Quantum Immortality = paranormal/supernatural?

[Hazhar]

I was reading about a version of the famous Shroedinger's Cat thought experiment known as the "Quantum Suicide" thought experiment, and I was reminded of the Million Dollar Challenge and whether it would be applicable here.

According to wikipedia:

In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered depending on the decay of some radioactive atom. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into a world in which he lives and one in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the non-dead physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die.

If I where to set up this experiment, sit in front of the gun and risk the 50/50 chance of being shot, not die, and then repeat it 50, 100, 1000, or even 10000 times and still not die (from my point of view) would that qualify as demonstrating a paranormal or supernatural power? Or would it just demonstrate a bizarre although understood area of the laws of physics?

Presumably if I do survive, even if I don't qualify for the money I would still have to all intents and purposes proven the many worlds theory of quantum physics. Maybe that'll earn me a Nobel Prize or something

 

[NiallM]

Well, I would have severe difficulties with a Wikipedia reference.

I seriously doubt that it really describes the intracies of the Schroedinger postulate.

A couple years of study are needed to understand the damn thing.

 

[Beleth]

Such a test would not qualify for the Challenge because of the likelihood of injury associated with it.

It's in the same category with the breatharians and that Zyklon-B guy.




Edited to change "apply" to "qualify"

 

[Hazhar]

Well, I would have severe difficulties with a Wikipedia reference.

why? The idea was not invented by a contributor - personal research is a no-no.

I seriously doubt that it really describes the intracies of the Schroedinger postulate.

A couple years of study are needed to understand the damn thing.

It all seems pretty simple to me (then again, I guess I'm just a quack, right? ). I die in the universes where I die, so I don't care about those. All I care about is the one where I live. I guess some people in all those dead-me universes might not be too happy with me being dead, but I'm not worried about them - I'll be living it up with my million dollars in some other reality

As far as I can see the only problems would be practical. I'm not sure if the technology to detect the decay of a single atom exists, and i doubt an atom with a short enough half life for use in this experiment/demonstration could be isolated and contained easily. Even if these are possible they'd probably require some very pricy equipment.

Such a test would not apply for the Challenge because of the likelihood of injury associated with it.

That's the interesting thing about it. The very nature of the demonstration is about the risk of injury. If the basic postulate is true, that from my point of view I will not die, then, from a certain point of view, there is absolutely no risk of personal injury to myself. However, yes, I concide that from the JREF's point of view, there is an overwhelmingly large number of universes available to them that result in my (very messy) death .

 

[NiallM]

Well, I hardly think that using a thought experiment as a basis to win the million would qualify you as a winner. Under your terms, if you survived x amounts of shots, you're still providing a naturalistic explanation for your survival. No paranormal event there!

 

[Gulliver]

Quantum non-Suicide

Let me try to help here... Quantum theory is always so fuzzy.

I would first change the experiment to something non-fatal. Let's say you claim that using your supernatural power that you can prevent a small sample of a mildly radioactive isotope (such as Indium 111) from decaying (even one atom) for 10 minutes, as detected by some accurate device. All of the proper safety protocols would be required. Let's say (simplifying greatly) that the sample contains enough atoms of the isotope that the odds of none of them decaying in the 10 minutes is one in a billion (10^9). While not a JREF expert, I'd suggest that this an acceptable application.

In the "many worlds" interpretation, you would be guaranteed that one of the billion worlds generated by the observed decay in the ten minutes, you'd passed the preliminary test.

Assuming the same protocol for the final test, in one of the billion worlds genereated by the second observed decay, you'd win the $1,000,000. In the other 999,999,999,999,999,999 (10^18 - 1) worlds, you'd be just another failed applicant.

Yes, one of you would be very rich. However, so very many of you would have wasted time. You'd be much better off playing the lottery, or better yet studying for a better vocation. More of you would be richer with less effort.

 

[Hazhar]

Let me try to help here... Quantum theory is always so fuzzy.

