Some views of quantum theory give a special role to the

observer. How convincing do you find this (bearing in

mind also the alternative position we have studied)?

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

/Richard Feynman/

In the middle ages, healers would conjure up evil spirits or magical spells.
Now in the 21st century it seems they’ve turned to black holes,
and above all, quantum physics.
/Richard Dawkins/

Introduction
In this essay I will be looking at one of the most fascinating aspects of quantum
mechanics – the observer effect. Just like Copernican Revolution shook the foundations
of cosmology and unsettled people’s everyday view of the universe, quantum mechanics
seems to have done something very similar in the 20th century and beyond. Due to its
many puzzling implications and quantum effects that cannot be readily explained using
our everyday understanding of the world, it is of no surprise to see that the work of
scientists has been widely appropriated by pop-culture, including (but not limited to): T-
shirts that illustrate the paradox of Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment 1, a very
successful TV show2 in which the main character plays an astrophysicist working on
string theory and too-many-to-note songs/poems/jokes about the front-line of physics.

Of course, not all is well. This topic is of great interest to me not because of passion for
formulas, maths, puzzling equations or other things I do not possess, but rather due to a
mystic and healer named Deepak Chopra, who has spent recent years of his life getting
rich off feeding the public with misinformation about science and claiming that most of
the diseases known to humanity (including mortality) can be cured, thanks to recent
findings in quantum physics. It is sad to see the fame that Chopra has been enjoying
(mostly due to his well-honed rhetorical skills), while real science, which is done in the
background and follows rigorous methodology, gets almost no publicity in the main-
stream media, except for the occasional and almost always over-exaggerated “Scientists
have discovered that ... ”.

It would be nearly impossible to counter every absurd claim Chopra has made regarding
quantum physics, so instead I will focus on his views on the role of an observer in an
experiment, trying to show that his interpretation of this quantum effect is misguided.
Now it is important to note that Chopra is not a solitary thinker, and claims that his views

1
Front of which says „The cat is dead”, whilst back claims the cat to be alive, thus noting how weird the
idea of a superposition is when translated to the macroscopic world.
2
„The Big Bang Theory”
are supported by such well-known figures as Sir Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Michio
Kaku and Leonard Mlodinow amongst many others.

Due to my almost non-existent background in physics and maths, which has been quite a
hindrance during the course, I will have to avoid delving deeper into formulaic world,
and instead focus on taking a broader loo, beginning now.

What is the observer effect?

The observer effect, also known as the measurement problem, is not a specifically
designated term for quantum mechanics; instead it is widely used in social sciences,
physics and elsewhere, to note that in some experiments the mere fact of an observer
being present will affect the end results. One classic example is the measurement of tyre
pressure: it can only be done by releasing some of the air, thus inadvertently changing the
object being measured.

In quantum mechanics, the observer effect first appeared in Bohr’s writings. In a 1935
reply to Einstein et al., Bohr notes:

The procedure of measurement has an essential influence on the conditions on

which the very definition of the physical quantities in question rests.3

Bohr’s work was continued and subsequently rejected by Werner Heisenberg, but the
biggest shove for what became to be known as Copenhagen intepretation came from the
work of Albert Einstein, who believed that under ideal conditions observations (and
measurements more generally) function like “mirrors”, reflecting an independently
existing, external reality.4

Einstein’s position seems quite common-sensical and probably would not be contended
among most of the people – to hold the view that what we are seeing actually is the case
of the matter, that there exists an external world that can be interacted with and
unobtrusively measured, seems to be almost everyone’s worldview.

A fascinating thought experiment was proposed in 1935 by Austrian physicist Erwin

Schrödinger. Schrödinger baffles or intuitive understanding of the world by showing how
quantum effects can supposedly be translated to macroscopic scale which we are the most
familiar with. It goes like this: a cat is placed in a box with a vial of poison it in. A
hammer is placed near the vial and set up in such a way that it can smash it if the
radioactive decay (as measured by a Geiger counter) goes over a pre-set level. The
question is: what is the cats state? It surely must be dead or alive, but not according to
quantum mechanics. Schrödinger claims that the cat must be thought of as in a
superposition between both states – dead and alive at the same time.

