Talk:Observer effect (physics)

...even without a sensor or other technical apparatus, the act of observing the experiment can cause the observer effect in the double-slit experiment. In fact, the observer effect is not dependent on the type of observation being made, but rather on the fact that any observation disturbs the system being observed.

In the case of the double-slit experiment, even if a person were to observe the experiment without any technical apparatus, their presence and attention could disturb the system and cause the wave-like behavior to collapse into a particle-like behavior.

Therefore, the observer effect is not limited to the use of technical equipment or sensors, but rather is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics that arises from the act of observation itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.142.28.84 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the references, I note that the text reports misinterpretation, from a source in 1994, of an experiment that it states took place in 1998.

If so this is a remarkable example of time travel that needs further elucidation. To be honest this whole page seems badly written and littered with original interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C036:B800:F156:B35D:8818:E22F (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

False claim in the first paragraph (about light)?
The following statement is most likely wrong: "...it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light". What about black-body radiation? For instance, in an ideally dark room we could still definitely see the filament of a powered-on light bulb, and certainly not because it reflects light hitting it. I propose to change the sentence into: "...it is not possible to see any non-luminous object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light".

Note (in compliance of GFDL)
This article was splited from an old version of Observer effect on August 3, 2008. Here is the history of the article before the split:


 * 1) (cur) (last)  06:38, 3 August 2008 Steve carlson (Talk | contribs | block) (762 bytes) (Pared down to a disambig, split out content to subarticles) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 15:03, 8 July 2008 Oli Filth (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,057 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by YouRang?; Comments on talk page please. (TW)) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 13:31, 8 July 2008 YouRang? (Talk | contribs | block) (7,457 bytes) (→Use in science: Requested amplification of a weaselly supposed dichotomy.) (undo)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 04:06, 13 June 2008 218.227.221.69 (Talk | block) (7,057 bytes) (→References: +ja) (undo)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 14:00, 3 June 2008 Rocko1124 (Talk | contribs | block) (7,034 bytes) (→Use in the social sciences: I have removed an unclear, incorrect and incorrectly sited portion.) (undo)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 14:37, 30 May 2008 NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,400 bytes) (Reverted edits by 210.14.76.209 (talk) to last version by 128.135.219.134) (undo)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 14:36, 30 May 2008 210.14.76.209 (Talk | block) (3,714 bytes) (undo)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 19:48, 24 April 2008 128.135.219.134 (Talk | block) (7,400 bytes) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 15:30, 14 February 2008 71.156.40.97 (Talk | block) (7,524 bytes) (→Use in the social sciences) (undo)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 15:45, 11 February 2008 MalafayaBot (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,522 bytes) (robot Adding: simple:Observer effect) (undo)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 17:14, 12 January 2008 Prof Wrong (Talk | contribs | block) (7,495 bytes) (→Use in the social sciences: Added reference to Labov's Observer's Paradox.) (undo)
 * 12) (cur) (last) 16:35, 17 December 2007 OKBot (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,468 bytes) (robot Adding: ro:Efectul de observator) (undo)
 * 13) (cur) (last) 18:31, 1 December 2007 Hairy Dude (Talk | contribs | block) (7,439 bytes) ( and link only to disambiguated articles) (undo)
 * 14) (cur) (last) 02:23, 13 November 2007 LeoNomis (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,456 bytes) (clean up using AWB) (undo)
 * 15) (cur) (last) 06:49, 26 September 2007 Rei-bot (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,458 bytes) (robot Adding: hu:Megfigyelő hatása) (undo)
 * 16) (cur) (last) 15:07, 22 September 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (7,431 bytes) (Undid revision 159543872 by Killarneylake (talk)rvt Blarney) (undo)
 * 17) (cur) (last) 05:13, 22 September 2007 Killarneylake (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,805 bytes) (undo)
 * 18) (cur) (last) 23:08, 27 August 2007 Circeus (Talk | contribs | block) (7,431 bytes) (→Use in science: if there are any that don,t need to,I'd like to see...) (undo)
 * 19) (cur) (last) 13:22, 1 August 2007 Hairy Dude (Talk | contribs | block) (7,439 bytes) (→Use in Information Technology: use sentence case; the effect doesn't refer to anything (see Use-mention distinction)) (undo)
 * 20) (cur) (last) 18:13, 31 July 2007 DanielLC (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,442 bytes) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 21) (cur) (last) 04:07, 29 July 2007 Gwern (Talk | contribs | block) (7,443 bytes) (→Use in science: ln wheller) (undo)
 * 22) (cur) (last) 22:31, 28 July 2007 68.111.130.137 (Talk | block) (7,416 bytes) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 23) (cur) (last) 17:39, 24 July 2007 Yoderj (Talk | contribs | block) (7,412 bytes) (→See also: Added Uncertainty Principle) (undo)
 * 24) (cur) (last) 02:55, 21 July 2007 68.27.131.138 (Talk | block) (7,384 bytes) (→Use in Information Technology) (undo)
 * 25) (cur) (last) 02:54, 21 July 2007 68.27.131.138 (Talk | block) (7,354 bytes) (→Use in Information Technology) (undo)
 * 26) (cur) (last) 04:37, 14 July 2007 Nick Garvey (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,346 bytes) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 27) (cur) (last) 08:44, 12 July 2007 Dreftymac (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,347 bytes) (reword) (undo)
