Thank you for the analysis Brandon, but still the same reference shows the following that you'd have to prove wrong to prove that your belief that the collapse is done without the need of Consciousness:
Contrast this with the initial results from sending electrons through the apparatus (p. xx).
What happened to our interference pattern? It went away. Instead of an interference pattern, with all of its problems of interpretation, we now have a straightforward particle distribution. By detecting particles at the slits, we have changed the result at the back wall. Somehow, detecting particles at the slits has had two effects: (1) it has caused there to be particles at the slits despite the fact that, based on our previous results, we were expecting something (who knows what) with a wave-like nature; and (2) it has caused the particle that we presumably started out with to behave entirely like an innocent little particle from start to finish.
We would like to think that the particle detectors at the slits are affecting the passage of the electron -- perhaps deflecting it, or modifying it's path, or in some other way influencing the experiment. We could accept such an explanation. But that does not seem to be the case. A series of experiments have been conducted to test just such a hypothesis, and the results are uniformly negative. I will quickly run through some of the more ingenious attempts to isolate and remove any possible influence stemming from the detectors located at the slits.
1. Turn off the electron detectors at the slits. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and leave everything intact. But, we will conduct the experiment with the electron detectors at the slits turned off, so that we will not actually detect any electrons at the slits.
The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. So it seems that mere passage through the electron detectors at the slits does not affect the electron, so long as those electron detectors are not functioning.
2. Leave the electron detectors on, but don't gather the information. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. But, we will not actually look at the count of electrons at the slits, nor will we record the count at the slits in any way, so that we will not be able to obtain any results from these fully-functioning electron detectors.
The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. So it seems that the electron detectors located at the slits do not themselves affect the electron, even when the equipment is fully functioning and detecting (in a mechanical sense) the electrons, so long as we don't obtain the results of these measurements.
3. Record the measurements at the slits, but then erase it before analyzing the results at the back wall. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But, we will erase the data obtained from the electron detectors at the slits before we analyze the data from the back wall.
The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. Notice that, in this variation, the double slit experiment with detectors at the slits is completed in every respect by the time we choose to erase the recorded data. Up to that point, there is no difference in our procedure here and in our initial procedure ([pp. 15-17]), which yielded the puzzling clumping pattern. Yet, it seems that if we, in a sense, retroactively remove the electron detectors at the slits (not by going back in time to physically remove them, but only by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future), we can "change" the results of what we presume is a mechanically complete experiment, so far as those results are determined by a later analysis, to produce an interference pattern instead of a clumping pattern. This is mind-boggling.
4. Arrange the experiment so that we can make an arbitrary choice at some later time, after the experiment is "complete," whether or not to use the information gathered by the electron detectors at the slits. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But (this gets a little complicated), we will
(1) mix the data from the slits with additional, irrelevant garbage data, and record the combined (and incomprehensible) data;
(2) design a program to analyze data coming from the slits in one of two ways, either
(a) filtering out the garbage data so that we will be able to obtain clean results of electrons going through the slits, or
(b) analyzing the mixed-up data so that we will not be able to obtain the results of electrons going through the slits; and
(3) leave it up to a visiting politician which way we actually analyze the data from the slits.
The result upon final analysis by method (2)(a): a particle clumping pattern appears from the data.
The result upon final analysis by method (2)(b): an interference pattern appears from the data.
So it seems that an arbitrary choice (represented by the politician who has no personal interest in the experiment) made hours, days, months, or even years after the experiment is "complete," will change the result of that completed experiment. And, by changing the result, we mean that this arbitrary, delayed choice will affect the actual location of the electron hits as recorded by the electron detector at the back wall, representing an event that was supposed to have happened days, months, or even years in the past. An event that we suppose has taken place in the past (impingement of the electron on the detector) will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present. Imagine that.
The proverbial tree has already fallen in the forest, and we can later choose whether or not to listen. And if we choose to listen then the falling tree will have made a noise, and if we choose not to listen then the falling tree will not have made a noise.
What is the difference? It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is not whether electrons were run through an electron detector at the slits. It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is whether the analysis of the results at the back wall is conducted when information about the electrons' positions at the slits is available, or not.
In searching for the wave-like phenomenon that must, it simply must be taking place in the unmodified electron double slit experiment, the theorists are left with the equivalent of a parent's worst nightmare: you hear the screaming and pounding and crashing of broken lamps from the child's room; but every time you open the door . . . there sits the innocent little darling like an angel, eyelashes batting, smiling beatifically (probably reading the Bible), "Yes, Mother/Father, can I help you with something?" You close the door in bewilderment, and immediately the racket starts up again. Well, the theorists know that there is something wave-like going on. They can see the indisputable evidence of waves in the interference pattern and in their extraordinarily precise predictions based on a wave model. But, every time they look for the wave itself -- there is no wave, only a particle. And, perversely, all evidence of waves simultaneously disappears!
Notice, for example 2. and 3. points above show that it is not the way you suggest. Also, was anybody able to definitely prove your belief:
It is because the particle interacted with the detector (a photon or whatever) that its wave collapsed.
Your belief (in this last quote) seems to be proven wrong by the quote above. Can you prove also this last quote is the only explanation and MBT and others are wrong? So far, from me it seems that you are based more on beliefs than MBT is. It doesn't matter how many physicists agree among each other on their beliefs.