Mirror Mirror on the wall, who collapses the very small?
QUANTUM VERSION OF AN OLD FAIRY TALE
My conscious decision about how to observe an electron will determine the electron’s properties to some extent. If I ask it a particle question, it will give me a particle answer. If I ask it a wave question, it will give me a wave answer.
—Fritjof Capra
When faced with the experimental evidence that the process of observing appears to influence what is being observed, science was forced to drop four centuries of assumptions and grapple with a revolutionary idea—we are involved in reality. Although the nature and extent of this influence is still being hotly debated, it is clear that, as Fritjof Capra puts it, “The crucial feature of quantum theory is that the observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an atomic phenomenon, but is necessary even to bring about these properties.”
This profound shift in physicists’ conception of the basic nature of their endeavor, and of the meanings of their formulas, was not a frivolous move: It was a last resort. The very idea that in order to comprehend atomic phenomena one must abandon physical ontology, and construe the mathematical formulas to be directly about the knowledge of human observers, rather than about the external real events themselves, is so seemingly preposterous that no group of eminent and renowned scientists would ever embrace it except as an extreme last measure.
—Henry Stapp
The Observer Affects the Observed
Before an observation or measurement is made, the object exists as a probability wave (technically called a wave function). It has no specific location or velocity. Its wave function or probability wave contains the likelihood that, when observed in a measurement, it will be here or there. It has potential positions, potential velocities—but we won’t know what those are until it is observed.
“In this view,” writes Brian Greene in The Fabric of the Cosmos, “when we measure the electron’s position we are not measuring an objective, preexisting feature of reality. Rather, the act of measurement is deeply enmeshed in creating the very reality it is measuring.” Fritjof Capra concludes: “The electron does not have objective properties independent of my mind.”
All of this serves to blur the once-sharp distinction between the “world out there” and the subjective observer, which seem to merge or dance together in the process of discovering—or is it creating?—the world.
To understand quantum mechanics completely, to determine fully what it says about reality . . . we must come to grips with the quantum measurement problem.
—Brian Greene
The Fabric of the Cosmos
The question might be, can we make a mathematical model of what an observer is doing, when an observer is observing and changing reality? So far, that’s eluded us. Any mathematical model that we use that brings in observation seems to introduce discontinuities in the mathematics. The observer has been left out of the equation of physics for a simple reason—it’s easier to do things that way.
—Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D.
The Measurement Problem
Today this effect of observation is usually referred to as the measurement problem. While the early descriptions of this phenomena included the conscious observer, there have been many attempts to remove the troublesome word “conscious” from the problem. Questions about what is conscious quickly arose: If a dog looks at the results of an experiment on electrons, will that collapse the wave function?
In removing consciousness from the problem, physicists were able to realize the fact mentioned earlier: The fantasy of being able to make a measurement and not affect the measured was forever ruled out. The proverbial “fly on the wall” that sits there not influencing things cannot exist. (And we don’t have to worry about whether or not the fly is conscious!)
To come to terms with the problems of observers, measurement, mind and collapse, numerous theories have been put forward over the years. The first, and still often discussed, theory is the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The Copenhagen Interpretation
The radical idea that the observer has an inescapable influence on any observed physical process, that we are not neutral, objective witnesses to things and events, was first insisted upon by Niels Bohr and his colleagues in Copenhagen, where Bohr lived; thus it’s often called the Copenhagen Interpretation. Bohr argued that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle implied more than just the fact that you cannot determine exactly both how fast a subatomic particle is moving and where it is located. Bohr’s contention, as Fred Alan Wolf explains, was that, “It’s not only that you cannot measure it. It isn’t an ‘it’, until it’s an observed ‘it’. Heisenberg thought there were ‘its’ out there.” He could not accept that there were no “its” until an observer was involved. Bohr believed that the particles themselves don’t even come into existence until we observe them, and that reality on a quantum level does not exist until it is observed or measured.