 * 28) (cur) (last) 23:28, 1 July 2007 Anchor Link Bot (Talk | contribs | block) (7,357 bytes) (Notifying of internal link to section Use in science from Futurama) (undo)
 * 29) (cur) (last) 19:08, 25 June 2007 192.94.94.106 (Talk | block) (7,308 bytes) (→Use in science: minor grammatical correction) (undo)
 * 30) (cur) (last) 19:08, 25 June 2007 192.94.94.106 (Talk | block) (7,308 bytes) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 31) (cur) (last) 19:07, 25 June 2007 192.94.94.106 (Talk | block) (7,314 bytes) (→Use in science: clarification of misrepresentation that *all* physicists no longer agree in "observer" requirement) (undo)
 * 32) (cur) (last) 01:59, 23 June 2007 Andycjp (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,023 bytes) (→Use in the social sciences) (undo)
 * 33) (cur) (last) 01:57, 23 June 2007 Andycjp (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,019 bytes) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 34) (cur) (last) 05:49, 21 June 2007 130.95.1.188 (Talk | block) (7,011 bytes) (→Use in science: rm tautology) (undo)
 * 35) (cur) (last) 15:18, 14 June 2007 172.215.165.22 (Talk | block) (7,028 bytes) (→Use in science: copenhagen hasn't been invalidated, yet) (undo)
 * 36) (cur) (last) 08:11, 1 June 2007 Redhookesb (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,026 bytes) (→Use in science: usage) (undo)
 * 37) (cur) (last) 18:46, 12 May 2007 Amcbride (Talk | contribs | block) (7,026 bytes) (revert added paragraph that seems unclear and out of place in this article) (undo)
 * 38) (cur) (last) 21:46, 11 May 2007 75.73.208.12 (Talk | block) (7,579 bytes) (undo)
 * 39) (cur) (last) 15:34, 30 April 2007 Weddingexpert (Talk | contribs | block) m (7,026 bytes) (Removed broken reference link) (undo)
 * 40) (cur) (last) 15:43, 24 April 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (7,108 bytes) (→Use in science: expand, add ref.) (undo)
 * 41) (cur) (last) 15:37, 24 April 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (6,799 bytes) (→Use in science: +ref) (undo)
 * 42) (cur) (last) 14:46, 24 April 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (6,708 bytes) (→Use in science: fix wikilink) (undo)
 * 43) (cur) (last) 14:45, 24 April 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (6,721 bytes) (→Use in science: expand and qualify) (undo)
 * 44) (cur) (last) 13:56, 24 April 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (6,359 bytes) (→Use in science: Quote the scientist rather than the headline.) (undo)
 * 45) (cur) (last) 13:53, 24 April 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (6,268 bytes) (→References: New-style references) (undo)
 * 46) (cur) (last) 09:15, 24 April 2007 Teardrop onthefire (Talk | contribs | block) (6,254 bytes) (→Use in science: added quatum experiment) (undo)
 * 47) (cur) (last) 22:04, 10 April 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (→See also: rv POV. It is debatable whether there is any observer effct in quantum mechanics.) (undo)
 * 48) (cur) (last) 21:22, 10 April 2007 Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (Talk | contribs | block) (→See also: Double-slit experiment) (undo)
 * 49) (cur) (last) 01:45, 14 March 2007 Eaglizard (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in the social sciences: even more clarify injected) (undo)
 * 50) (cur) (last) 01:22, 14 March 2007 Eaglizard (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in Information Technology: clarify, clarify, clarify) (undo)
 * 51) (cur) (last) 01:21, 14 March 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in science: clarify and expand) (undo)
 * 52) (cur) (last) 01:16, 14 March 2007 Eaglizard (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in science: rewrote that manifestly mindboggling last sentence) (undo)
 * 53) (cur) (last) 01:10, 14 March 2007 Eaglizard (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in science: clarified reference to quantum phys, 'observer effect' is not actually related to shroedinger's cat) (undo)
 * 54) (cur) (last) 00:58, 14 March 2007 Eaglizard (Talk | contribs | block) (rewrote first para under 'science', rmvd reference to Aharonov-Bohm which only confused me.. er, the issue :)) (undo)
 * 55) (cur) (last) 15:52, 8 March 2007 Davidmack (Talk | contribs | block) m (→References: added category) (undo)
 * 56) (cur) (last) 01:46, 6 March 2007 Davidmack (Talk | contribs | block) m (→References: added category) (undo)
 * 57) (cur) (last) 22:26, 13 February 2007 DarthHamsy (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Added an example) (undo)
 * 58) (cur) (last) 09:26, 9 February 2007 SmackBot (Talk | contribs | block) m (Date/fix maintenance tags) (undo)
 * 59) (cur) (last) 01:26, 6 February 2007 Wl219 (Talk | contribs | block) (dab) (undo)
 * 60) (cur) (last) 01:26, 5 February 2007 Kim Bruning (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in the social sciences: I wonder about the friends... sounds slightly Original-ish) (undo)
 * 61) (cur) (last) 18:47, 3 February 2007 Tellyaddict (Talk | contribs | block) m (Reverted 1 edit by 157.182.178.119 (talk) to last revision (101046426) by 66.182.202.244 using VP) (undo)
 * 62) (cur) (last) 18:47, 3 February 2007 157.182.178.119 (Talk | block) (undo)
 * 63) (cur) (last) 05:57, 16 January 2007 66.182.202.244 (Talk | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 64) (cur) (last) 05:56, 16 January 2007 66.182.202.244 (Talk | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 65) (cur) (last) 23:44, 15 January 2007 Peterdjones (Talk | contribs | block) (Qualify "qunatum observation") (undo)
 * 66) (cur) (last) 00:19, 14 January 2007 Lotte Monz (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 67) (cur) (last) 00:18, 14 January 2007 Lotte Monz (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 68) (cur) (last) 00:16, 14 January 2007 Lotte Monz (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 69) (cur) (last) 02:50, 8 December 2006 Josh Parris (Talk | contribs | block) m (Disambiguate Bug to Software bug using popups) (undo)
 * 70) (cur) (last) 04:20, 7 December 2006 Gwern (Talk | contribs | block) (that was spelled right.... rv) (undo)
 * 71) (cur) (last) 01:05, 7 December 2006 209.226.249.135 (Talk | block) (fixed spelling error) (undo)
