Observer effect (physics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Observer effect.

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

In Quantum Mechanics, there is a common misconception that it is the mind of a conscious observer that effects the observer effect in quantum processes. regrettably, this misconception has acquired a life of its own, givinge rise to endless speculations. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[1] According to ordinary quantum mechanics, however, it is actually 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, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time irreversible process.[2]

As Richard Feynman put it succinctly: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."[3]


Furthermore, historically, the observer effect has been confused with the uncertainty principle.[4][5]

Particle physics[edit]

For an electron to become detectable, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will inevitably change the path of that electron. It is also possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron.

Electronics[edit]

In electronics, ammeters and voltmeters are usually wired in series or parallel to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring by way of presenting an additional real or complex load to the circuit, thus changing the transfer function and behavior of the circuit itself. Even a more passive device such as a current clamp, which measures the wire current without coming into physical contact with the wire, affects the current through the circuit being measured because the inductance is mutual.

Thermodynamics[edit]

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

Quantum mechanics[edit]

The theoretical foundation of the concept of measurement in quantum mechanics is a contentious issue deeply connected to the many interpretations of quantum mechanics. A key topic is that of wave function collapse, for which some interpretations assert that measurement causes a discontinuous change into an eigenstate of the operator associated with the quantity that was measured.

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 \hat{F} which is part of the eigenfunctions ψn, n=1,2,...,n.

Once one has measured the system, one knows its current state; and this prevents it from being in one of its other states−−it has decohered from them.[6] This means that the type of measurement one performs on the system affects the end state of the system. An experimentally studied situation related to this is the quantum Zeno effect, in which a quantum state would decay if left alone, but does not decay because of its continuous observation. The dynamics of a quantum system under continuous observation is described by a quantum stochastic master equation known as the Belavkin equation.[7][8][9] Further studies have shown that even observing the results after the experiment leads to collapsing the wave function and loading a back-history as shown by delayed choice quantum eraser.[10]

When discussing the wave function ψ which describes the state of a system in quantum mechanics, one should be cautious of 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 the mind of a conscious observer, 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 like, for example, an atom, which has an observable mass, charge and spin, as well as internal degrees of freedom. Instead, ψ is an abstract mathematical function that contains all the statistical information that an observer can obtain from measurements of a given system. In this case, there is no mystery that mathematical form of the wave function ψ must change abruptly after a measurement has been performed.[1]

In the ambit of the so-called hidden-measurements interpretation of quantum mechanics, the observer-effect can be understood as an instrument effect which results from the combination of the following two aspects: (a) an invasiveness of the measurement process, intrinsically incorporated in its experimental protocol (which therefore cannot be eliminated); (b) the presence of a random mechanism (due to fluctuations in the experimental context) through which a specific measurement-interaction is each time actualized, in a non-predictable (non-controllable) way.[11][12][13]

A consequence of Bell's theorem is that measurement on one of two entangled particles can appear to have a nonlocal effect on the other particle. Additional problems related to decoherence arise when the observer is modeled as a quantum system, as well.


The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[4] The uncertainty principle in its standard form actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.[14] An alternative version of the uncertainty principle,[15] more in the spirit of an observer effect,[16] fully accounts for the disturbance the observer has on a system and the error incurred, although this is not how the term "uncertainty principle" is most commonly used in practice.

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Nauenberg, Michael (2011). "Does Quantum Mechanics Require A Conscious Observer?". Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol. 14. Retrieved January 20, 2016. 
  2. ^ Bell, John (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780521523387. 
  3. ^ Feynman, Richard (2015). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465040834. 
  4. ^ a b Furuta, Aya (2012), "One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead", Scientific American 
  5. ^ Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A 67 (4), arXiv:quant-ph/0207121, Bibcode:2003PhRvA..67d2105O, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.042105 
  6. ^ B.D'Espagnat, P.Eberhard, W.Schommers, F.Selleri. Quantum Theory and Pictures of Reality. Springer-Verlag, 1989, ISBN 3-540-50152-5
  7. ^ V. P. Belavkin (1989). "A new wave equation for a continuous non-demolition measurement". Physics Letters A 140 (7-8): 355–358. arXiv:quant-ph/0512136. Bibcode:1989PhLA..140..355B. doi:10.1016/0375-9601(89)90066-2. 
  8. ^ Howard J. Carmichael (1993). An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics. Berlin Heidelberg New-York: Springer-Verlag. 
  9. ^ Michel Bauer, Denis Bernard, Tristan Benoist. Iterated Stochastic Measurements (Technical report). arXiv:1210.0425. 
  10. ^ Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1. 
  11. ^ Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2013). The Observer Effect. Foundations of Science 18, pp. 213-243, arXiv:1109.3536.
  12. ^ Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2015). God may not play dice, but human observers surely do. Foundations of Science 20, pp. 77-105, arXiv:1208.0674.
  13. ^ Aerts, D. and Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2014). The extended Bloch representation of quantum mechanics and the hidden-measurement solution to the measurement problem. Annals of Physics 351, pp. 975–1025, arXiv:1404.2429.
  14. ^ Heisenberg, W. (1930), Physikalische Prinzipien der Quantentheorie, Leipzig: Hirzel English translation The Physical Principles of Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. reprinted Dover 1949
  15. ^ Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A 67, arXiv:quant-ph/0207121, Bibcode:2003PhRvA..67d2105O, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.042105 
  16. ^ V. P. Belavkin (1992). "Quantum continual measurements and a posteriori collapse on CCR". Communications in Mathematical Physics 146 (3): 611–635. arXiv:math-ph/0512070. Bibcode:1992CMaPh.146..611B. doi:10.1007/BF02097018.