Title: The Double Slit Experiment Demystified. Disproving the Quantum Consciousness connection | by Robert Lea | Science First | Medium
Headings: The Double Slit Experiment Demystified. Disproving the Quantum Consciousness connection
The Double Slit Experiment Demystified. Disproving the Quantum Consciousness connection
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?
A Disclaimer: You can believe what you want but you don’t get to misrepresent science.
Introducing the Double -Slit Experiment and particle/wave duality.
Simulating the Double-Slit Experiment
Interference and The De Broglie Waves
The Profound Bit
Obtaining ‘Which Way’ Information
It is not the presence of the conscious observer that collapses the wavefunction, it’s the action they perform on the system that causes the wavefunction collapse. It is also vital to note that these are the results that are obtained whether researchers are present as the experiment is conducted or they have retreated to the Dog and Duck for a pint.
So what is causing the change in the particle’s behaviour?
Forming a hypothesis for consciousness-led wavefunction collapse.
The QC Hypothesis

Content: What I do object to however is the misrepresentation of science in support of these ideas. Especially in this case, when it misrepresentation concerns one of the most extraordinary results in the history of science. Whilst I won’t dwell on PC magazine’s article, an interview with parapsychologist Dean Radin, I think the following quote from its introduction is useful to examine and it generally shows how most articles of this nature go off track with regards to the Double Slit experiment. “Anyone who’s witnessed the double slit experiment — which demonstrates that light behaves differently depending on how we observe it — can appreciate that in some (spooky) way we don’t yet understand some of the most fundamental aspects of reality, especially the role of consciousness in the physical world.” The fundamental error here is applying the meaning that the word ‘observe’ holds in general parlance, to how it is used when describing a scientific experiment. In general parlance, we take the word ‘observe’ to mean what we ‘see’. To a scientist, this definition is extended to anything that can be recorded by a piece of equipment. Any piece of data can be an observation. An observation, especially in quantum mechanics (in which a system’s properties are described as ‘observables’) is anything that can be measured. So when quantum physicists describe ‘observing’ a particle passing through a slit what they actually mean is that a measurement was taken.