ciphergoth comments on Configurations and Amplitude - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 April 2008 07:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (375)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ciphergoth 17 August 2011 11:23:06AM *  1 point [-]

A friend comments:

start from figure 2, turn the half mirror at D round so it faces the other way, now E will light up instead of F. Since his explanation doesn't allow for that we've just proved his explanation is wrong.

Anyone know if that's right? EDIT: seems clear to me both detectors must light up if you do this. EDIT2: it turns out that by "turn around" he means through 180 degrees, which should surely mean no change.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 17 August 2011 12:07:49PM 1 point [-]

Can you clarify the question? Do you mean turning the mirror by a quarter-turn from its current orientation, so it's diagonal in the other direction? I compute that if you do that it should work out with 1/4 chance of E, 1/4 chance of F, and 1/2 chance of neither (if it's reflected back towards B or C it will never reach either). Exactly like the classical case, actually...

Comment author: ciphergoth 17 August 2011 12:43:21PM 1 point [-]

Edited to clarify - I agree re quarter turn, but it turns out he means half turn. I think our thought-experiment half-silvered mirrors are unchanged by a half turn.

Comment author: ciphergoth 17 April 2012 07:22:18AM *  1 point [-]

It turns out he was referring to this error; see How accurate is the quantum physics sequence?