3 ms·
There are two different detectors and a single photon. It can be detected only in one place at a time.
by stared 11y ago
There are two different detectors and a single photon. It can be detected only in one place at a time.
- ikeboy 11y agoThe usual design of quantum suicide involves the following: 1. Something in the world depends on a choice you make. If you choose correctly, you win. Ideally, there are a large number of choices, e.g. lottery, stock, bitcoin private keys, whatever. 2. You use quantum randomness to make the choice 3. The machine you constructed checks whether you won 4. If you did not win, it kills you So you need to have a machine that reliably checks for a win, and kills you if it doesn't find one. How does having two detectors for the proton help?
- stared 11y agoIn any case, I presented a simple, concrete implementation. Checking is built-in - if the photon goes path with bomb, then I am dead (due to this bomb). If goes the path where is a detector - then I won. No need to create a "checking machine" distinct from the one generating quantum states.
- ikeboy 11y agoHow do you win? Nothing in your comment explains that. Give a detailed model, as I did.
- stared 11y agoSetting is here: http://imgur.com/qwpukly http://imgur.com/qwpukly You win if the photon is measured by the win-detector, as depicted here: http://imgur.com/STjajMp http://imgur.com/STjajMp (it can light a green led, make sound or, I don't know, launch confetti). People pay money, as it was a bet.
- ikeboy 11y agoWho would bet on someone's death? This doesn't seem plausible.
- stared 11y agoIt's a thought experiment. For practical things: I won't. But I bet some people would.
- ikeboy 11y agoIt makes it far less plausible as a thought experiment than the standard model, and also means you can't do it in secret, which brings legal and practical issues into play.
- stared 11y agoLet's finish this discussion, because I find your arguments perpendicular to mine. E.g. what is the problem with legality? Trolley problem is also unethical and illegal - and so what? (BTW: Did you actually learn QM?)
- ikeboy 11y agoThe point is that QI is generally presented as something that's not terribly difficult for someone to test out. The biggest barrier to entry is understanding enough physics to create the quantum noise, but after that it's basic robotics that can be done cheaply and by a single person. Changing the experiment to require 1. illegal acts i.e. betting on someone's death, 2. knowledge by others, introducing an interference factor, etc changes the thought experiment. Of course, it may be valid as a thought experiment if it adds an interesting new complication, or removes a complication that wasn't essential to the paradox. But remember, the objection you proposed your scenario to avoid was the possibility of something going wrong with the suicide attempt. Changing the entire scenario to be less plausible seems a bit too much for a staightforward objection like that.