this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
26 points (100.0% liked)

Wikipedia

1477 readers
353 users here now

A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.

Rules:

Recommended:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-tester is a quantum mechanics thought experiment that uses interaction-free measurements to verify that a bomb is functional without having to detonate it. It was conceived in 1993 by Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman. Since their publication, real-world experiments have confirmed that their theoretical method works as predicted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

this assumes a QM interpretation which includes wavefunction collapse

Imma stop you right there

"The authors reference a similarly informal poll carried out by Max Tegmark at the 'Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory' conference in August 1997. The main conclusion of the authors is that 'the Copenhagen interprtation still reigns supreme', receiving the most votes in their poll (42%), besides the rise to mainstream notability of the many-worlds interpretations: 'The Copenhagen interpretation still reigns supreme here, especially if we lump it together with intellectual offsprings such as information-based interpretations and the quantum Bayesian interpretation. In Tegmark's poll, the Everett interpretation received 17% of the vote, which is similar to the number of votes (18%) in our poll.'" -Wikipedia

I don't necessarily agree with all of the rest of it (incl the assertion that this thought experiment proves the many-worlds interpretation), but right out of the gate if you're saying wave function collapse isn't part of QM, you gotta tell the physicists that, because they haven't got the message yet that I know of.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And since when is reality governed by majority opinion?

Anyway, maybe Copenhagen is right, and God does play dice. But if Many Worlds is right (and it seems more reasonable to me that "a bomb really does explode elsewhere in the wavefunction" has an observable effect on an experiment than "a bomb might have exploded but randomly decided not to" has any observable effect), then that's a nail in the coffin for the simulation hypothesis.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

a nail in the coffin for the simulation hypothesis

Aw man

I'm NEVER gonna get that Nobel Prize...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

You could always go for the Peace prize. If war criminals can get them, anybody's got a shot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Here’s the paper that citation comes from. Note that the informal poll had only 33 respondents, 27 of whom were actually physicists. On the question of preferred interpretations, several options with significant known support (De Broglie-Bohm, consistent histories, ensemble, etc.) got 0%. The paper opens with the disclaimer: “Just as Tegmark’s poll, our poll cannot claim to be representative of the communities at large.” They also note with reference to Tegmark’s poll: “While the Copenhagen interpretation gathered the most votes, the many-worlds interpretation turned out to come in second, prompting Tegmark to declare a ‘rather striking shift in opinion compared to the old days when the Copenhagen interpretation reigned supreme.’”

So I don’t think you can cite that survey as some kind of canonical consensus, and certainly not as evidence that Everettian interpretations are generally dismissed and need to be “stopped right there”.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Dude I just had my weird idea about us all living in a simulation and wanted to share it; I wasn't expecting it to be scrutinized to this level of detail

But sure.

Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality.

... seems like it summarizes it best. So GTFO out of here with trying to tell me that some particular interpretation is definitely right, and incompatible with what I said. Thanks.