Einstein’s was a universe in which objects possess definite values of all possible physical attributes. Attributes do not hang in limbo, waiting for an experimenter’s measurement to bring them into existence. The majority of physicists would say that Einstein was wrong on this point, too. Particle properties, in this majority view, come into being when measurements force them to . . . When they are not being observed . . . particle properties have a nebulous, fuzzy existence
characterized solely by a probability that one or another potentiality might be realized.
—Brian Greene,
The Fabric of the Cosmos
Indeed, many scientists resisted and disputed this difficult and puzzling notion that goes against common sense and our ordinary daily experience. Einstein and Bohr argued into the night on numerous occasions, with Einstein saying that he simply couldn’t accept it.
There is disagreement—some might say a raging debate—about whether or not this means that human consciousness, the human observer (as opposed to nonhuman), is what collapses the wave function and brings the object from a state of probability to its point value.
Heisenberg held that the mind was intrinsic to the problem. He referred to the act of measurement as “the act of registration of the result in the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function . . . takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change in our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function’’ (our italics).
Or, as Lynne McTaggart expresses in somewhat less scientific terms: “Reality is unset Jell-O. There’s a big indeterminate sludge out there that’s our potential life. And we, by our very act of involvement, our act of noticing, our observation, we get that Jell-O to set. So we’re intrinsic to the whole process of reality. Our involvement creates that reality.”
The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
This area of investigation emerged in the ’70s as an attempt to remove the “conscious” part out of the theories of quantum mechanics. It was a much more mechanistic way to view the problem of measurement. In it the physical measurement device was looked at as being the active agent.
If we ask . . . whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say, “No”; if we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time, we must say, “No”; if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say, “No”; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say, “No.”
—J. Robert Oppenheimer,
chairman of the Los Alamos project that created the atomic bomb
As Dr. Albert describes it:
(There was) a series of progressively more and more embarrassing conversations of the form, “Well, can a cat cause these effects with its consciousness? Can a mouse cause these effects with its consciousness?” Eventually, it was clear that the words involved here were so imprecise, were so slippery, that you weren’t going to be able to build a useful scientific theory around them, and the idea was dropped.
This work [Foundations of Quantum Mechanics] has to do with trying to figure out how to alter the equations in order to produce these changes or how to add things, add physical things to our picture of the world, in order to show how these changes come about.
In a nutshell, the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics attempted to look at quantum physics from a purely physical point of view, one that did not include the challenges of a conscious observer.
Einstein’s was a universe in which objects possess definite values of all possible physical attributes. Attributes do not hang in limbo, waiting for an experimenter’s measurement to The majority of physicists would say that Einstein was wrong on this point, too. Particle properties, in this majority view, come into being when measurements force them to . . . When they are not being observed . . . particle properties have a nebulous, fuzzy existence characterized solely by a probability that one or another potentiality might be realized.
—Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos
The Many Worlds Theory
Physicist Hugh Everett proposed that when a quantum measurement is performed, rather than the wave function collapsing into merely one outcome, every possible outcome will actualize. In the process of actualizing, the universe will split into as many versions of itself as needed to accommodate all possible measurement results. This gives rise to the (rather unwieldy but definitely mind-expanding) notion that there are innumerable parallel universes where all the quantum potentialities play out.
Take a moment to digest that concept—anytime you make a choice, there are innumerable parallel possibilities or outcomes of that choice occurring at once!
Quantum Logic
Mathematician John von Neumann developed a rigorous mathematic basis for quantum theory. In looking at the observer and the observed, he broke the problem into three processes.
Process 1 was the decision by the observer to pose a question to the quantum world. “Mirror mirror on the wall.” This choice already limits the modes of freedom available to the quantum system in which to respond. (In fact, posing any questions limits the response: If one asked what fruit you had for dinner, steak is not a valid response.)
Process 2 was the evolving state of the wave equation—the process by which the cloud of probability unfolds or evolves in a manner described by Schrödinger’s wave equation.
Process 3 was the quantum state responding to the question posed in process 1, which “collapses the very small.”
When we understand the observer, then we have to bow to a greater mind that is forming this energy into modes of reality that we have yet to dream in our lifetime. We only perceive it yet as chaos, but its order is definite. It’s above us. It’s deeper.
