EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.
On your second point, that’s what the science actually says. “Observer” or “observation” is used in a scientific sense and was probably a poor word choice. Science journalism gets carried away with anything that has the word “quantum” in it and it drives us mad.
You’re absolutely right that the mechanism that’s causing the wave function to collapse is the presence of whatever piece of equipment the particle is hitting. Whether that collapse happens at the two slits or the back wall changes the pattern, and that change is what shows wave-particle duality.
Also: physics doesn’t claim to know that the Big Bang only happened once. That’s just as far back as we can rewind with our current models. This is again something that science journalism takes a lot of liberty with.
Removed by mod
Aren’t you just moving the point of the wave collapse from the experiment to inside the brain? I mean if the wave function never collapsed, shouldn’t we see all superpositions at once? But instead, the brain seems to collapse to one possibility, i.e. still collapsing the wave function.
Removed by mod
I feel like here you’re just moving the goal post again, if you’ll excuse the expression :)
Even if there is no superposition in which an observer sees both outcomes, there must be some point in space and/or time that decides which of the two superpositions we see. Whether that is in the experiment, in the brain or in consciousness or whatever. I mean we only see one superposition, so there must be something that “decides” (randomly as far as we know) which one it is. And that decision is a kind of collapse of the wave function, no?
I am not a physicist though so this is just me rambling from my limited understanding.
I strongly dispute that that’s the leading approach. What interpretation are you even talking about? Many worlds?
The majority opinion is still Copenhagen, which is consistent with what I wrote. And I’m personally more subscribed to the other most common opinion: “shut up and calculate.” Mathematically, our current model describes reality if the wave function is collapsing at the moment of interaction. Call it a requirement of the math or a Copenhagen interpretation, I don’t really care, but either of those two covers the vast majority of physicists.