Science considering experimental influence of the observer

It’s not really science that’s considering Quantum-Consciousness - it’s people who are talking about “Quantum-Consciousness” - most of of them unqualified to understand the underlaying physics, or should I say the math. Sure science writers know a lot, but they are also journalists who can’t resist an exciting mystery, ginned up a lil to increase sales of books and tickets to talks, all in a days work.

 

 

The Double Slit Experiment Demystified. Disproving the Quantum Consciousness connection.

Robert Lea, July 4, 2018, MEDIUM-Science First, Science Communication Matters

Does the change in the behaviour of particles seen in Young’s double-slit experiment really suggest that consciousness can alter matter and exist separately from the brain?

https://medium.com/science-first/the-double-slit-experiment-demystified-disproving-the-quantum-consciousness-connection-ee8384a50e2f

Any student of physics, and in particular quantum mechanics will tell you that reading articles in the media that concerns any element of quantum physics can be a minefield. Ideas are frequently misunderstood or purposefully misrepresented. This is never truer than when Young’s Double-slit experiment is presented as evidence that the presence of a human being can fundamentally change the behaviour of matter at a particle level.

Of all the publications I expected a nasty dose of ‘quantum-woo’ from, it was not PC Magazine. And yet there it was today (02/07/18) …

… What I hope to do is demonstrate that the double-slit experiment doesn’t suggest that consciousness collapses the wave function of a particle. I’ll also attempt to go further with this article. I believe that the double-slit experiment provides considerable evidence that the “Quantum-consciousness” (QC) hypothesis, the idea that consciousness can exist away from the brain and can affect particles in the double-slit, must be false.

But first…