 * 72) (cur) (last) 20:51, 3 December 2006 Gwern (Talk | contribs | block) (rv. que?) (undo)
 * 73) (cur) (last) 20:12, 3 December 2006 209.226.248.49 (Talk | block) (undo)
 * 74) (cur) (last) 03:18, 2 December 2006 165.123.237.80 (Talk | block) (undo)
 * 75) (cur) (last) 01:02, 28 November 2006 216.209.113.62 (Talk | block) (added a scientist) (undo)
 * 76) (cur) (last) 04:37, 12 November 2006 Gwern (Talk | contribs | block) (→References: «-""» DUNNO) (undo)
 * 77) (cur) (last) 04:36, 12 November 2006 Gwern (Talk | contribs | block) («"observer]]s" → "observers]]", +" ", +" ", +" ", +""») (undo)
 * 78) (cur) (last) 19:37, 30 October 2006 69.108.101.72 (Talk | block) (the parapsychology sentence was confusing) (undo)
 * 79) (cur) (last) 07:58, 24 October 2006 68.5.171.150 (Talk | block) (→References) (undo)
 * 80) (cur) (last) 17:59, 2 September 2006 200.8.61.84 (Talk | block) (→Observer bias: -Single blind link (...again, sorry)) (undo)
 * 81) (cur) (last) 17:58, 2 September 2006 200.8.61.84 (Talk | block) (→Observer bias: - Single-blind link) (undo)
 * 82) (cur) (last) 19:31, 17 August 2006 146.131.120.2 (Talk | block) (→Use in Information Technology) (undo)
 * 83) (cur) (last) 04:00, 8 August 2006 Luna Santin (Talk | contribs | block) (Stub sorting: You can help!) (undo)
 * 84) (cur) (last) 12:57, 7 August 2006 Aib (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Use in Information Technology) (undo)
 * 85) (cur) (last) 12:56, 7 August 2006 Aib (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Use in Information Technology) (undo)
 * 86) (cur) (last) 09:42, 5 August 2006 Wisnuops (Talk | contribs | block) (→Observer bias) (undo)
 * 87) (cur) (last) 05:07, 9 July 2006 Scottmsg (Talk | contribs | block) (Revert to revision 58249406 dated 2006-06-12 18:55:59 by Marudubshinki using popups) (undo)
 * 88) (cur) (last) 05:06, 9 July 2006 24.119.177.233 (Talk | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 89) (cur) (last) 18:55, 12 June 2006 Marudubshinki (Talk | contribs | block) («+"==See also== *Anthropic bias"») (undo)
 * 90) (cur) (last) 15:24, 9 June 2006 Shnili (Talk | contribs | block) (link) (undo)
 * 91) (cur) (last) 00:26, 29 May 2006 24.6.66.193 (Talk | block) (→Use in Information Technology) (undo)
 * 92) (cur) (last) 21:26, 8 May 2006 192.18.42.11 (Talk | block) (→Use in Information Technology) (undo)
 * 93) (cur) (last) 17:03, 23 April 2006 68.55.158.139 (Talk | block) (→Use in Information Technology) (undo)
 * 94) (cur) (last) 17:02, 23 April 2006 68.55.158.139 (Talk | block) (undo)
 * 95) (cur) (last) 04:23, 7 April 2006 70.245.212.126 (Talk | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 96) (cur) (last) 13:22, 4 April 2006 129.241.11.201 (Talk | block) (observer bias redirects here) (undo)
 * 97) (cur) (last) 23:24, 27 March 2006 HRH (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 98) (cur) (last) 23:24, 27 March 2006 HRH (Talk | contribs | block) (→Use in science) (undo)
 * 99) (cur) (last) 09:55, 22 February 2006 Blainster (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Use in science: clarify) (undo)
 * 100) (cur) (last) 20:47, 15 February 2006 Jamori (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Use in the social sciences: Corrected typo) (undo)
 * 101) (cur) (last) 05:49, 5 February 2006 DanielCD (Talk | contribs | block) m (wording HUP better) (undo)
 * 102) (cur) (last) 05:47, 5 February 2006 DanielCD (Talk | contribs | block) (undo)
 * 103) (cur) (last) 05:41, 5 February 2006 DanielCD (Talk | contribs | block) m (undo)
 * 104) (cur) (last) 05:40, 5 February 2006 DanielCD (Talk | contribs | block) (minor tweaks) (undo)
 * 105) (cur) (last) 05:38, 5 February 2006 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs | block) (wikiconform) (undo)
 * 106) (cur) (last) 21:46, 2 February 2006 Jonathansfox (Talk | contribs | block) m (fixed double-blind redirect) (undo)
 * 107) (cur) (last) 20:37, 10 January 2006 Daniel.Cardenas (Talk | contribs | block) (→Meanings of the observer effect: For example: trying to observe an electron will change the path of the electron.) (undo)
 * 108) (cur) (last) 14:51, 18 December 2005 Crab (Talk | contribs | block) (Whoops, parapsychology,not paraphysics.) (undo)
 * 109) (cur) (last) 13:18, 17 December 2005 Karol Langner (Talk | contribs | block) (cat update) (undo)
 * 110) (cur) (last) 13:12, 17 December 2005 Crab (Talk | contribs | block) (Added paraphysics definition. Source: New scientist article.) (undo)
 * 111) (cur) (last) 06:00, 10 December 2005 Curpsbot-unicodify (Talk | contribs | block) m (1 & ; → Unicode • 1 link(s): %NN changed • 9 RTL chars created • 1 link(s): [_ ]+ → [ ]) (undo)
 * 112) (cur) (last) 18:18, 2 December 2005 Elabro (Talk | contribs | block) (Is this related: announced vs. unannounced inspections in the army?) (undo)
 * 113) (cur) (last) 18:16, 2 December 2005 Elabro (Talk | contribs | block) (Hawthorne effect) (undo)
 * 114) (cur) (last) 21:13, 30 November 2005 Elabro (Talk | contribs | block) (changes which the act of observing has on a phenomenon being observed) (undo)
 * 115) (cur) (last) 21:12, 30 November 2005 Elabro (Talk | contribs | block) (rewording for clarity) (undo)
 * 116) (cur) (last) 18:58, 13 August 2005 Neutrality (Talk | contribs | block) m (undo)
 * 117) (cur) (last) 08:38, 14 July 2005 Asbestos (Talk | contribs | block) m (sp) (undo)
 * 118) (cur) (last) 08:12, 14 July 2005 Asbestos (Talk | contribs | block) (...also thermometer) (undo)
 * 119) (cur) (last) 08:06, 14 July 2005 Asbestos (Talk | contribs | block) (Also in electronics: ammeters and voltmeters) (undo)
 * 120) (cur) (last) 22:08, 30 May 2005 2004-12-29T22:45Z (Talk | contribs | block) (undo)
 * 121) (cur) (last) 12:24, 9 April 2005 192.115.133.141 (Talk | block) (undo)
 * 122) (cur) (last) 13:42, 3 March 2005 Atlant (Talk | contribs | block) (→Observer bias: Since it's now found by a main entry redirect, highlight this) (undo)
 * 123) (cur) (last) 05:25, 3 March 2005 Grutness (Talk | contribs | block) m (→Observer bias) (undo)
 * 124) (cur) (last) 05:23, 3 March 2005 Grutness (Talk | contribs | block) m (undo)
 * 125) (cur) (last) 15:18, 27 January 2005 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) m (typo) (undo)
 * 126) (cur) (last) 15:17, 27 January 2005 David Gerard (Talk | contribs | block) (create)

