Thought Experiment: QM implies reality is a construct of Consciousness?

The below interesting 'Gedanken' experiment is due to I. Janossy, and K. Nagy, [Annalen der Physik, 17, (1956), 115-121] (1), falls into a known class of experiments addressed in link 2.

See... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.19564520208 (1)

And... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0375960189900376 (2)

Consider a diaphragm, with two slits, slit 1 and slit 2. Each of these slits can be opened, or closed, by a shutter connected with a separate counter. A weak alpha-particle emitter is placed between the two counters.

Imagine that, at the beginning of the experiment, both slits are closed. If an alpha-particle strikes one of the counters, the slit connected with this counter is opened, and the other counter signaled to cease to operate, and a light-source is turned on, in front of the diaphragm, and this light-source illuminates a photographic plate placed behind the diaphragm.

Classically we would not expect interference patterns on the photographic plate. However from QM theory, we might expect the equal probability of unobserved slits being open, effectively entangled into superimposed stares by a quantum process, would produce an interference pattern.

But, if we observe which slit is open (slit 1, or slit 2) then, in accordance with the ‘complementarity principle, and the 'projection' postulate, a reduction takes place, and no interference pattern appears on the plate.

My Post Analysis of its implications: to understand the thought experiment consider the nature of the alpha-particle UNOBSERVED, does it not propagate as a probabilistic wavefunction and with equal probability open either slits when we see the light switch on? If I was reconstructing it with today's quantum optics technology I’d replace the weak alpha-particle emitter with a low power laser emitting one photon at periodic intervals, and use a beam splitter to redirect it to the two-photon counters.

I think that we should demonstrate true/false results that an inference pattern occurs in an actual experiment if the slits are unobserved.

For now, let us proceed on the assumption this thought experiment produces an interference pattern in that condition.

Then, theoretically, I think it may be argued that there is no paradox in QM interpretations, that are world branching based (eg., MWI or MMI), since the observer and observed parts/parties are all coherent in the same world branch.

But, it gets interesting, If you have two observers (Wigner-like) friends (Bob and Alice) Bob looking at the screen, and Alice at the photon/counters/slits, you might wonder if they could have a disagreement!

Related: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8 (3)

But, to YOU those observers are also in your world branch and all parties and instruments are coherent to that one branch producing no paradox/disagreements.

In as much our logic of the flow of time, the observation ordering here is that the photon-counters precedes the screen result, but if the branching should be coherent then Alice and Bob should ALWAYS agree and thus assert the screen shows no interference pattern response because Alice observes the slits state.

So does Bob and Alice’s witnessing POTENTIAL force a branching type? If Bob witnessed his view that there is an interference pattern then you know Alice could not have witnessed the photon-counters/slits to preserve a paradox free branching world.

If this analysis is true (and following the logic in a QM consistent way is not easy I admit!), I find a hint of Retrocausality here, in as much as that Bob’s witnessing takes place in the future, but it influences Alice’s witnessing potential.

This is weird I admit. The first step is as I say to check if the experiment produces an interference pattern when Alice doesn’t witness her observations. If so we’ll have to deal with the “weirdness” of how Alice and Bob can have a paradox free disagreement. My latest thought on this is Alice is entangled with the quantum states of the slits and there are effectively two superimposed Alice's (AliceL and AliceR, entangled to the Left and Right slits accordingly), similarly, there are two Bob's (BobI and BobNI, entangled to the Interference and Non-Interference pattern states). Whomsoever reports to you (or if you make an observation of the slits or screens independently) will result in a reduction to consistent paradox free branching reduction. This provides a coherent position at expense of Alice and Bob’s absolute independent “reality”!

So, following this, there are 2 logical coherent possibilities:

1 Bob sees interference / Alice reports she has not (yet) determined a reduced state of the slits / YOU see interference (directly or via accepting Bob’s evidence). YOU can not (yet) see the reduction in the superimposed slits (directly or via accepting Alice’s evidence).

2 Bob doesn’t see interference / Alice reports she sees just one slit open / YOU don’t see interference (directly or accept Bob’s evidence). YOU see the slits with just one slit open (directly or accept Alice’s evidence).

The key differentiator in these cases is YOU, and the order your mind admits evidence. Either by accepting first either Alice or Bob’s evidence or checking yourself. That implies YOU are the part affecting the branching (MMI) and the effects of that are coherent positions from Alice and Bob. It’s a “brain-centric” solution.

There's one last thing to say in these scenarios. What if at a later point in case 1 above, Alice then reports (or YOU see directly) a reduction to one slit being categorically open? If so to be consistent the interference pattern will change to a particle pattern consistent with one of the slits being open.

Any way I seem to think about this problem I’m confronted with weirdness! I suspect I need to sketch out scenarios, with timing implications on the key branching events, since I suspect they may empirically differentiate foundational interpretations, etc. Then find a Quantum Optics lab to conduct them!

See.. https://www.facebook.com/537688598/posts/10159510837488599/ (4)

And… https://www.facebook.com/537688598/posts/10159281503303599/ (5)

Also… https://www.facebook.com/537688598/posts/10159522538428599/ (6)

The notion of the absoluteness of reality and/or nature of time might have to be reconsidered, this kind of QM challenge in these types of convoluted thought experiments is not unheard of in recent times.

Eg., see… https://www.facebook.com/537688598/posts/10159509037638599/ (7)

My suspicion is that there is no flow of time, it’s an artefact of consciousness.

See… https://www.facebook.com/537688598/posts/10159519805048599/ (8)

And… https://www.facebook.com/537688598/posts/10159517695958599/ (9)

Plus… https://www.facebook.com/537688598/posts/10159520172483599/ (10)

PS: WRT Retrocausality or Superdeterminism. I’m coming to a PoV these two are linked in some ways. Like two sides of the same flipped coin! And maybe moot if my comment on the nature of time is a consciousness artefact.