The Observer’s Wave – A Fresh Look at Quantum Collapse

Most of my writing on this blog revolves around investments, markets, and economic foresight. But once in a while, a thought strikes me hard enough to warrant breaking from routine. This is one of those moments.

It started with a classic idea from physics: the double slit experiment, where particles like photons or electrons seem to behave like waves—spreading out, interfering with themselves—until someone tries to observe which slit they go through. The moment a camera or detector is placed to observe the slits, the wave-like interference pattern disappears, and the particles behave like discrete lumps again. The quantum wave “collapses.”

Why does observation destroy the wave?

Framing the Problem Anew

Physicists have explored this question for decades. The mainstream view is that the act of observation (whether by a person, a camera, or any measuring device) introduces interaction that disturbs the quantum system. This leads to decoherence, where the system loses its wave-like superposition and behaves like a classical object.

But here’s the angle I’ve been thinking about:

What if this collapse isn’t just caused by information extraction or mechanical disturbance, but by the introduction of the observer’s own quantum wave?

According to de Broglie, every object—even large ones like detectors or humans—has a quantum wavelength. It’s vanishingly small, but it exists. So when we observe, we’re not standing outside the experiment. We’re entering the quantum field with our own wave signature.

This is not a brand-new theory in quantum mechanics, but I believe this framing—of collapse as wave-to-wave disturbance, rather than abstract “measurement”—gives us a more intuitive grasp of what’s happening. It shows the observer not as a passive interrogator, but as an active participant, whose mere presence changes the outcome—not because they “know” the answer, but because they carry a physical signature into the experiment.

A Simple Illustrative Equation

Let’s attempt a symbolic form—not mathematically rigorous, but conceptually clear:

Ψ_total = Ψ_particle + Ψ_observer

Where:

• Ψ_particle is the wavefunction of the quantum particle (e.g., electron).

• Ψ_observer is the effective wavefunction of the observing system (camera, human, etc.).

• Ψ_total is the new, entangled system.

If Ψ_observer ≠ 0, the interference pattern of Ψ_particle is disturbed.

Collapse occurs when Ψ_total no longer preserves coherence of Ψ_particle alone.

We could define a simple threshold function:

Collapse occurs if |Ψ_observer·Ψ_particle| > ε,

where ε is a tiny constant representing the system’s tolerance for interference.

This is metaphorical, not a formal equation—but it reflects the principle that any nonzero observer wave enters the system and changes its evolution.

So What? Is This Useful?

Here’s why I think this framing matters.

1. To physics – It simplifies how we explain collapse to the public. Rather than abstract talk of “wavefunction collapse upon measurement,” we can describe it as: “The observer brings their own wave into the system, and that causes interference to break down.”

2. To philosophy – It reminds us that we are never truly outside the systems we seek to understand. There’s no pure objectivity, only interaction.

3. To humanity – It mirrors life: our presence—our actions, even our attention—alters outcomes. From relationships to markets, we are participants, not passive viewers.

And in the Investment World?

Here’s where it comes full circle.

In markets, we often say: “When everyone watches something, it changes.” That’s not just psychology—it’s a parallel to quantum observation. A market is a probabilistic system. Once investors (observers) pile into a trade, they change the conditions. The pattern collapses. Alpha disappears.

Think of a stock as having an “interference pattern”—a probabilistic outcome of many forces. As more observers focus on it, the collective attention disturbs the pattern, causing a shift in price action. The trade no longer behaves the way it did when no one was watching.

Just like in quantum physics, the act of observation collapses potential into actuality.

Final Thoughts

This isn’t a physics paper. I just happen to like quantum physics. But I believe that cross-disciplinary thinking gives us fresh metaphors—and sometimes, fresh insights.

Maybe our wave is always in the room.

Maybe watching isn’t passive.

Maybe the best investors, like the best scientists, know when not to interfere.

—————————————————————————————-

I’ve just published a conceptual hypothesis that reframes quantum wavefunction collapse — inspired by the double slit experiment. Rather than viewing the observer as a passive measurer, this paper explores how the observer introduces a quantum wave that physically interferes with the system.

This idea connects physics, philosophy, and even markets, where observation itself alters outcomes.

📄 Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15093607