--PeaceNT (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Quantum vs. macro level observer effect should not be conflated
And this article does so.

In the cases of the "ordinary" measurements described, like electrical meters and thermometers, what is described here as "observer effect" can be reduced to effectively zero (i.e. swamped by other errors) with sufficient effort. For example, in the case of the voltmeter, we can always put a high resistance divider in the path and then increase the gain as necessary. If that isn't enough, we can plot a graph of our readings with different impedance meters and extrapolate what the reading would be if we could avoid loading the device under test at all.

But this is not the case at the quantum level. Quantum systems are literally in an indeterminate state until "measured" in some way; "observer effect" there is something quite different than that of putting a 10 MOhm load on a circuit with a source impedance of 100 kOhms.

This article should distinguish between the two, and should also call attention to the widespread notion that quantum-level "observer effects" do apply at the macro level, when in fact they average out to zero. I don't think I'm competent to write the additions, though. Jeh (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek -vs- Physics
Currently, "Observer Effect" points to a page about a Star Trek episode, the episode is so named due to the Physics terminology. For that reason, as I have proposed on the talk page there, I plan to move this page to "Observer Effect" and the Star Trek episode to "Observer Effect(Star Trek)". However, I'm new at doing this type of thing, thus, if anyone is more experienced, I would feel better if they were to do it. Phoenix1177 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like this plan. Page moves are not difficult, but I will help if you want. It's generally a good idea to wait a bit for discussion on the two talk pages before proceeding with such a move, of course. Jeh (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On looking at the pages in question I see things are a bit more complex. There is already a disambig (commonly abbreviated to just "DA") page. I do agree strongly that the page describing the Trek episode should be named accordingly (this is consistent with how most TV episode pages are named even if there is not a conflict). I'm not sure if this page should have the undorned title, though - there are a lot of other "observer effects". It's probably best if "Observer effect" and "Observer Effect" simply go to the DA page. Jeh (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I don't know how to rename pages or how to redirect "Observer Effect" to the disambig; would you be able to do it, or tell me how to do it? Phoenix1177 (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thermodynamics
The article says:

"In thermodynamics, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring."

but in the case where the material being measured is _colder_ than the thermometer, the thermometer is _releasing_ thermal energy rather than _absorbing_ it... At least according to my understanding of thermal energy (admittedly, still high school level). Even if I'm right, this is just knit-picking, and I would rather not do the edit myself. If someone can verify this, and feels up to the challenge, maybe making use of the words "transfer of thermal energy" rather than "absorbing" would be more appropriate. SCooley138 (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainty Principle
The statement that the uncertainty principle 'wrongly' attributes physical meaning and not just 'measurement uncertainty' is by no means an agreed upon definition. If you read the original heisenberg papers and papers by Bohr, they (and the other copenhagen physicists) took the meaning to be that an inability to measure the quantum system had a physical manifestation in that the 'measurement was all' and thus the particle / system being measured did not in fact *have* a definitive position. So stating that this interpretation (called the Copenhagen interpretation) is invalid or 'proven wrong' is fallacious. There are competing theories, such as the many-worlds or non local hidden variable theories, but so far none has proven any better or more 'real' than the original copenhagen meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadopt1999 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Computing
I deleted the section on Computing, because 1) it has nothing to do with physics, and 2) it is explained in more detail at Observer effect (information technology) Wardog (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Probe effect
I propose to merge Probe effect into Observer effect (physics). As far as I can tell, it is the same thing or very similar. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not as regards the uncertainty principle, it isn't. Personally I think this article does not clearly enough distinguish between the two. Perhaps all of the "non-Heisenberg" aspects here should be moved to Probe effect. Jeh (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As there has been no further interest in this discussion I have removed the mergeto and mergefrom proposal templates from both articles. Jeh (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

