Does Consciousness Create Reality? Double Slit Experiment may show the Answer.

The double slit experiment - Does consciousness create reality? Quantum mechanics shows us that particles are in superposition, meaning they can exist in different states and even multiple places at the same time. They are nothing more than waves of probabilities, until the moment that they are measured. One interpretation of this phenomenon is that the measurement being made requires a measurer, or a conscious observer. If this is correct, then it implies that consciousness has to be is an integral part of creating the world that we observe. Could this consciousness then be required for creating reality? Does this mean that there would be no reality without consciousness?

Experiments can show that what we think of as particles behave like waves. Waves of probabilities. This is the foundation of Quantum mechanics. The famous double slit experiment illustrates this. What is bizarre is that when you try to find out what’s going on at the slits by placing a detector at the two slits to try to figure out which slit the individual atoms are going through – the “WHICH WAY” information, they all of a sudden stop behaving like waves, and behave like particles.

Why do atoms and other particles behave this way? There are many interpretations of this phenomenon.

The most widely accepted interpretation, called the Copenhagen interpretation, was devised in 1925 by Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg at the University of Copenhagen. Their theory proposed that the atom when it is not measured, is not distinct. But the Copenhagen interpretation does not say anything about consciousness. But what is measurement after all?

Does measurement take place at the instrument that measures it? Does measurement necessarily require a consciousness? This is called the “measurement problem of quantum mechanics.” Physicists do not universally agree on a resolution. There are various interpretations.

One such interpretation is called the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation. This says that in the long chain of measurement, the collapse occurs at the moment that a consciousness interprets the measurement. The consciousness of the physicist is making the particle distinct. And without this consciousness, the atom would just be a wave of probabilities.

One fascinating interpretation is the many worlds interpretation. It was put forth by Hugh Everett in 1957. This theory postulates that there is NEVER any collapse, that we may be a measuring it in our reality, but there is no measurement happening in a different reality, and the wave function continues in that different branch of reality. But at some branch of reality, the particle collapse never actually happens. There is some new evidence that seems to support this idea of multiple realities. A paper published just this year in 2019 by Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh Seems to support the idea that at least two equally provable realities could exist at a quantum level at the same time.

So what is the correct answer? First let’s summarize what we know for sure – we know that measurement that records the which-way information of a particle indeed collapses a particle’s uncertainty wave. This particle collapse is consistent forward or backward in time as well, as shown by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.

As for many worlds, the equation allow it to be true, but since the other worlds appear to be inaccessible to us, there is no way to prove it. So just because it could be true, doesn’t mean it is true.

The Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely accepted, and in my view likely correct. It does not require a consciousness to interpret or even observe the results. I think the problem is with the word “observation” – which for many people seems to imply that someone has to look with their eyes. And eyes have a consciousness behind them.

But in quantum mechanics, this is not what the word observation means. So this unfortunate terminology of “observation” is what causes the confusion. In quantum mechanics an observation simply means the interaction of two quantum states that can collapse each other’s probability wave function. Does consciousness play a role. Probably not. And there is some new evidence that seems to show this.

A paper published by Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic in 2011 showed that a conscious observer was not necessary for the collapse. Their experiments measured the which-way information of a particle, but recorded it in the state of an atom. This information was not available to a conscious observer, but was preserved in the atom, Conclusion in video...

Citations:

#consciousness #doubleslit

[realitybites]

Simplifying a complex topic like this requires a level of articulation and understanding that few people have in this world . Awesome job.

[mahnaymjyeff]

It's almost as if we are living inside a video game where different parts of the map load when we move near to them.

[gantrieltharxius]

"Maybe SOMETHING is observing the universe into existence" -This gave me goosebumps. AWESOME video!

[iRMacMan]

Quantum reality makes my brain hurt. Just the same it is a fascinating topic and I keep coming back to it, hoping for a better insight or even a fractionally improved grasp of the concept. This is the most clear and succinct explanation I've come across to date. It still makes my brain ache some, definitely a little less than before. Thanks very much...

[eliasseldon]

Thanks for explaining this stuff so clearly. Unfortunately for me, each time I understand one thing I realize I really don't understand two others. It's like: scratching an itch makes it more itchy. ... but it's so satisfying to just keep scratching.

[pankam]

WOW... this is one of those channels you hit subscribe after watching only one video..!! Nice work

[jasonbertles]

I've never found a good definition (or explanation) of the term, Observer, in relation to the double-slit experiment until this. Excellent video - I wish I could give it more thumbs up.

[ashrafulhaque]

"What we probe is not nature, but nature under our method of questioning".
Beautifully sums it up all!

[VegasPanhandlers]

Out of the many videos I've watched on this subject, this is by far the most in-depth and easy to understand. Appreciate you, brother.

[iamthetinkerman]

Every time i watch these videos i feel it gets me a step closer to hack my own reality just by thinking! Thank you for making this video, its greatly appreciated!

[justicewarrior]

You are literally one of the most interesting channels and the best explaining one!! Just found out this channel today!! I hope you blow up on subscribers!! 👍

[ruby]

I love the way you present this videos from many physicists view. Simplifying all the complex viewpoints. I got very confused prior to watching your videos . This one allows us to look at it from different viewpoints. Personally, at every single result of each experiment, every one is correct, as there are endless possibilities. Thank you

[matthewsheeran]

I like this guy: he succinctly summarises great gollups of theory into simple but accurate explanations!

[surangaputha]

Ohh now i know, why my wife doesnt like me observing her, because i mesure her through my knowledge of understanding, she wants to live beyond it

[petercoxable]

Your videos blow my mind. I get more satisfaction and stimulation from watching one of your videos than I do from a Hollywood blockbuster movie.

[hughb]

Making very complex subjects understandable to us common folk is a gift, thank you.

[Eh_O_Nico]

Arvin: The answer is coming up right now!
Also Arvin: Actually we don't know lol

[politicallycorrectredskin]

This is really the best available explanation for a broad meaning of life. The observer role must be filled by something in order to make stuff real, so the Universe creates that too along with everything else.

[MFikhi]

The universe is a simulation and every time we try to measure something they were like:
"oh shit they are trying to measure it, lets troll them lol"

[bigmemes]

I searched for three hours on a device that can access near all of humanity’s knowledge, and this was the first literature that let me truly understand this proposition. Thank you.