[SEQ RERUN] Configurations and Amplitude
post by MinibearRex · 2012-03-30T04:39:57.466Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 4 commentsToday's post, Configurations and Amplitude was originally published on 10 April 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
A preliminary glimpse at the stuff reality is made of. The classic split-photon experiment with half-silvered mirrors. Alternative pathways the photon can take, can cancel each other out. The mysterious measuring tool that tells us the relative squared moduli.
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Quantum Explanations, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
4 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Zenkin · 2012-04-01T19:44:42.670Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The reason that these quantum computers are so difficult to build, if I understand correctly, is because of some sort of "information leakage." I'll just get to the point. Do we know whether or not the conscious observer is the reason that this information leakage causes them to fail? Does Schrodinger's Cat, while I know this is an attempt to say quantum physics is silly, actually have bearing on reality? Most importantly, is it possible to actually answer these questions? I have been under the impression that being observed changes the tendencies of tiny particles, which leads one to believe that it is because someone is consciously observing it. However, we can never know the results of an experiment without a conscious observer (a.k.a. Someone to give us the results). I apologize if this is off-topic.
Replies from: shminux↑ comment by shminux · 2012-04-01T20:22:20.198Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do we know whether or not the conscious observer is the reason that this information leakage causes them to fail?
Consciousness is a much higher level of abstraction than quantum physics, so you ought to notice your confusion when asking a question like that.
And no, there is virtually no chance that consciousness is related to measurement, despite what Roger Penrose insinuates. Such ideas are due to the misunderstandings EY is trying to dispel in this sequence.
Replies from: Zenkin