i would like to add another principle
that the act of observing also affects the observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

that makes some sense to me, i mean Copenhagen seems to suggest that observers, conscious or otherwise, can remember and update things like wave functions that they own. it will be interesting to see how information warfare evolves multi-observer theories of QM, to say deal with the memories of various parties in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution. 173.69.195.228 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert --Community input is solicited
As I said in my ES, Jack Tuszyński is editor of such journals as Research Letters in Physics and many others, has an h-index of 32 as of 2014. So the cited info is valid. zzz (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, You said it only after a peremptory revert of my revert. And, worse yet, you deleted my warning off your Talkpage, with the bullying "keep off my page." I am happy to do that, but I very strongly believe the fringe bunk you adduce about consciousness subverts the entire point of the article, and "pulling rank" with the author's h-index is not an argument; and, trust me, that index value is not as impressive to me, as you may assume. Am I to pit him against Bell and Feynman? I believe you should remove your fringe material inserts yourself, argue for it here, and only then insert it after reaching consensus. i made it clear I consider it to be self-serving bunk.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're going to stick a block warning on my page after a single, cited edit, you'll have to expect to get told to clear off - and I have to laugh at your complaint of "bullying". zzz (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "some scientists do maintain that wave function collapse depends on a conscious observer". This is a (reliably sourced) fact. Clearly you have a violent aversion to it. I can't help you there, but you are obviously wrong about it being "self-serving bunk". zzz (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A fact it is, but so is the fact that "some people believe the landing on the moon was a hoax", and I can surely document it in print. In any case, in the spring of 1971, I bought Feynman's point in a course based on his v.III, and never had to look back. Wavefunction collapse is math, not metaphysics.


 * Go ahead laugh. Most of us consider it extraordinarily sleazy to delete discussions off a WP page, to simply efface the tracks of controversy, especially given the manifest character of related edits. A cited edit as a petulant revert after you were invited to make a case on the Talk page, as a feeble attempt to bypass it, may be not what you are prepared to argue here, is it??? Throwing a paper at the reader who just had the point clarified to him/her reserving the right to muddy the waters is not exactly a salutary move. In any case, I would dare you to take that charlatan drivel to the article on Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, Schrödinger's cat, Quantum decoherence, Wave function collapse, nay, Psychokinesis, anywhere but this one, where, of all the relevant articles in WP, the cult of conscious observer nonsense has not yet shown its voodoo face. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will laugh. "Most of us" wouldn't describe a (misused) block warning template as a "discussion"... but I digress. If you are going to accuse Professor Jack Tuszyński of producing "charlatan drivel", maybe you should take it up with the Department of Physics at the University of Alberta. In the meantime, "Most of us" here at Wikipedia take a dim view of such groundless accusations, and prefer to simply report what reliable sources say. zzz (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You added (after my reply) that "Wavefunction collapse is math, not metaphysics". This seems to suggest, erroneously, that any physicist who connects wavefunction collapse with consciousness is using reasoning derived from metaphysics. Quantum mechanics has not been solved or defined by the interpretation of any one scientist, including Feynman. Your strict adherence to this interpretation, to the extent that you, and the article, deny the very existence of any other interpretation, is untenable. The article is more likely to be taken seriously (and actually read) if it doesn't make an entirely unconvincing attempt to present concrete certainty that most people realise doesn't exist in this area. The edit you reverted would lend legitimacy to what is already there. zzz (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, I adduced Feynman as an antidote to feckless h-index rank-pulling, what did you think? You seem to miss the thrust of the article in the lede: It is attempting, and succeeding, to set aside the awful misconceptions of conscious observers and Schroedinger cats, right up front, precisely so the reader may go on and read the sound QM section. But.... Right after the point is settled, you inserted this gratuitous reference plugging the book that documents the fact some people are not convinced, and never will be, in my estimation. I completely fail to see how tipping my hat to the flat earth society will advance science, somehow. Of course I believe focus on conscious observation is metaphysics: there is no math or empirical way of settling it. Most professional physicists have abandoned it for a while. QM is 90 yrs old and doing fine, thank you, and there is not that much to settle,"solve????" or "define??" But this might be besides the point: This is not an article of interpretations of quantum mechanics. If you felt that strongly about consciousness mumbo-jumbo, you might go out and infect the relevant articles---but not this one, which, as I indicated above, best succeeds in settling the issue: it is math, decoherence, suppression of interference, not somebody thinking something or too dizzy to. This is the only way to have the article be taken seriously. There hardly can be another way. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of points. You falsely equate the voodoo consciousness which you accept is believed by some scientists (as stated in the edit) with the moon landing hoax. The moon landing hoax theory is believed by some people - not some scientists.
 * You have now added Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation to your comment above. That whole article is about "consciousness causes collapse". Furthermore, the section Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation describes a recent survey in which 6% of respondents at a quantum mechanics conference indicated their belief that the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)". So, it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that has been around since the 1930s and is still believed by a significant number of scientists. What was your objection to the edit??? I could accept that perhaps I did not go far enough in correcting the misinformation in the lead section, in the diatribe about "a common misconception ... rooted in a basic misunderstanding ..."! zzz (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh... 2 scientists... 6% of 33 participants in a specialized conference that, ipso facto, selects its audience as people troubled with standard quantum mechanics! Sample bias! You evidently did not go on to read up on Einsteins quote: he hated the conscious observer drivel, probably because the w.f. collapse was misrepresented to him as an act of consciousness, in the first place. That was then. If only the decoherence people had caught on with him then... I added the von-Neumann interpretation as a possible unfortunate venue that would not suffer from your inserts, not because I think it is sound or mainstream... you missed that? Do you understand that if a physicist in a seminar blurts out such consciouness drivel everybody in the room roll their eyes and look at each other? What world do you live in?  you are going to insist that practicing physicists in good standing today go for that stuff and sell it as such to the broad public informed by WP?  What you call the "diatribe"  is the most trenchant part of the article: what makes the article interesting... and you want to muddy it up on metaphysical grounds? We've got a problem. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I currently have nothing to add to the von-Neumann interpretation article - that article doesn't kick off with a diatribe about consciousness causing collapse being a fundamental misunderstanding. Nor does it claim that no scientist believes it.
 * You claim that respondents at a QM conference are people "troubled with" QM - so we should ignore them as incompetent - but, in the same breath, "everybody" at such a conference regards consciousness causing collapse as drivel (including the 6% who believe it????) - so we should respect their judgement. Do you realise how nonsensical that argument is? zzz (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The "argument' you are putting in my mouth is nonsensical... but I never made it... How could you misread my point? I'm saying 2 "researchers", as per that report (which does not exclude the dreaded philosophers!) took consciousness seriously, but, that the whole coterie is suspect if they have nothing better to do than debate at length what the Copenhagen interpretation was or was not--unless their Fig 2 met with your approval.... Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Tell you what. Let's keep mum for a week, and let the community chip in their input. Surely there are physicist page watchers with a view. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We're talking about this revert and others duplicating the actions? Then to summarize this thread, zzz adds to the lead the statement