—Ramtha
One of the interesting things about this formalism was the decision about what to ask the quantum world. Every observation involved a choice about what to observe. Suddenly, words like “choice” and “free will” were being viewed as part of the entire quantum event. Although the question of whether a dog is a conscious observer is debatable, the question as to whether or not a dog ever decided (process 1) to make a quantum measurement regarding the wave nature of electrons seems pretty obvious.
In this quantum logic theory, there is no distinction about what is included in the physical system involved in process 2. That means that the brain of the observer could be considered part of the evolving wave function, not just the electrons being observed. This has given rise to a number of theories about consciousness, the mind and the brain.1
__________________
1 Henry Stapp, The Mindful Universe. This is covered in the “Quantum Brain” chapter.
Through John von Neumann’s quantum logic, a pivotal piece of the measurement problem was brought forward: One decision by the observer makes a measurement. This decision limits the degrees of freedom to which the physical system (such as electrons) can respond, thereby affecting the result (reality).
Neorealism
Neorealism was led by Einstein, who refused to accept any interpretation that concluded that commonsense reality does not exist in its own right, irrespective of our observations and measurements. The neorealists propose that reality consists of the objects familiar to classical physics, and that the paradoxes of quantum mechanics reveal that the theory is incomplete and flawed. This view is also known as the “hidden variable” interpretation of quantum mechanics, which assumes that once we discover all the missing factors, the paradoxes will go away.
Consciousness Creates Reality
This interpretation pushes to the extreme the idea that the conscious act of observation is the key factor in the formation of reality. This provides the act of observation an especially privileged role in collapsing the possible into the actual. Most mainstream physicists regard this interpretation as little more than wishful New Age thinking and a fuzzy misunderstanding of the measurement problem.
There’s a whole chapter in which this is discussed. Suffice it to say that this debate has been ongoing for millennia. The most ancient spiritual and metaphysical traditions have long held the view that, in the words of Amit Goswami: “Consciousness is the ground of all being.” Protons and neutrons are relative newcomers to the debate. Their appearance on the witness stand has indeed been a remarkable event.
We have found that where science has progressed the furthest, the mind has regained from nature that which mind has put into nature. We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
Wholeness
Einstein’s protégé David Bohm maintained that quantum mechanics reveals that reality is an undivided whole in which everything is connected in a deep way, transcending the ordinary limits of space and time. He put forward the concept that there is an “implicate order” from which the “explicate order” (the hidden, non-detectable physical universe) springs forth. It is the enfolding and unfolding of these orders that gives rise to the varieties of the quantum world. Bohm’s vision of the nature of reality has given rise to a holographic theory of the universe. This theory has been used by Karl Pribram and others to explain the brain and perception. In a recent conversation with Edgar Mitchell, he felt that the Copenhagen Interpretation is inaccurate, and that quantum holography is a much better model of reality.
Then There’s Me . . .
Thus far we have dealt primarily with the physics notion of the observer. The other side of the observer is possibly the most intimate sense that each of us has about ourselves. We have a sense that there is “an observer” somewhere inside us watching, watching all the time. Sometimes referred to as “the still small voice,” many spiritual traditions and practices have used the term observer to get a handle on the ineffable self, or to realize our inner nature and by observation change the outer ego self.
The Zen practice of being always present in the moment and not swept away by the external activities could also be described as staying in the observer.
It’s no wonder that the impulse to tie the subjective view of the observer with the scientific view is so compelling, especially when the scientific view seems to be talking about exactly that. Subject and object are intimately related. And while our inner sense of the observer is often passive, science seems to be saying that observation is active. There is a physical effect to observation.
And whether or not the “C” word—consciousness—is the sole affecting agent, the fact that any measurement changes the physical system is itself a revelation. It says you cannot take any information out of a system without changing the physical-ness of that system.
“From the quantum perspective—the universe is an extremely interactive place,” science writer Dan Winters comments in a Discover article with the provocative title, “Does the Universe Exist if We’re Not Looking?” The article summarizes Princeton physicist John Wheeler’s idea of “genesis by observership.” According to Wheeler (a colleague of Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr and coiner of the term “black hole”): “We are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; we are shapers and creators living in a participatory universe.”
