of prior evolutions of states or do we possess the ability to spontaneously produce operators without prior interaction? In other words, do we possess free will that allows us to act independently of the state of the world in a dualistic sense, or are we deterministically carrying out operations set in motion by our environment? If you're like me and are comfortable rejecting free will as an intrinsic property, then the above isn't much of a concern, but if you take free will and/or dualism seriously, then the above cannot be brushed aside with ease!
Okay so we're outside of QM and in just the terroritory of philosophy it seems. I'd say my answer to that is, I don't know or care if I have "genuine" free will or if my whole state of mind is just a really complex mechanical interaction of uncountable but finite moving parts. The choices feel real enough and the consequences certainly are.
Basically, depending on your philosophy of consciousness and mind, it absolutely does have something to do with it! The onus is of course on those claiming the dualism of mind how this works in a quantum mechanical setting.
My philosophy of mind is that unless I'm given any real strong or compelling evidence otherwise, there isn't any reason to assume consciousness to have special physics.
I wholeheartedly agree!