 * "On the other hand, some scientists do maintain that wave function collapse depends on a conscious observer. "


 * citing a book by Jack Tuszyński, Cuzkatzimhut is saying it is fringe bunk, now we have this argument.


 * First off, zzz deferring to the credentials of editing journals and h-indices doesn't convince anyone of anything, because as he/she says well later, only the reliable sources count. Credentials are irrelevant. About the statement, I thought the mainstream view was that wave function collapse occurs after a system is measured, by humans or computers. I don't know about the philosophy, that a "conscious observer" (any living organism?) is required. Few QM books I've read state this requirement. But if this is not a mainstream view, attempts to force it in just because someone likes it and admires the credentials of the author are unacceptable. For a rough idea of how popular the book is, on google scholar the book has only 49 citations, amazon gives two reviews. M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Tweaked M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you objecting to? The edit? Do you deny that some scientists maintain that wave function collapse depends on a conscious observer? The reason I ask, is Cuzkatzimhut admits this is a fact. Or is it the reference? I hardly think Professor Jack Tuszyński of the Department of Physics at the University of Alberta would fail to qualify as a reliable source. That's why I cited it. In any case, the edit is an uncontroversial statement, which no one is denying. Do you have a reliable source that contradicts the one I cited, or at least one that says "barely any scientists believe it"? If so, then the article Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation should be updated with this info - currently, it distinctly gives the impression that it is a sound, respectable QM interpretation. The only thing I have read anywhere, so far, that contradicts this is the lead of this article, which is why I believe my edit is necessary. zzz (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I insisted that the 2 consciousness-believers in that "fundamentals" conference survey, referred to as "researchers" and thus not impossibly philosophers, are a small sample, which would convince neither me, nor any of my colleagues in good standing (I am a physicist, as is obvious). The heavily slanted Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation article is indeed very objectionable, and needs work. I brought it up as an example to stick that book in, without damaging its lost cause, and not as  a guiding beacon to use to mess up this article here. In case my firm belief was not heard above, this article here is one of the few in WP that "gets it right" without muddying the waters with "on the other hand some people think the earth is flat"s. I think it is bizarre to keep on fussing about such things a full 90 years after the inception of the damned thing. Teach it right and give it a rest. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is denying that some scientists believe it (you agreed, in your earlier comment). Do you have a reliable source that contradicts the one I cited, or at least one that says "barely any scientists believe it"? zzz (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Look, this is getting tendentious. A few fringe samples do not give one license to upend well-understood principles. It is impossible to get absolute agreement on anything, but a broad consensus develops over time as to which way is up. The clueless reader need not know about these fringe dissents. That is the whole point of balance and judgment provided here, as opposed to flakey articles in flakey venues. If only you read up on Feynman's v.III double slit analysis... What happens to the wave function upon coupling with the macroscopic apparatus ("observation") is transitioning to a wavefunction free of interference with its components projected out... whether somebody perceives that collapse or not. Left to itself, i.e. sent on to another screen, that wave function will continue to obey the Schr eqn and interfere with possibly new components that evolution may generate. Do the math. There is no Svengoolie Swamy observing it and forcing it to collapse through voodoo consciousness games. If one chose to actually perceive the results of the observation apparatus, he'd find consistent, undeniable results, me, you, and my dead cat...Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)         Two professionals said it better:

