On 12/12/2012 5:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 12/12/2012 7:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then
what
does? I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not
happen. And if
there is no collapse then you have the MWI.
Jason
Hi,
It seems to me that we would not observe any sign of a collapse in a
local sense
even if there actually was one. We only observe the end result, no the
process. No?
Correct. But the CI says you can't learn the result of a measurement without the wave
function collapsing. Actually it was never entirely defined when the collapse happened,
or what did it, but it was supposed that for any observer to know a result it must have
collapsed.
For DD's experiment to work, there must be two definite results which are definitely
measured and observed., since the collapse never occurred and yet the observer recalled
measuring a definite result.
I'm not clear on what you mean by two definite results. In order to detect an
interference pattern you need to send many particles through Young's slits. So I assume
the two results must be an ensemble for which there was no which-way observation by the
conscious AI and another ensemble for which the observation was made for each particle,
but then quantum-erased.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
