hairyfigment comments on Can You Prove Two Particles Are Identical? - Less Wrong

32 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 April 2008 07:06AM

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

Comments (106)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MadRocketSci 03 July 2014 01:35:23PM *  0 points [-]

I have a counter-hypothesis: If the universe did distinguish between photons, but we didn't have any tests which could distinguish between photons, what this physically means is that our measuring devices, in their quantum-to-classical transitions (yes, I know this is a perception thing in MWI), are what is adding the amplitudes before taking the squared modulus. Our measurers can't distinguish, which is why we can get away with representing the hidden "true wavefunction" (or object carrying similar information) with a symmetric wavefunction. If we invented a measurement device which was capable of distinguishing photons, this would mean that photon A and photon B striking it would dump amplitude into distinct states in the device rather than the same state, and we would no longer be able to represent the photon field with a symmetric wavefunction if we wanted to make predictions.

Comment author: hairyfigment 03 July 2014 05:21:11PM -1 points [-]

This seems like a great example of a theory that Occam's Razor should slash, or assign low probability. Though our best formal definition of the Razor is wrong.

Comment author: MadRocketSci 03 July 2014 05:54:02PM *  -1 points [-]

My point isn't that it is unreasonable to use symmetric (/antisymmetric) wavefunctions until we discover something that requires us to use a more complicated model. My objection is to an error in thinking that holds that such potential future discoveries are a-priori impossible. I'm with philosopher Bob on this one.