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective    features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of     registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an     apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual,"     is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137 "Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared?   Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?" John Stewart Bell, 1981, Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists. In C.J. Isham, R. Penrose and D.W. Sciama (eds.), Quantum Gravity 2: A second Oxford Symposium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p.611.
 * Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quoting these. I was having serious doubts already. I removed the tag. zzz (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Does "which" require revision?
In the article it states: "According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them . . . ."  It is not immediately clear what the antecedent to the pronoun which is. Does "which" refer to "apparatus," its closest antecedent? (PeacePeace (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Yes it does. Standard english. Any alternate reading would be perverse. What would you have in mind, exactly? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with PeacePeace that the sentence as it stands is ambiguous & confusing. It is not obvious however whether this is a direct quote from the cited book or the editor's paraphrase. Since there are no quote marks, I am going to assume the latter & boldly adjust the word order to mitigate confusion. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Many studies
The arguments against it are no better than the climate-science denial of previous years. All this should be included in the article, or the gate-keepers should be fired. They are science deniers: Re-write this article to include the following:

The Observer Effect. The theory was directly observed by scientists in 1998, when researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed, as reported in one of the premiere science journals, 'Nature'. (Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874).) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments: "The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem." http://media.noetic.org/sites/default/files/uploads/files/PhysicsEssays-Radin-DoubleSlit-2012.pdf

Matter Affects Matter. This is self-evident. Both at the macroscopic level and at the microscopic levels. Matter interacts with matter at the most subtle levels of physics. M.I.T scientist posits human consciousness is a state of matter. It is an interesting theory, but appears to be bsed in a misunderstanding. The over-whelming consensus is that all matter is made of abstract fields (of energy or states). Eg. Elecromagnetic field, weak nuclear force, Unified Field. : ""Human consciousness is simply a state of matter, like a solid or liquid…"" http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/181284-human-consciousness-is-simply-a-state-of-matter-like-a-solid-or-liquid-but-quantum

Princeton University - The PEAR project. The PEAR Lab was started for the purpose of testing the Observer Effect. "The PEAR lab has demonstrated, to a highly significant degree, that the human mind has a small, but measurable influence on random physical systems"" (ie. nature). https://www.princeton.edu/~pear/#sthash.wBugqPwj.dpuf Video summary --> https://player.vimeo.com/video/4359545?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0

Also this --> The Observer Effect is the result of the field nature of matter. This is the consensus in physics for a century and even more so today. Field model of consciousness: EEG coherence changes as indicators of field effects (1989). Travis, f., & Orme- Johnson, D. - International Journal of Neuroscience, 49, 203-211- from U.S. GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2700478 Sorry can't figure out the citations. can someone do it please?

And another study on the US Government's N.I.H website ---> "Intersubject EEG coherence: is consciousness a field?" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6763008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Please sign your edits. I'm not quite sure what "it" is and what you are talking about, and, frankly, what your point is and who is denying what. Why don't write a reasoned proposed section here, in the talk page, have it discussed, and not touch the actual page until there is consensus among all the editors. Nobody hires them and nobody fires them, but you seem to have a highly peremptory point of view. Do you have a science degree? I kept your reference in the lede, assuming people to read it, but if you have a further point to make, propose your section here. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have another idea: Why don't you develop your own, new, page on the subject, which represents your thinking? If it gets approved by WP, I will link it here. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your whole article is just more science-denial. The introduction is set up to make beginners think that the observer effect is just a figure of speech. The second paragraph is mis-information. Your last paragraph about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is absolute bunk and mis-information. Science-denial.
 * The observer effect is settled science. The observer changes the nature of the observed, by the act of observation (whether by man or machine).
 * The introduction should read: - "The Observer effect is the well-established theory and observation, that an observer (of any kind) changes the qualities of the observed, such that any knowledge about the quality, position, or speed of the observed before the observation, is not possible. In other words, the observer (whatever that interaction is), changes the nature of the observed, such that there is uncertainty about the form of the subtlest aspects of physics before observation, as should be achieved in a purely objective experiment, were an observer truly remote from the observed - which is the goal of all science. Objective observation. Since this is not possible at subtler levels of physics, knowledge of the observed, without the interaction and effect of an observer (whether man or machine), cannot be clearly known. The observer changes whatever was there before the observation. Many philosophers, philosophers of science, physicists, and related science experts, consider that minute change at a microscopic level can create significant change at the macroscopic level." --
 * This is settled science. And please don't tell me you know better, you don't. You are not qualified. Scientists are autistic by nature, having spent far too long in over-specialization. Of course, being a non-scientific person (ie. the readers of this), you will no-doubt revert to a knee-jerk unscientific emotional response to the former statements by me, because you are fueled by emotion and ego, over objective analysis. Your current chagrin caused by my remarks, is a sign of your former non-objectivity and emotional instability. Scientists should be made of better stuff than that. Now sort out the page. This is an encyclopedia for the general public, not a playground for failed scientists. - Tommy Barlow


 * I am still confused, Tommy... Scientists are "autistic" and so are unsuitable to uphold scientific soundness, thus supporting science denial? The first paragraph illustrates the observer effect perfectly well as a real effect with a tire gauge, quite apart from quantum mechanics. You evidently have far-off-mainstream ideas on its role in quantum mechanics. This is not a forum to discuss fringe ideas. Feynman, Bell, Nauenberg, (and Heisenberg, whose quote above I could add, if you wish) and the others quoted basically "own" the field on those. You might try to convince the  editors of Decoherence about your disturbing theories of wavefunction collapse, but I would not destroy a perfectly fine article to substitute fringe interpretations in it. As I indicated, you may find it easier to write a WP article yourself, have it approved, and I would link it here. Or, better, you could appeal for input in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics.  In any case, we should invite the 66 editors of this page to vet and comment on your proposed lede. Let's give it a couple of or three weeks.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Bad Sentence
I'm trying to insert this as a new section; hope this works. Could someone qualified replace the following quasi-sentence with the real thing?