How Much Does the Observer Affect the Observed?
That’s the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question. Says Fred Alan Wolf:
You’re not changing the reality out there. You’re not changing chairs and big trucks and bulldozers and rockets taking off—you’re not changing those! No! But you’re changing how you perceive things, or maybe how you think about things, how you feel about things, how you sense the world.
But why aren’t we changing big trucks and bulldozers and ecological demise? According to Dr. Joe Dispenza: “Because we have lost the power of observation.” He believes in keeping the quantum physics message very simple: Observation has a direct effect on the observer’s world. This will motivate people to focus on becoming better observers. He continues:
The subatomic world responds to our observation, but the average person loses their attention span every 6–10 seconds . . . so how can the very large respond to someone who doesn’t have the ability to even focus and concentrate? Maybe we’re just poor observers. Maybe we haven’t mastered the skill of observation and maybe it is a skill . . .
We should be willing to sit down every day and take a piece of our day and set it aside and begin to observe, to design a new possible future for ourselves, and if we do it properly and we observe it properly, we should have opportunities begin to show up in our lives.
Altering Your Everyday Reality
Stepping up from the subatomic scale to the human scale: What is observation? For humans, the doorway of observation is perception. Your perception. And remember from previous chapters how suspect that can be? (“Mirror mirror on the wall . . . who’s the fairest of them all?”) As Amit Goswami observes:
Every observation can be looked upon as a quantum measurement, because quantum measurement produces brain memory. These brain memories are activated every time we encounter and experience again a repeated stimulus. A repeated stimulus will always illicit, not only the original impression, but also this repetition of memory impressions . . .
We always perceive something after reflection in the mirror of memory. It is this reflection in the mirror of memory that gives us that sense of “I-ness,” who I am, namely a pattern of habits, a pattern of memories, a pattern of past.
In other words:
Memory (past) 
Perception 
Observation 
(affecting) Reality
Is it any wonder that practices such as “A Course in Miracles” stress forgiveness as the important element for changing the present? And think about the teachings of Jesus—how much he taught forgiveness. And about perception: “Before you find fault in your neighbor for the speck in their eye, first remove the log from your eye.” And the ultimate observation: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
The subtitle for this book is “Discovering the endless possibilities for altering your everyday reality.” Well, if reality is just the answer to the questions, or attitudes, held in the mind, and that answer lays down at the end of a long chain of memories, perceptions and observations, it’s not so much how do we alter reality, as much as it’s a wonder why we keep our reality the same. In the answer to that is the key to change.
The measurement problem is only a “problem” because it so radically undercuts the notion that we are outside of the observed. Even a simple measurement device interacts with the measured system and changes it. There is a fluidity to the observed reality that seems contrary to the world of coffee cups and rockets taking off. And yet it is a fundamental feature of how all aspects of reality hook up to each other.
And the operable words are “hook up.” Or we could say connect, or entangle, or are parts of the same wave equation. This notion of the essential inseparability of all things keeps popping out from the quantum witness stand.
And who are we, mere humans, to argue with a gazillion million billion electrons?
Who collapses the very small? Not who—what. Every thing.
The question remains—is it just things, or also no-things: mind, spirit, consciousness? And if they do, are they as real as the things they collapse? In the world of illusions, the separation between things and no-things may be the one illusion that all the rest of the illusions hang on.
Ponder These for a While . . .
• Is it possible to identify yourself as the observer if you are the observer?
• What or who is self?
• What or who is the observer?
• Are they separate?
• Can you observe something within yourself other than self?
• If you can become an observer to your “self,” how will that change your perception of reality?
• If it takes the observer to create reality, how focused of an observer are you? What reality are you creating in your current state of observing?
• How long can you hold a thought?
• Does reality continue to exist when you are not observing it?
• If the observer is required to collapse reality, then what keeps your body together when you are sleeping?
• Who or what then is the observer?