What does it mean to “observe”?
When we consider scientific observation, we imagine the role of the scientist as a passive actor using instruments and tools to measure and record an event. The observer does not interfere with the process being observed–rather, they are simply a diligent note taker, recording information without interference or bias. But is that always the case?
The Quantum Observer Effect (QOE), a concept in quantum physics, posits that the mere act of observing elementary physical objects does affects the behavior of the observed. This concept is most easily demonstrated through the results of experiments with photons passing through a double-slit optical system: If a photodetector observes which slit a photon passes through, the photons exhibit particle-like behavior. But, without a photodetector, the photons exhibit wave-like behavior. And it is even stranger than that, because the transition from wave-like to particle-like is affected by the possibility of knowing what the photons are doing.
These findings challenge our understanding of our world. We aim to observe phenomena around us to learn about them, to gain knowledge about how they exist. But if the very act of observing can affect how things exist, then what does it really mean to observe?
The QOE suggests that reality may not be as separate from the observer as people may assume—a concept we investigate in our new study, Observer influence on quantum interference: Testing the von Neumann–Wigner consciousness-collapse theory, recently published in Physics Essays.
What is the relationship between consciousness and reality?
One proposal to help explain the QOE is the von Neumann–Wigner consciousness-collapse interpretation, which says that a measurement isn’t complete until a conscious observer becomes aware of it. If observing affects how reality unfolds, that could imply that awareness—in other words, human consciousness—may play an active role in the physical world. While we often think of the world as something separate from us, waiting to be discovered, it might instead be shaped as we observe it. In other words, it suggests the existence of a direct mind-matter interaction.
It’s all fascinating to consider, but is also challenging to prove or disprove. For one, consciousness is challenging to directly measure, so any type of mind-matter interaction experiment is ultimately designed to look for correlations between the behavior of a physical system and an indirect measurement of a mental act. Another complicating factor is that no one understands what gives rise to consciousness, or even if it does arise (it might simply be part of the fabric of reality). Furthermore, our minds tend to wander constantly, which invariably injects noise into experiments that require stable mental attention.
Our researchers realized that investigating this interesting concept required a creative approach.
Investigating mind-matter interactions: The consciousness causes collapse interpretation
Our researchers evaluated the Consciousness-Causes-Collapse Interpretation (CCI) by testing whether the behavior of light would change when it was observed. Inspired by (but aiming for more simplicity than) the double-slit setups used in previous studies, our researchers devised an optical setup comprising a laser and a diffraction grating that splits light into multiple beams. This optical setup results in individual spots of light due to the interference of light acting as waves.
Two of the spots were then used to measure interference, with one spot designated as the feedback signal, and the other spot as the control. The feedback signal spot was shown to participants in real time, while the control spot was never shown. So, if someone observed the feedback signal spot and the behavior changed while that of the unobserved spot (control) stayed the same, that would support the concept that conscious observation affected photon behavior.
To prevent bias in interpreting data, the researchers preregistered their hypotheses prior to the experiment. Generalized versions of the three hypotheses shared below note that if consciousness affects the system:
- H1: The intensity of light will decrease at the spot being observed.
- H2: The pattern will get less stable when observed because the mind naturally wanders.
- H3: Some individuals may demonstrate a greater ability or talent for influencing the pattern.
More scientific evidence that thoughts create reality?
One of the predictions (H3) was supported by the data—people who practiced a specific form of mental attention had significantly more influence on the pattern than others. While the remaining two hypotheses (H1 and H2) were not significantly supported, there were other unexpected and significant results.
Statistical analyses revealed that while participants paid attention to the spot of light that they received feedback on, that light progressively changed. But a simultaneously recorded spot of light used as a control did not change. The trends in these results were highly significant, indicating that these observational effects do not happen instantly, but require some time to build up. That is probably due to the mental side of the mind-matter task because it takes time for attention to be focused. Still, while the results suggest that consciousness may play a role, it doesn’t necessarily exclude other explanations. For example, perhaps the feedback signals caused tiny changes in the environment or there were temperature fluctuations that affected the results.
Overall, the results were mixed, and while the study outcome did support a role for consciousness in the behavior of light, and unexpected patterns emerged, as usual more research is needed.
What’s next
Future experiments, which are under development, are being designed to use extremely stable optical equipment and more engaging forms of feedback to help people focus on the attention task. The new experiment will also be online to help isolate any real mind-matter effects from ordinary environmental influences, and to include a much larger set of participants.
Until then, the question remains: Is observation just a passive process that doesn’t affect the world at large? Or is your awareness actually part of what shapes reality itself?
Read the publication this blog is based upon