"More explicitly, the superposition principle (ψ = Σanψn) of quantum physics dictates that for a wave function ψ, a measurement will result in a state of the quantum system of one of the m possible eigenvalues fn, n=1,2,....m, of the operator ∧F which in the space of the eigenfunctions ψn , n=1,2,...,n."Lewis Goudy (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My sense is that you are in a very-very-very wrong article here, if you are into summarizing QM wavefunction projection/collapse: you evidently wish to be at Measurement in quantum mechanics. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin of misconception in quantum mechanics
"In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process"

I have no sources for this, but I'd argue it's rooted in a poorly constructed sentence, "Quantum waves have both states until observed", which alludes to the idea that observation without interaction still happens, and that the "observation" part is something the listener does not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.245.154 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately, @Bigtimwilcox removed the admittedly emotive cautionary statement today. Fine in itself, but only in the absence of constant attack by the psychobabble nut armies... If only he had cared to study the talk pages, and the troubled history of the article... In a way, the article is a warning to the odd undergraduate and stray philosopher to not go there... You take it away, and they start "discussing"... and watering down.. and giving "equal time" to alternate ontologies....  Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, I restored, as a footnote, the peremptorily deleted paragraph and Feynman's crucial quote, which were removed massively and without discussion, as being "off topic" two weeks ago. I personally know that a large number of WP readers specifically end up on this page to grasp, or dismiss, idle talk about the observer's role in mainstream QM. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's starting. First the crucial parts of the article are yanked out, then the "many consider the earth to be flat" quasi-NPOV snips push for reversal through erosive confusion. Perhaps Collapse of the wavefunction should be the proper forum for edits such as the one of ‎205.118.122.223 I reverted today. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Why I have deleted the word "situation".
The definition (in the lead sentence!) was inconsistent. If we left the word "situation" we would have to change the definition to: But the word "situation" in this context is redundant, and here is why. Let's imagine a "pure" situation without any phenomenon at all. Is it possible? No. There is no such thing. In the real world there is always some phenomenon, even if nothing happens for hours or even years. Just because some process develops very slowly does not mean that nothing happens. Something always happens. A "situation" is actually a set of phenomena, even if we are interested only in one of them. For this reason the word "situation" is redundant in our definition. But the final argument for the deletion is that we have no source on the word "situation". Vikom talk 02:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Implying that a conscious mind does not alter a given outcome
...even without a sensor or other technical apparatus, the act of observing the experiment can cause the observer effect in the double-slit experiment. In fact, the observer effect is not dependent on the type of observation being made, but rather on the fact that any observation disturbs the system being observed.

In the case of the double-slit experiment, even if a person were to observe the experiment without any technical apparatus, their presence and attention could disturb the system and cause the wave-like behavior to collapse into a particle-like behavior.

Therefore, the observer effect is not limited to the use of technical equipment or sensors, but rather is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics that arises from the act of observation itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.142.28.84 (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

'''Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.'''

The above statement might be true, but there's no evidence that it is true. Au contraire. The delayed choice experiment, and the delayed choice eraser experiment show evidence to the opposite.

I believe, in order to make this article correct, that the above indication should be either edited or deleted.

--Phoenikz42 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true there is no evidence. The statement itself is true. I’d leave delayed choice expt alone. It, in fact, bolsters the statement. Worth reading on more. This is not a forum.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The wording, as it is right now, is biased, to the point of ridicule. That's below the dignity and spirit of wikipedia. It should be impartial, and open to all interpretations. --Phoenikz42 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia covers the mainstream. Not a. Forum.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Phoenikz42, the experiments you mentioned do not support the claims you made. There have been many people trying to push pseudoscience into this article and that is why you're getting firm and uncompromising responses to such very well known misconceptions. Apeximius (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Source lacking at end of the first paragraph?
At the end of the first paragraph this text: "During double blind tests at SRI laboratories it was proven that by observing a circuit it changes the output. This test proved that the observer effect does occur even if the observer is using their mind to observe the circuit in question. This test lead to the use of random number generators placed in cities to get the gestalt of emotional content of said cities. This information has been declassified and is there for public viewing." Seems unsourced and out of place. Is there a source for this, and should it maybe be moved to a lower section? Baconaetor (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-scientific-consensus claim in the Quantum Mechanics section
This claim: "a common misconception that assumes that the wave function ψ amounts to the same thing as the physical object it describes. This flawed concept must then require existence of an external mechanism, such as a measuring instrument, that lies outside the principles governing the time evolution of the wave function ψ, in order to account for the so-called "collapse of the wave function" after a measurement has been performed. But the wave function ψ is not a physical object..." I have surely heard it before, and you could certainly find somewhere to claim as a source; however it is currently unsourced and more importantly does not accurately reflect current consensus. I see it sometimes used as a crutch by those claiming 'QM is not so weird, I can easily explain it...' It may be fair to say a wave function is not a traditional wave or particle, but to claim it is merely abstract math, as our article does, surely forgets that the very real wave of possible outcomes exerts a very real and physical interference pattern, as the double slit shows. Also, our wording in this quote seems to hint at an editor pushing something similar to Hidden Variable Theory, which near-universal scientific consensus says has been disproven. I recommend removing or sharply editing this quote. Tom Hulse (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)