[EvanAnderson]

I would be interested to hear more about this, if it's something that can be easily communicated to the lay-audience. It sounds like I share a similar feeling to others in this thread in thinking that this "not calculated until you look" idea is attractive.

[skissane]

I think part of the issue is people fail to carefully distinguish between physics and interpretations. Interpretations are actually more philosophy than physics. The physics can be experimentally demonstrated to be correct. The interpretations are essentially untestable.

A lot of people make statements which assume the truth of some particular interpretation of quantum physics, without realising that it is just one of many. Many advocates of "quantum mysticism" are adopting the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation ("consciousness causes collapse"), and they often misidentify that as "Copenhagen" even though it isn't. But on the other hand, many of their detractors are committing a similar error, and presuming Copenhagen or many worlds as if it was the actual physics as opposed to just one of many competing philosophical interpretations of it.

[dri_ft]

Can you explain how "consciousness causes collapse" differs from the Copenhagen interpretation? I'm one of those people who think of it as meaning that, except from the other side: I feel like "consciousness causes collapse" is wrong and count that against the Copenhagen interpretation. But if Copenhagen doesn't necessarily presuppose that then maybe I'm going wrong.

[samatman]

The Copenhagen interpretation, also known as "shut up and calculate", asserts only that the mathematics of quantum mechanics are accurate, that is, predictive of observation.

Assigning metaphysical implications is declared out of bounds. It's a useful compromise.

[dri_ft]

Ah, OK. So in a sense it's barely an interpretation at all.

[randomguy1254]

I think the distinction is that observation can affect a system. In order to look at a particle, you need to bounce a photon off of it, which affects it. The particle/wave still exists and is still "doing calculation", its just that measuring the system literally and obviously affects it. Some people attach far too much significance to this.

[EGreg]

No, I heard this is a common misunderstanding. You can bounce light off particles going through ONE SLIT and still destroy the interference patten. Partivles going through the other slit shouldn't have been deflected - yet the interference pattern is totally broken!

What you are suggesting is there is a hidden variable theory.

[randomguy1254]

Hmm, I'm maybe missing something in this example. In the two slit experiment, a single photon can appear to go through two slits simultaneously. You appear to be suggesting that there are multiple particles going throw the slits which creates the interference, but I understand it that one particle interferes with itself, when you do not detect which slit it goes through.

[psyc]

You can find a thorough exposition of this metaphysical "hypothesis" in My Big TOE by Thomas Campbell.

[marxidad]

You lock into (become entangled with) a random selection from a superposition of states, according to the probability described by the wavefunction at the time. What the deal is with the other states you don't see is a matter of interpretation, e.g., Many Worlds hypothesis.