3
Krips, Henry, "Measurement in Quantum Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qt-measurement.
4
Ibid.
Now it is important to note that Schrödinger’s work was done in the early stages of
quantum mechanics and therefore it would be foolish to accept the idea just as it is. Since
1935, we have learned much more about particle physics and quantum mechanics than
ever thought possible, so does Schrödinger’s puzzle still stand? To some, it does.

Chopra’s interpretation of the observer effect

Deepak Chopra is an author, public speaker and a self-proclaimed alternative healer.
Chopra’s healing focuses on a mix of Ayurveda, or “Science of wisdom of life” 5 and
what I believe to be a gross misunderstanding of quantum physics. Deepak believes that
in order for a particle to collapse, a conscious observer (human, preferably) is needed.
Chopra’s claim is worth quoting in full:

Quantum physics tells us that objects exist in a suspended physical state until
observed, when they collapse to just one outcome — we don’t know what happens
until we investigate, and our investigation influences that reality. Whether or not
certain events may have happened some time ago, may not actually be determined
until some time in your future — it may actually be contingent upon actions that
have not yet taken place. No physicist challenges the fact that particles do not
exist with definite physical properties until they are observed. Every particle has
a range of possible physical states, but it's not until the actual act of observation
that it takes on defined properties.[..] Indeed, the quantum theory implies that
consciousness must exist, and that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality.
If we do not look at it, the moon is gone. In this world, only an act of observation
can confer shape and form to reality -- to a dandelion in a meadow, or a seed
pod, or the sun or wind or rain. Anyway, it's amazing, and even your dog can do
it too.6

And

We are each a localized field of energy and information with cybernetic feedback
loops interacting within a nonlocal field of energy and information.7

Chopra believes that a conscious observer is needed for collapses to happen, giving it a
special role as suggested in the essay topic, but as I will argue this does not seem to be
the case. Chopra’s belief is based on a long-standing tradition, or at least he claims:

Chopra and other defenders of Ayurveda, following Capra and Zukav, are fond of
claiming that modern physics has substantially validated ancient Hindu
metaphysics. However, physicist Heinz R. Pagels, author of The Cosmic Code:
Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature vehemently rejects the notion that

5
Robert T. Carroll, Ph.D., Deepak Chopra. Skeptics Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc, copyright 2003, p 75.
6
Chopra, D., Lanza, R. The Illusion of Past, Present, Future. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-
chopra/the-illusion-of-past-pres_b_326250.html
7
http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html
 there is any significant connection between the discoveries of modern physicists
and the metaphysical claims of Ayurveda.8

Quantum mechanics and consciousness

The issue gravitates around single question – what is an observer? It must be noted that
there is no one commonly agreed-upon meaning of what it is supposed to be, which in
turn causes a lot of trouble when lay people approach the subject matter. In everyday use,
the word “observer” implies a conscious creature that can gather sensory information
from the outer world, but, just like with so many other things, this definition should be
disregarded when “observer” is appropriated to quantum mechanics.

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” is an
ancient philosophical riddle, whose truth cannot be verified empirically, as it would be
self-defeating. But not being able to observe things directly has never stopped humanity
from inferring what is the matter, and we should not stop ourselves from doing the same
in this case as well. A falling tree does make a sound, because sound-waves travel
independently of observers, and the same is true for Shrödinger’s cat. The cat is either
dead or alive, because it’s death is caused by the poison, not the observer. The observer
can be ignorant of what the cat’s state is, but that will not affect it in any way.

A further take-down of Chopra’s position is provided by American neurologist and

skeptic Steven Novella:

QM states that light, electrons, and all fundamental particles exist not as discrete
point particles, but spread out as a wave. We can only describe the probability
that they will be in a specific place at any moment, and that probability is the
wave function. Particles, when free from interactions with other matter, actually
behave like waves. But when a particle (whether of photon of light or an electron)
interacts with other stuff they are no longer spread out but collapse down to a
point particle. This is the wave-particle duality of matter. The collapse to a
particle, however, is not dependent on any observer – just interaction with other
stuff. No observer is necessary. When a photon from the sun strikes the earth and
its energy is absorbed by a leaf on a tree in the middle of the jungle, it collapses
to a particle. The same is true when it strikes a dead rocky asteroid out in space.
Consciousness, and even life, is not necessary.[..] He is doubly wrong – not only
is consciousness (an observer) not the thing that collapses wave functions, but
QM effects do not apply to dandelions or moons (try shooting dandelions through
a double slit experiment).9

Ever since the first days of quantum mechanics, it has been known that it is impossible to
measure both properties (momentum and position or color and hardness, as Albert’s
metaphor suggests) at the same instance of time. The observer affects the property not
measured, making it switch with a predictable pattern. Before the measurement was
8
http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html
9
Novella, S. http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/16/deepak-chopra-mangles-quantum-mechanics-again/ Deepak
Chopra Mangles Quantum Mechanics – Again
made, the quantum system was in an undetermined state, after it is done, it is only
undetermined towards the property not measured.

