This page is not a forum for general discussion about Quantum suicide and immortality. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Quantum suicide and immortality at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death: Suicide Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Han, Ce (1 June 2021). "Theoretical Quantum Immortality and its Mathematical Authority". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1936 (1): 012015. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1936/1/012015.

From reading the lead section, all I know is that this is about a thought experiment and that it involves quantum mechanics.

Some more specific concerns:

• "Quantum suicide is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics and the philosophy of physics." - This is fine as far as it goes, but insufficient. What kind of thought experiment? What are the subjects of the thought experiment?
• "Purportedly, it can falsify any..." - In the second sentence before even explaining what this is, we're already getting to its claimed applications.
• "Quantum immortality refers to the subjective experience of surviving quantum suicide." - Now we get a second phrase defined in terms of the first without a definition of the first.
• "Hugh Everett did not mention quantum suicide or quantum immortality in writing" - The second section starts with this phrase... this really makes me think that this article is a rebuttal to the actual Wikipedia article. Can we get that one instead? Who is Hugh Everett and why is what he DIDN'T say relevant?
• "The quantum suicide thought experiment involves a similar apparatus to Schrödinger's cat – a box which kills the occupant in a given time frame with probability one-half due to quantum uncertainty. The only difference is to have the experimenter recording observations be the one inside the box. The significance of this is that someone whose life or death depends on a qubit could possibly distinguish between interpretations of quantum mechanics. By definition, fixed observers cannot." - Start of the 3rd section. Definitely should have led with this!

I'd suggest re-writing the intro as:

Quantum suicide is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics and the philosophy of physics which involves a similar apparatus to Schrödinger's cat–a box which kills the occupant in a given time frame with probability one-half due to quantum uncertainty. In this variation the experimenter recording observations is the also the subject inside the box which could theoretically allow for differences between the interpretations of quantum mechanics to be observed.

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quantum suicide and immortality/Archive 1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Quantum suicide and immortality/Archive 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]