= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Help us Optimize the Contents of the Sequences eBook - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (73)
Not directly related, but just wanted to mention that unqualified statements like
are way too strong, and unnecessarily so.
A single photon is not a part of reality, it's just a simplified convenient model of electromagnetic emission and absorption, which happens to work well in certain circumstances. Consider the question "When was the photon emitted?". Unless you measure the recoil of the emitter (a classical measurement), you don't know. You can reconstruct this time if you use a sensitive enough photomultiplier in the detector, which is again a classical measurement.
A somewhat more detailed QED-based model describes spontaneous emission as unitary evolution of an excited atom into a superposition of the multitude of the states of the form (a recoiled ground state of atom * a corresponding excited state of the EM field). This is not a well-defined single photon, but rather a superposition of all possible photons emitted at all possible times in all possible directions. What makes it into a single photon is the post-selection process (selecting a single possible world out of infinitely many ones, in the MWI picture).
So "A photon heading toward A" is not the territory, it's a useful simplification of a more accurate model. Which only underscores the point that "distinct configurations are not distinct particles".
Would you be satisfied if he pointed out that there's no way to achieve such a well-specified initial condition in real life?
I would be happy if he did not claim that a specific model is the reality.
That's a different point you raised elsewhere, yes. I meant on the point you raised above.
Would you be satisfied on this other front if he restricted himself to saying that whatever it ends up being, it's not going to be an objective collapse theory? A distressingly large number of people haven't gotten that memo.
Oh, I don't disagree that claiming that some form of objective collapse is the "reality" is not very smart. While QM can be simulated this way, and usually is, there is no reason to expect that this ad hoc rule is as deep as it gets. Unless we are in a poorly written simulation.