I would first change the experiment to something non-fatal. Let's say you claim that using your supernatural power that you can prevent a small sample of a mildly radioactive isotope (such as Indium 111) from decaying (even one atom) for 10 minutes, as detected by some accurate device. All of the proper safety protocols would be required. Let's say (simplifying greatly) that the sample contains enough atoms of the isotope that the odds of none of them decaying in the 10 minutes is one in a billion (10^9). While not a JREF expert, I'd suggest that this an acceptable application.

In the "many worlds" interpretation, you would be guaranteed that one of the billion worlds generated by the observed decay in the ten minutes, you'd passed the preliminary test.

Assuming the same protocol for the final test, in one of the billion worlds genereated by the second observed decay, you'd win the $1,000,000. In the other 999,999,999,999,999,999 (10^18 - 1) worlds, you'd be just another failed applicant.

Yes, one of you would be very rich. However, so very many of you would have wasted time. You'd be much better off playing the lottery, or better yet studying for a better vocation. More of you would be richer with less effort.

Which is why I went with putting me in the place of the atom - that way I could be sure I'd be the one with all the money . It also has an added dramatic flair ("I am immortal" as opposed to "I can prevent the decay of small quantities of a radioactive material") which is probably what lead me to consider it as being a possibly supernatural kind of thing in the first place.

Which kinda leads onto the other point made...

Well, I hardly think that using a thought experiment as a basis to win the million would qualify you as a winner. Under your terms, if you survived x amounts of shots, you're still providing a naturalistic explanation for your survival. No paranormal event there!

OK, yes - my survival, although certainly extra-ordinary, would be explainable by known naturalistic laws and theories. But what is most interesting about this concept is that, in the universe where I survive, it opens the door to the idea that all deaths might be subject to the same laws, regardless of cause. There would be some form of scientific basis for a life after death, in which we all live forever. This is a liberal intepretation, of course. But I'm sure it's one that a lot of people would be willing to make. And presumably, as us still being alive in anything resembling this world becomes less and less likely (depending on the way we 'die'), it may become more and more likely that after the 'death' divergance point, our conciousness would manifest itself in some other world/form.

But of course, that's just idle speculation - To be honest, it didn't really occur to me until just now.

 

[jmercer]

All deaths may be subject to the same law, but there's another law that applies as well - entropy. Regardless of the timing, every possible instance of you will all eventually die.

 

[Ashles]

Isn't this example just overcomplicating the example and using the Shroedinger's reference to sound groovy? Surely this isn't even demonstrating the same principle as Schroedinger's thought experiment.

The gun-physicist example is just an example of probability.

How is this different to me tossing a coin? In some universes I am going to keep getting heads for a very, very long time.

The fact that the example mentioned uses the death of the scientist and decaying radioactive-atom are irrelevant to the point being demonstrated - which is that there is a possibility that given 50-50 odds the same option can repeatedly turn up.

Whereas Schroedinger's Cat is illustrating the principle of indeterminancy where something can be theoretically simultaneously in two states.
This is a completely different point, isn't it? Or am I getting this wrong?

 

[Carn]

I was reading about a version of the famous Shroedinger's Cat thought experiment known as the "Quantum Suicide" thought experiment, and I was reminded of the Million Dollar Challenge and whether it would be applicable here.

According to wikipedia:
"In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered depending on the decay of some radioactive atom. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into a world in which he lives and one in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the non-dead physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die."

First i'd like to say, that i read about this idea in a popular science book about crazy ideas in science, so the inventor is actually someone who has studied QM.
But studying QM does not guarantee understanding.

This description has yet a mistake(something the original inventor knows) and it was described in that book(same problem has schroedinger's cat):
The existance of an entangled state(meaning universe has not yet split or the 2 universes are still identical) is only possible as long as a "measurement" of whether the atom already decayed or not has not been performed.
"Measurement" is misleading here, mainly it is meant, that no process happened, that outcome would depend upon the dacay of the atom. E.g. the decay of a plutonium atom in a nuclear bomb is already "measured", when the next plutonium atom is hit by a neutron, so long(in reference to time uncertainity, which is in the order of 10**-10 or lower) before any sort of explosion happens.
The same here, whatever causes the gun to fire, somehow reacts to the decay of the atom, therefore a "measurement" already happens during the entire experiment, this device is constantly "measuring", whether the atom has decayed.
So when it decays and universe splits up/diverges(according to many world theory), when in one universe the atom decays, there will be 2 different you, in the one universe one who happily walks away and in the other a you, that starts to think "w..."(not able to finish, ..hy was i ever so foolish to trust the interpretation of a bit a minority group in science).

