If the act of observation affects the observed, how should one approach buying lottery tickets?
If I buy a “quick pick”, ie: random numbers generated by the lottery machine, do I look at my numbers then and there, or wait until the draw is done, and observe the winning numbers first?
Does one act affect the other?
Note to Mods - didn’t put this in GQ because there’s no factual answer, but if y’all feel it isn’t right for debate, move as you wish.
That’ll teach the cat not to go into a box!
You’re conflating Heisenberg with Schrodinger. And I’m pretty sure neither of them, or anyone who understands statistics, would advocate buying lottery tickets in the first place.
Depends on why you’re buying them, IME.
Except for winning the lottery, I have no chance, zip, of ever seeing a million plus bucks. So, even if the odds are bad, and the ‘vigorish’ excessive, playing the lottery serves a unique purpose for me.
Beyond that, who cares about the odds anyway? Seriously. Where else can you buy a dream for a buck? Winning (or losing) doesn’t even enter into it.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that changes is the ticket’s expected value. Assume a one-in-a-million chance of winning:
Before examining the ticket, it has an expected value of one-millionth of the prize.
Afterward, it has an expected value of either the prize or zero.
Even if lottery tickets were non-deterministic and remained so after they were printed, there would be no benefit to waiting to find out what you got.
That depends. If you are looking only for false assurances and not actually fulfilling your dream, pretty much anywhere. Hell, I’ll tell you that giving me a buck will help achieve your dream, if you like.
The daydream is what you are paying for. The daydream lasts until the piece of paper becomes wast paper, or a dream come true. Wait for the news report of the mystery winner who has not cashed in his winning ticke bought in “Your Home Town” before you ever check.
Tris
When I was a mid-level associate, I was making about 250K/year and I took a bunch of summer associates out to lunch and I mentioned that the lottery jackpot was over 100 million dollars and one of the summers said “I think lotteries are a tax on people who can’t do math”
I promptly replied “yeah but its the only way I can make enough money to retire by the weekend”
Lotteries are not an investment.
My deranged brain can’t help wonder if Rule 34 applies here…
You could do like me. I want to win the lottery also but I don’t want to spend money buying tickets. So I plan on finding a winning lottery ticket lying in the street. This way I get to keep my money and my chances of winning aren’t significantly worse than yours.
Of course it does.
It’s a RULE, isn’t it?
As I often explain to people, buying a ticket only marginally increases your chances against the person without a ticket, but your scheme is even better for making the case.
This post is the #1 hit for googling ‘rule 34 heisenberg schrodinger’. I’m not sure if I should be depressed that I didn’t quickly find some rule 34 or depressed that I looked to begin with.
To answer the OP, you + your lottery ticket are far too macroscopic a system for QM to have any meaningful effect; however, even if that weren’t the case, whether or not you know the winning numbers does not have any affect on the statistics of the ‘measurement’ you make by checking the numbers on your slip.
I thought this would be about the somewhat more interesting thought experiment of quantum suicide, which can be used to create a scenario in which you are (virtually) guaranteed to experience winning the lottery, provided the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics holds.
Basically, the relevant notion is that of quantum immortality: that, whatever kills you, only has a certain probability of being effective, so in every situation, there always exists an observer moment such that you experience your own survival (after all, you are unable to experience your own death, barring some form of ‘hereafter’). Think of a ‘quantum gun’: a device, consisting of an ordinary firearm coupled to a measuring apparatus in such a way that every ten seconds, a measurement on a two-state quantum system is made – a spin measurement, for example. If the spin is found to be ‘up’, the gun fires; if it is found to be ‘down’, the apparatus just emits an audible ‘click’. Arrange things such that the probability for either ‘up’ or ‘down’ is 50%.
Now, in the conventional Copenhagen interpretation, measurement collapses the wave function, and you end up either dead or alive, with probability 50%, respectively. However, if the many worlds interpretation is true, there is never any collapse, just a superposition of observer states – in 50% of which, you are alive; and since this is the only possibility you can experience, you experience yourself surviving (of course, in half of all ‘universes’, your friends and family find your bloodied corpse hunched over in front of a curious device hooked up to a gun). The same holds true for any following iterations of the experiment: all you ever experience is the detector going ‘click’ … ‘click’ … ‘click’ over and over, since there is always a nonvanishing probability of your survival (bought at the cost of an ever growing number of universes filled with mourning relatives).
Of course, there’s a catch to all this: no scheme is entirely foolproof, so the 50-50 spin up-down chances don’t translate directly into 50-50 dead-alive; rather, there’s always some probability that the whole apparatus will fail, or that the gun fires, but doesn’t kill you – instead, perhaps, just horribly maims and disfigures you, leading to a life in agony. This is, however, essentially just an engineering problem: you can in principle always increase the effectiveness of your apparatus such that you can expect to survive at least n trials for some fixed n unscathed, i.e. with the detector just emitting its reassuring ‘click’.
Now, to get rich, all you have to do is:
Of course, step 2)'s the corker: you have to arrange things in such a way as to ensure that the likelihood of the failure of your scheme is significantly smaller than the likelihood of winning the lottery in order to ensure that the number of universes in which you a) live and b) have won the lottery exceeds the number of universes in which something, somewhere, buggered up. Possible points of failure include, but are not limited to:
Nevertheless, this is essentially an engineering problem; in principle, if you’re dedicated enough, you can work your way to a lottery win* – if there are indeed many worlds, rather than just one very strange one, that is. And if you don’t have a problem with the ethical implications of creating about as many grieving families (albeit in different universes) as there are non-winning lottery tickets, of course.
*There may be some added complication I don’t know how to account for: for any given lottery draw, there may be no way (or comparatively fewer ways) to ‘get there from here’, i.e. the universe may wrt the lottery drawing machine already be on a deterministic course such that certain draws are far less likely to occur than others (though owing to quantum effects, there probably can’t be any outcome of zero probability – after all, anything possible is mandatory), because some butterfly farted on a sack of rice in China…
Start -> Program Files -> Accessories ->MS Paint
…start dreaming.
Thanks all, this has been an entertaining read. 
The odds of winning the lottery if you never buy a ticket are zero.
The odds of winning, if you do buy a ticket, are small but most definitely non-zero.
So, if you divide a any non-zero number, no matter how small, by zero, you get ∞. QED, the odds of winning with a ticket are infinitely better than if you don’t have a ticket. Such a deal!
Math is such a blast!
And no, I NEVER buy a lottery ticket!!
I’d sure like to see both of them featured in a PSA. 
Sorry I clipped much of your post, but if you can build said machine, I’ll give you half of the winnings if I live. That was actually informative and amusing, and more than I was looking for in starting a thread on a whim. 
Also, I agree that one is buying a daydream, and frankly for a couple of bucks, that’s some value for money in “fantasy time”
Just to add, yes, I’d love to see a PSA with Heisenberg with Schrodinger. “This is your brain on science”. I bought my nephews “Science is Cool” DVD / CD, and would love to see more kids ponder great thoughts.
Has anyone here seen a picture of Schrodinger, and thought of Matt Smith saying “bow ties are cool”? He was a very geeky looking dude, but if you read hid bio, damn, the man got around. Could be the real life Doctor.
Out of non sequitor territory, and again, thanks for the good reading.
I’d like to see you defend this premise. While the odds of winning the lottery without ever buying a ticket are low, they are definitely not non-zero. People find lost tickets, people steal tickets, people receive tickets as gifts.
