I like this sentence...
> The one that produced an observer was observed.
I wonder if it applies in other contexts, specifically, er, quantum decoherence?
> The one that produced an observer was observed.
I wonder if it applies in other contexts, specifically, er, quantum decoherence?
I've found that when speaking with laypeople about quantum decoherence, a very common misconception comes from the use of the word 'observer' (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ ). If you say "A quantum system can be in a superposition until its wave function is collapsed when it's observed.", a layperson can easily interpret that to mean that a sentient being needs to look at and take note of the system for it to count as being observed, when in fact all that is required is that an external particle interact with the system and carry away some information (energy).
There's nothing special about humans (and their ability to observe) in this context.
Only an analogy, of course.
It does not do exponential parallelism by trying many things at once. What it does do is create exponentially many paths, while some of which interfere with one another destructively. When you observe the system, then, some paths will have probability zero even though they have non-zero complex amplitudes associated with it.
Scott Aaronson's "Limits of Quantum Computers" to the rescue: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/The_Limits_of_Quantum_Com...