Concluding remarks

During our conversation, only one thing brings him [Deepak] to the point of high
animation. On the day of our interview, the local morning newspaper has run a
story on him that includes a quote by someone who thinks Chopra's latest theories
are hooey. Victor J. Stenger, professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at the
University of Hawaii is quoted as having written that, "no compelling argument
or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human
consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the
universe. "I'd love to do a public debate with people like that, you know?"
responds Chopra. "The fact is, to me it's shocking that some quantum physicists
don't know their quantum physics?”10

If there is one thing that Chopra can be admired for, it is his willingness to defend his
position in a public debate. Unfortunately for physicists, Deepak is a great orator and not
afraid of using sophistry in his claims, which in turn make it so much harder to have an
actual debate about the issue at hand.

Chopra is a great illustration for why we need to work at science communication and
educate the public about breakthrough scientific theories. People need to be taught how
scientific progress is made and what is the current view, not only in quantum mechanics,
but also in physics, geology, biology etc. We need to abide by strict definitions of terms
in order to not talk past each other, or we will perish under the likes of Chopra.

Chopra gives hope to the dying that they will not die and hope to the living that
they can live forever in perfect health. But his hope seems to be a false hope
based on an unscientific imagination seeped in mysticism and cheerily dispensed
gibberish. The popularity of Ayurveda and Chopra is a testament to the failure of
modern life and modern medicine to satisfy deep longings for simplicity, trust, a
clean and wholesome environment, something to counteract the fragmentation,
alienation and isolation that many people feel.11

But Chopra goes much further than this. In an interview with Richard Dawkins, he boldly
states:

There are fundamentalists in science who have somehow hijacked the word
“quantum” for their own use.12

For this arrogant claim I believe Chopra’s IG Nobel prize to be well deserved:

10
Chopra, D., January interview. http://januarymagazine.com/profiles/chopra.html
11
http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html
12
Deepak’s interview with Richard Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
 PHYSICS. Deepak Chopra of The Chopra Center for Well Being, La Jolla,
California, for his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness.13

But I’ll let Victor have the last word.

Quantum physics is claimed to support the mystical notion that the mind creates
reality. However, an objective reality, with no special role for consciousness,
human or cosmic, is consistent with all observations.14

References
 Chopra, D., January interview. http://januarymagazine.com/profiles/chopra.html
 Chopra, D., Lanza, R. The Illusion of Past, Present, Future.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-illusion-of-past-
pres_b_326250.html
 D. Murdoch, Niels Bohr’s Philosophy of Physics (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1987), Ch. 5 (pp. 80-108).
 Deepak’s interview with Richard Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-
FaXD_igv4
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-illusion-of-past-
pres_b_326250.html
 Ig Nobel prize in 1998 http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html#ig1998
 Krips, Henry, "Measurement in Quantum Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qt-measurement/>.
 Novella, S. http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/16/deepak-chopra-mangles-quantum-
mechanics-again/ Deepak Chopra Mangles Quantum Mechanics – Again
 P. Gibbins, Particles and Paradoxes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987),
Chs 4 and 7 (pp. 47-61 and 102-115).
 Robert T. Carroll, Ph.D., Deepak Chopra. Skeptics Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc, copyright 2003. Also available at
http://www.skepdic.com/chopra.html
 Shimony, ‘Role of the Observer in Quantum Theory’, American Journal of Physics
31 (1963), 755-773. Reprinted in A. Shimony, Search for a Naturalistic Worldview,
Volume II: Natural Science and Metaphysics (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1993), pp. 3-33. Available through the library’s e-journals.
 Victor Stenger, Quantum Quackery. Skeptical Inquirer . Volume 21.1, January /
February 1997 http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/

13
http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html#ig1998
14
Victor Stenger, Quantum Quackery. Skeptical Inquirer . Volume 21.1, January / February 1997
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/