You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Nisan comments on Open thread, 24-30 March 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Metus 25 March 2014 07:42AM

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

Comments (156)

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

Comment author: Manfred 25 March 2014 08:12:59PM 1 point [-]

Bob cannot become entangled with the outside world while in the middle of a quantum erasure experiment, or else it doesn't work. So he doesn't really get to do anything :P

If Bob knows that the particle becomes entangled with him, then he still makes the same predictions.

Comment author: Nisan 27 March 2014 09:29:47PM 0 points [-]

If Bob knows that the particle becomes entangled with him, then he still makes the same predictions.

Ok, that's surprising. Here's why I thought otherwise: From Bob's perspective, a particle is prepared in a superposition of states B and C. Then Bob observes or becomes entangled with the particle, thus collapsing its state. Then the super-duper quantum erasure is performed, which preserves the state of the particle. Then the particle strikes the second half-silvered mirror. A collapse interpretation tells Bob to expect two outcomes with equal probability. Is this, then, an experiment where a collapse interpretation and a many-worlds interpretation give different predictions?

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 28 March 2014 09:00:04AM 1 point [-]

The collapse interpretation predicts that you can't do the super-duper quantum erasure. Once the collapse has occurred the wavefunction can't uncollapse.

Comment author: Manfred 27 March 2014 11:28:25PM *  1 point [-]

Basically, there are a variety of collapse interpretations depending on where you make the collapse happen. Every time we've tested these hypotheses (e.g. by this sort of experiment), we haven't been able to see an early collapse.

At this point, all actual physicists I know just postpone the collapse whenever necessary to get the right answer.

Comment author: Nisan 28 March 2014 01:05:15AM 1 point [-]

Hm, so that means that quantum physics predicts that our observations depend on the presence of parallel worlds in the universal wavefunction, which in theory might interfere with our experiments at any time, right?

Comment author: Manfred 28 March 2014 03:05:31AM 1 point [-]

Calling them parallel worlds is as always dangerous (you can't go all buckaroo bonzai on them), but basically yes.