What About the Quantum Physics Observer Effect?

Introduction to the Quantum Physics Observer Effect

I’ve been speaking and writing for about a decade now about, among other things, the relevance of quantum physics to the inquiry about what a human being really is. With respect to this work, a number of people have asked if I’m talking about the so-called “observer effect.”

In general terms, the observer effect is the established fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. This idea shows up in a range of contexts, from psychology to computer science and electronics to quantum physics. Let’s take a very brief look at how the effect shows up in these areas.

How does the observer effect show up?

In psychology, observer effect is the name given to the phenomenon that occurs when the subject of a study alters their behavior because they are aware of the observer's presence. This results in incorrect data: the researcher records behavior that is not the way the subject actually behaves when not under observation.

In computer science, the “observer effect” names a situation in which a software bug seems to disappear or alter its behavior when one attempts to study it. Studying the behavior of software usually requires using other software as a probe, and the probe becomes part of the software being studied, thus altering its behavior.

In electronics, by attaching a measuring device of some type to a system being measured, small amounts of capacitance, resistance, or inductance may be introduced. Though good instruments have very slight effects, in sensitive circuitry these can lead to unexpected failures, or conversely, unexpected fixes to failures.

A deeper look into the nature of human being

It turns out that the “observer effect” shows up in an entirely different and much more powerful way when you take a deeper look into the nature of human perception and its relationship to the world around us.

We most commonly think of “human being” as name given to a particular creature, an animal with certain unique characteristics, one of which is consciousness of self. In terms of this definition, the human animal is the object and the consciousness of self is an attribute of that particular animal.

It is possible, however to consider human Being in an entirely different way, in which the human animal is the manifestation of a particular degree of consciousness of self. In other words, once a self becomes conscious of itself, it appears in physical manifestation as the human animal. This amounts to an inversion of the usual conceptual relationship between the world and the conscious observer.

Classically, the conscious observer is contained within the world an as object among many other objects. In the inverted view, the world is contained within the consciousness of the observer as an interpretation of sensory data delivered to the brain. The form we call the human animal then is the end result of the interpretive mechanism which takes optical, tactile, and other sensory data and produces a multisensory picture in the brain. It is this picture to which we refer when we use the term “human being.”

The observer effect in the context of consciousness

How, then, does the “observer effect” show up when the world of objects is recognized to be the result of an interpretive process?

The default or classical understanding of the observer effect is the phenomenon of changing the situation from the way it was before being observed to something different. But when the world and all its components are viewed as the result of interpretation by the observer, the observer effect is no longer an agent of change but rather an agent of creation. The observer brings the world he/she is experiencing into being through interpretation. There is no situation prior to its observation, and therefore there can be no effect on the situation in the usual sense.

This inversion of the relationship between the world and the observer has numerous benefits. Psychologically, it puts the observer in a position of personal power with respect to the world of one’s experience which is unavailable in the classical view. Most of us have found that changing the world is difficult at best. However, interpretations can be changed or replaced, and thus the world as a product of interpretation can be changed as well.

An Aside for Quantum Physics Enthusiasts

In quantum physics, we find the idea of the wavefunction. The wavefunction is a description of the building blocks of nature (electrons, protons, and so on) in which each particle is represented by the probability of any particular result of a measurement on some aspect of the particle. For example, the particle’s position in space is not fixed, but a measurement can result in a number of positions each with a probability of finding it there.

The process by which a measurement of one of these aspects appears to select one possibility from among them all is called the collapse of the wavefunction. The phrase “collapse of the wavefunction” refers to the fact that the normal state of an unobserved particle is what’s called a superposition of possible states (possible outcomes of any yet-to-be-performed experiment on or measurement of the particle), and the actual experiment or observation causes this superposition to disappear. We know this because we never observe a physical object, no matter how small, in more than one state at a time. This collapse is very hard to explain when the particle is considered to exist as it is, whether it’s being observed or not.

However, when what we think of as the particle is the result of a process of interpretation of sensory data (augmented of course by detectors or other scientific devices), it’s the interpretation, or the description we so derive, that contains the collapse. In this “interpretive-centered” view, the particle, the wavefunction, and the experimental apparatus are all parts of a description of the world. And this description is not the world itself.

What follows is a demonstration of how the observer effect shows up in physics.

The Double-Slit Experiment in Physics - The Quantum Physics Observer Effect

One very interesting use of the term “observer effect” is in physics, specifically the quantum physics observer effect. The famous double-slit experiment demonstrates the wave nature of particles. So-called fundamental particles, such as electrons, when made to impinge on a screen with two slits, appear to pass through both slits at once. This is obviously impossible from a classical perspective. However, examining the results of sending these particles through the double-slit apparatus shows this behavior as an interference pattern on an optical screen. This behavior is impossible from a classical perspective.

Double-slit with water (wiki.anton-paar.com)

The interference pattern resulting from the double-slit experiment is the same result you get if you allow water waves to impinge on a barrier that contains two slits: at some distance behind that barrier, the waves coming from the slits will interfere with one another, causing them to add to each other at some places and at other places cancel each other out. This phenomenon is called interference, and it’s interpreted as conclusive evidence of wave behavior.

The observer effect enters into the double-slit experiment in the following manner: the way we look at the world causes us to assume that a physical particle will only pass through one of the slits. After all, every object we’ve ever observed at our human scale follows only one trajectory through space and time.

Intuitively, we expect to be able to measure which slit the particle went through by firing it at the screen with two slits and looking at the resulting image on the optical screen.

However, it turns out that any attempt to measure which slit the particle “actually” passes through destroys the interference pattern and produces the classically-expected result of all the particles striking the screen directly behind one of the slits. This measurement by an observer and his/her equipment effectively removes the wave aspect from the particle! For those of us who think about quantum physics, this is a stunning result!

Conclusion

The world you and I experience is an interpretation of sensory data. As to the question of what the world might be beyond its human interpretation, we have no knowledge. Equipped with only our sensory apparatus, we cannot know what lies behind the curtain of interpretation. The world itself will always be unknowable, unfathomable, and mysterious to us. That’s not a problem; it’s the source of the possibility of magical experience for human Being.

If you are interested in reading more on this subject, I encourage you to take a look at my book, Hoodwinked.