The only solution would be that the decay of the atom kills you directly inside a period that is within time uncertainity. But as killing requires a lot of energy compared to planck constant, the time limit would be ridiculously small far less than it takes light to travel a atom's diameter(10**-40 s), therefore there is no process, that would allow to test it.
And even then there is the unwritten questionable assumption, that the that the surviving consicous somehow gathers all consiousness from the multitude of universes, where the body dies, otherwise you just get the same, many "yous" dying and one happily surviving.

The whole idea assumes a louslily defined concept of concious, that has no evidence so far.

If I where to set up this experiment, sit in front of the gun and risk the 50/50 chance of being shot, not die, and then repeat it 50, 100, 1000, or even 10000 times and still not die (from my point of view) would that qualify as demonstrating a paranormal or supernatural power? Or would it just demonstrate a bizarre although understood area of the laws of physics?

If JREF chooses to ignore the rule about non-lethal claims, then yes, you can collect a million.
JREF challenge is practically also a lottery offered for free from the offering side.
Just claim that you can make predict a coin throw reliable.
The prelimenary will be predicting 10 throws correctly, the final 20, chance to win 1 in billion.
Downside is that you have to pay postal rates and notary costs, so the bet/prize ratio is pretty lousy, you loose far more on the average than with lottery or horse racing or roulette.
Further downside would be that you signed a contract, where you say you claim to have paranormal powers, so JREF might sue you, if you do not make a good show of being a real applicant.

Presumably if I do survive, even if I don't qualify for the money I would still have to all intents and purposes proven the many worlds theory of quantum physics. Maybe that'll earn me a Nobel Prize or something

No nobel prize for getting lucky, lottery winners also get no nobel prize, as people surviving a 500m+ drop ending on non-soft material.

Carn

 

[Carn]

Whereas Schroedinger's Cat is illustrating the principle of indeterminancy where something can be theoretically simultaneously in two states.
This is a completely different point, isn't it? Or am I getting this wrong?

I think you are right in the sense, that this experiment demonstrates nothing about "simultanously in two states".
Wrong is that Schroedinger's cat demonstrates this, you know, the cat knows whether it is just suffering intense pain from being killed by a poison.
Schroedinger just offered this example to illustrate, that it is stupid to interpret the QM word "observeration" and "measurement" to far, especially as "consious observation" and "concious measurement".

But as always when someone makes an example how ridiculous some looney idea is, the loonies take your idea and argue from that, that whole reality is that "ridiculous"(they do not think it to be ridiculous).

E.g. the homeopath Kumar, when confronted with the problem that his keyboard has homeopathic dilutions of some manufacturing chemicals, if homeopathy is true and therefore constantly effects him homeopathically in a unknown way, happily says, that homeopathic action is constantly effecting humans and is one of the basic driving forces for emotions, thoughts etc.

Carn

 

[Yaotl]

Isn't this example just overcomplicating the example and using the Shroedinger's reference to sound groovy? Surely this isn't even demonstrating the same principle as Schroedinger's thought experiment.

The gun-physicist example is just an example of probability.

How is this different to me tossing a coin? In some universes I am going to keep getting heads for a very, very long time.

The fact that the example mentioned uses the death of the scientist and decaying radioactive-atom are irrelevant to the point being demonstrated - which is that there is a possibility that given 50-50 odds the same option can repeatedly turn up.

Whereas Schroedinger's Cat is illustrating the principle of indeterminancy where something can be theoretically simultaneously in two states.
This is a completely different point, isn't it? Or am I getting this wrong?

That's how it seems to me. With this suicide "experiment", the effects are observable. Knowing the decay rate and the mechanism would lead to a calculable chance of it occurring.