> The experiment, designed by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner (opens a new tab), of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich...
I remember when this came up in the news six years ago. I looked them up (I live in Zurich) and, if I remember correctly, the grad student quit physics after this paper and went into programming...
Anyway, to repeat the same joke I made when this came out seven years ago: speaking as a physics drop-out who then pursued a four-year bachelor of arts, multiple conflicting interpretations of the same thing being considered valid even if they lead to opposite things being considered true are my bread and butter. So, sorry quantum mechanics, I guess you're part of the humanities now.
1. An agent can analyze another system, even a complex one including other agents, using quantum mechanics
2. This assumption of consistency, that the predictions made by different agents using quantum theory are not contradictory
3. If an agent’s measurement says that the coin toss came up heads, then the opposite fact — that the coin toss came up tails — cannot be simultaneously true.
But isn't everything you measure in quantum mechanics probabilistic? E.g. the article itself gives the example of measuring a polarized photon at 45 degrees giving 50/50 chance of each outcome
So all 3 assumptions have an issue:
1: even if you can analyze it, you're analyzing just probabilistic data anyway.
2: why expect consistency if your results are probabilistic?
3: I thought the whole concept of superposition was both options being simultaneously true
What am I missing here that makes this paradoxical?
As I recall, the majority of these paradoxes are resolved by the observation that you can't get a free measurement, for one system to measure another - both must interact. So either
1. You Perform some form of strong measurement which is certain to perturb both systems - leading to the collapse of entanglement etc. and various constraints collapsing.
2. You perform a weak measurement which leaves the opposing systems in probabilistic states which must still be consistent.
3. You perform no measurement and each system maintains an internally consistent statistical distribution over possible states.
The paradoxes show up when you assume there is a free measurement which does not perturb either system - or only perturbs one system.
8 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 27.7 ms ] threadI remember when this came up in the news six years ago. I looked them up (I live in Zurich) and, if I remember correctly, the grad student quit physics after this paper and went into programming...
Anyway, to repeat the same joke I made when this came out seven years ago: speaking as a physics drop-out who then pursued a four-year bachelor of arts, multiple conflicting interpretations of the same thing being considered valid even if they lead to opposite things being considered true are my bread and butter. So, sorry quantum mechanics, I guess you're part of the humanities now.
Bonus quasi-relevant SMBC https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/humanity
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3975
1. An agent can analyze another system, even a complex one including other agents, using quantum mechanics
2. This assumption of consistency, that the predictions made by different agents using quantum theory are not contradictory
3. If an agent’s measurement says that the coin toss came up heads, then the opposite fact — that the coin toss came up tails — cannot be simultaneously true.
But isn't everything you measure in quantum mechanics probabilistic? E.g. the article itself gives the example of measuring a polarized photon at 45 degrees giving 50/50 chance of each outcome
So all 3 assumptions have an issue:
1: even if you can analyze it, you're analyzing just probabilistic data anyway.
2: why expect consistency if your results are probabilistic?
3: I thought the whole concept of superposition was both options being simultaneously true
What am I missing here that makes this paradoxical?
1. You Perform some form of strong measurement which is certain to perturb both systems - leading to the collapse of entanglement etc. and various constraints collapsing.
2. You perform a weak measurement which leaves the opposing systems in probabilistic states which must still be consistent.
3. You perform no measurement and each system maintains an internally consistent statistical distribution over possible states.
The paradoxes show up when you assume there is a free measurement which does not perturb either system - or only perturbs one system.