## A measurement can be more than an observer learning the value of a physical observable

Last post created quite a stir and I want to expand on the ideas from it. This will also help me get out of an somewhat embarrassing situation. For months now Lubos Motl tried to get revenge on his bruised ego after a well deserved April Fool's joke and became a pest at this blog. The problem is that although I have yet to see a physics post at his blog that is 100% correct, we share roughly the same intuition about quantum mechanics: I agree more much more with his position than say with the Bohmian, GRW, or MWI approaches. The differences are on the finer points and I found his in depth knowledge rusty and outdated. For his purpose: to discredit the opposite points of view at all costs this is enough, but it does not work if you are a genuine seeker of truth.

So last time he commented here:

*"A measurement is a process when an observer actually learns the value of a physical observable"*which from 10,000 feet is enough. However this is not precise enough, and now I do have a fundamental disagreement with Lubos which hopefully will put enough distance between him and me.
More important than my little feud with Lubos,

**I can now propose an experiment which will either validate or reject my proposed solution to the measurement problem**. I do have a novel proposal on how to solve the measurement problem and this is distinct from all other approaches. I was searching for months for a case of a novel experimental prediction, but when I applied it to many problems I was getting the same predictions as standard quantum mechanics. Here is however a case where my predictions are distinct. I will not work out the math and instead let me simply present the experiment and make my experimental claim.
Have a box with a single particle inside. The box has a middle separator and also two slits A and B which can be placed next to a two-slit screen. We can then carry two kinds of experiments:

- open the two slits A and B without dropping the separator allowing the particle to escape the box and hit a detector screen after the two-slit screen.
- drop the separator and then open the two slits A and B allowing the particle to escape the box and hit a detector screen after the two-slit screen.

Next we repeat the experiments 1 or 2 enough times to see the pattern emerge on the final screen.

**Which pattern would we observe?**

For experiment 1 we already know the answer: if we repeat it many times we obtain the interference pattern, but what will we get in the case of experiment number 2?

**If dropping the separator constitutes a measurement, the wavefunction would collapse and we get two spots on the detector screen corresponding to two single slit experiments. If however**

**dropping the separator does not constitute a measurement, then we would get the same interference pattern as in experiment 1.**

My prediction (distinct from textbook quantum mechanics) is that there will be no interference pattern.