Observer influence on quantum interference: Testing the von Neumann‐Wigner consciousness-collapse theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The von Neumann‐Wigner consciousness-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics was explored by testing if human observation of interference in an optical interferometer might act like a weak quantum measurement effect. Forty-seven participants selected via a worldwide search for individuals with experience in focusing their attention were each provided with a custom-made optical apparatus. Using this device, they ran a preassigned series of test sessions to see if illumination recorded in a portion of the interference pattern would be affected when a feedback signal based on that measure was observed versus unobserved. Another portion of the interference pattern was recorded simultaneously but never observed to provide control data. Environmental sensors and real-time encryption of the illumination data were among the methods included in the design of the experiment to help ensure data integrity. With all data combined the results did not support three preregistered hypotheses, but for one of those hypotheses participants selected for experience in an outward versus an inward focus of attention achieved significantly better results in reducing interference ( p = 0.008). An exploratory analysis found a progressive decline in interference while participants observed a portion of the interference pattern, as compared to data recorded simultaneously from an unobserved portion ( p = 5.9 × 10 −14 ). By comparison, applying the same analysis during no-observation periods found no differences in trends ( p = 0.77). Control data run with no observers present and subjected again to this same trend analysis showed uniformly nonsignificant results. Alternative explanations, including possible environmental influences that might have caused these outcomes, as well as recommendations for future studies, are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".