High School A in A's reality, B in A's reality, A in B's reality in ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter porton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    quanta reality
Click For Summary
When A and B observe C, their perceptions of C can differ based on their individual realities. The discussion explores the implications of A and B watching each other, suggesting a complex chain of realities that could theoretically lead to infinite variations. However, it concludes that this does not actually result in an infinite set of realities. Instead, it presents a strong argument against simplifying quantum mechanics through popular science articles. The conversation references the "Wigner’s Friend" paradox, which addresses similar issues in quantum observation.
porton
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Do we produce an infinite number of realities this way?
I read somewhere in Quanta magazine that (if I understood correctly):

When A and B watch C, then C in A's reality may be different than C in B's reality (as B is seen by A?)

What if A and B watch each other? We could make chain: A in A's reality, B in A's reality, A in B's reality in A's reality, B in A's reality in B's reality in A's reality, ...

So do we this way obtain an infinite set of different realities?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
porton said:
So do we this way obtain an infinite set of different realities?
No, but we do obtain a powerful argument against trying to understand quantum mechanics by reading Quanta magazine.

And kidding aside... you’re describing a variation of an old paradox called “Wigner’s Friend”. Google will find much more about this class of problems.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Haorong Wu, Vanadium 50, DrChinese and 6 others
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K