Skip to main content

The Great Quantum Suicide/Prayer experiment

One of the wackier ideas I've come across recently is the Quantum Suicide thought experiment. For a full explanation look here

It concerns one of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, (a subject I studied a long time ago at University & wasted many late evenings in pointless discussions of its philosophical implications).

In the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, all possible outcomes of an event occur in separate parallel universes. Consider a radioactive atom that has a 50/50 chance of decaying in any given second. We are unable to predict which of these outcomes will happen, only the chance of one or the other. Albert Einstein didn't like this idea, and was often quoted as saying "God does not play at dice". (Well, coin-tossing in this case). Enter the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) to the rescue. In fact at the end of a second, there are two parallel universes, one in which the atom has decayed, and one in which it hasn't.

Now imagine a physicist who wants to test if the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct, as opposed to there being One World, where the outcome is determined by God (or whatever) tossing a coin. The way to test it is to rig up the radio-active atom to a detector, which, if it detects the decay, fires a gun. The physicist sits in a chair facing the gun. At the end of the first second, there are two parallel universes, one with a dead physicist, and one with a live physicist. Clearly, the physicist's consciousness only continues in the universe where he is alive. Now the physicist repeats the experiment for 1000 repetitions. The chance of getting 1000 coin tosses in a row coming up heads is so astronomically small that if there is but one Universe, then the physicist is going to be dead by the end as sure as eggs are eggs. But in the Many Worlds Interpretation, all outcomes always happen, so at the end of 1000 seconds, there is one universe with a live physicist, and 999 with dead ones.

Now the physicist returns home elated after his day's work, and says to his wife:

"Hi, dearest, I'm home, and guess what? I've proved that many worlds interpretation is true - and I'm going to be famous".

However, his devoutly religious wife knew about the experiment and also knew that barring miracles, her husband would be dead before the end of the day. And so she prayed to her God to intervene and save her husband's wife. So even though it dampens her husband's enthusiasm, she replies:

"No you haven't proved it's true, I've just proved that prayer works. It's a miracle!!".

(Sadly in 999 other universes, the grieving wife is left wondering if God exists at all).

What should our physicist do? Should he:

(a) Divorce his religious nutter of a wife, publish his findings and get the Nobel prize?
(b) Start believing in the same God that his wife believes in?
(c) Go back to the lab and try and figure out what went wrong with the experiment?

[ Clue: what would be the most scientific thing to do?]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Large Hadron Collider Rap

Just LOVED this, physics geek that I am. "Alpinekat" (Kate McAlpine) is a science writer at the CERN experiment in Europe, which will turn on the largest particle accelerator in the world, the Large Hadron Collider, on Sept 10th. There are some who say it will cause the end of the world, because of the potential to create "mini-black holes". Black holes are normally formed by the gravitational collapse of a massive star, but it is possible that the conditions at the time of the Big Bang could have created extremely small black holes. Steven Hawking postulated that such holes would evaporate by the emission of radiation, called "Hawking Radiation", a result of a virtual particle-anti particle pair being produced at the black hole's event horizon. Some physicists now believe that Hawking radiation may be a flawed concept and that a mini black hole created by the LHC would not evaporate, but could cause a cataclysmic disaster and swallow up the earth.

The barbecue conundrum - a (partial) response to Stephen Fry

It's now notorious and has "gone viral".  I'm referring to Stephen Fry's response on being asked by a television interviewer what he'd say if he found God actually existed and was confronted by Him at the Pearly Gates.  Stephen replied that he'd say (something like) "Bone cancer in children - what's that about? How dare you deliberately create something that can cause so much misery and it's not our fault?"  Such a God would be evil, malicious, and he would want nothing to do with such a being. I sympathise, I really do.  Some years ago, I used to go to a poetry group.  The founder was a lovely lady called Sally.  Sally was one of the most honest people I'd ever met - if she liked your poem she'd say so, but wouldn't pretend if she didn't like it.  Everyone valued her.  She died at the age of 36, in Indonesia, when her plane crashed into the side of a mountain - she was one of the two Brits on board. I searched the sho

Archbishop of Canterbury on Gay relationships

From a letter from 2001 between the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams and Dr. Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian: "By the end of the 1980s I had definitely come to the conclusion that scripture was not dealing with the predicament of persons whom we should recognise as homosexual by nature. I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness." Good for him!! I agree with the above 100%. Apparently the Church of England is going to split on this issue, and some Conservative Christians say Williams's position is now "untenable". Some Conservative Christians need to go back to the Bible and read Matthew 7:1-2 . Some Conservative Christians need to understand the truly horrific abominations that are perpetrated on innocent children, not by h