• Schrodinger's Box, and why you should scare people with too much time on their hands.
    226 replies, posted
[QUOTE=catbarf;32175320]Schrödinger's Cat is a thought experiment designed to highlight the apparent absurdity of the Heisenberg interpretation of quantum theory. It is not an objective fact of quantum dynamics. And it is not about 'human perception defines reality', it is about the third state in trinary logic (which QM relies upon, since classical logic doesn't function on a quantum level), and how that state can produce apparently paradoxical but nonetheless true conditions. The cat is just a metaphor to make it easier to understand, it doesn't [i]actually[/i] work that way, and a cat in a box with a decaying isotope is, in fact, either alive or dead, and never both.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;32175474]What's equally mindfucking is that if you somehow managed to seal the room and have a scientist in the room capable of communicating to another person in the hallway via a single slip of paper, in theory the scientist inside would observe the cat collapsing into a definitive state, but if the scientist simply slips a piece of paper under the door to tell the person in the hallway that the cat reached a definitive state, then in theory everything would be reversible while having the slip of paper remain. In essence, we went back to the future.[/QUOTE] I'm confused now.
[QUOTE=decamonos;32174310]"hey deca, why in the hell would anyone think of such a weird horrible experiment. The only answer is someone with far too much time on their hands"[/QUOTE] These people with too much time on their hands are people much more productive and clever than you.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32176951]Who said that science has to have good morals?[/QUOTE] Cave Johnson would be proud. For science!
I don't think you got the point of the experiment right. It has nothing to do with humans having a higher intelligence than cats.
[QUOTE=thf;32179373]I don't think you got the point of the experiment right. It has nothing to do with humans having a higher intelligence than cats.[/QUOTE] I think what he meant was something intelligent enough to know what it's looking at. Or you looking at it, since that's the only way [I]you[/I] will know. And since you can't type if you're a cat, then you have to be a human. At least, I think. I like quantum shit like this until it comes into the maths and such.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;32175474]What's equally mindfucking is that if you somehow managed to seal the room and have a scientist in the room capable of communicating to another person in the hallway via a single slip of paper, in theory the scientist inside would observe the cat collapsing into a definitive state, but if the scientist simply slips a piece of paper under the door to tell the person in the hallway that the cat reached a definitive state, then in theory everything would be reversible while having the slip of paper remain. In essence, we went back to the future.[/QUOTE] Except no, because once again, the experiment doesn't actually work. This is all on a quantum level and there's much more to observation than passing a note under a door.
I got downs from reading the OP... Just... what
How to make a thread about something you have no idea of what it is and make a stupid conclusion out of it. 0/10 Don't try again.
It's "Schrodinger's Cat," not "Schrodinger's Box." The theoretical condition of the cat is what's important. Schrodinger's Box is just a box.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32183114]It's "Schrodinger's Cat," not "Schrodinger's Box." The theoretical condition of the cat is what's important. Schrodinger's Box is just a box.[/QUOTE] With a dead cat inside it.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32183407]With a dead cat inside it.[/QUOTE] It also had a living cat inside of it too.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;32174469]Schrödinger's Cat walked into a bar. The other didn't[/QUOTE] Actually, it should be "Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't."
[QUOTE=Lankist;32183520]It also had a living cat inside of it too.[/QUOTE] No it didn't. The cat died. Just no one knows when it died exactly.
The cat multiplied into two? Holy shit.
A tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it still fall? Yes. Yes it does.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32183603]A tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it. Does it still fall? Yes. Yes it does.[/QUOTE] That's not how it is. It's "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make any sound".
[QUOTE=Ilwrath;32183618]That's not how it is. It's "if a tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make any sound".[/QUOTE] Same thing. It makes a sound any other time, of course it makes a sound that time too.
Any how do you know that the laws of physics remain constant?
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32183637]Same thing. It makes a sound any other time, of course it makes a sound that time too.[/QUOTE] Here, read through [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest[/url]
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32183587]No it didn't. The cat died. Just no one knows when it died exactly.[/QUOTE] No, that's not the experiment. Poison is rigged in the box to have a 50% chance of releasing and killing the cat. There is also a 50% chance that nothing will happen and the cat will be fine. Until the box is opened, the cat is both alive and dead. It is simply an analogy for quantum strangeness. The cat is neither dead nor alive, and yet it is both alive and dead, until it is observed. This is how electron clouds work in atoms. Electrons occupy all possible positions around a nucleus at once until they are observed. It is a thought experiment to help people understand collapsing probability.
Does anybody have a link to that youtube video where the cartoon professor observes particles going through slits? Observed they do as expected, unobserved they are completely erratic.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32183708]Does anybody have a link to that youtube video where the cartoon professor observes particles going through slits? Observed they do as expected, unobserved they are completely erratic.[/QUOTE] This? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKdoE1vX7k4[/media]
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32183708]Does anybody have a link to that youtube video where the cartoon professor observes particles going through slits? Observed they do as expected, unobserved they are completely erratic.[/QUOTE] Google the Double-Slit Experiment. The particles unobserved are not erratic, they are predictable. Unobserved, electrons behave as waves rather than matter, meaning that until they are observed they occupy every possible position that they *can* occupy until observation causes the probability of the electron in question to collapse into 100%, resulting in that electron occupying one space at a time as matter should. Essentially this means atoms are not finite, civilized little orbital systems like we are commonly taught. It also means that there is a point at which matter is so small that it does not obey the conventional laws of physics.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32183744]Google the Double-Slit Experiment. The particles unobserved are not erratic, they are predictable. Unobserved, electrons behave as waves rather than matter, meaning that until they are observed they occupy every possible position that they *can* occupy until observation causes the probability of the electron in question to collapse into 100%, resulting in that electron occupying one space at a time as matter should.[/QUOTE] I think it applies to all sub-atomic particles, not just electrons, not sure though.
[QUOTE=Ilwrath;32183761]I think it applies to all sub-atomic particles, not just electrons, not sure though.[/QUOTE] It's all particles, but in the case of Schrodinger's Cat, the thought-experiment applies directly toward Electron Clouds.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32183791]It's all particles, but in the case of Schrodinger's Cat, the thought-experiment applies directly toward Electron Clouds.[/QUOTE] Ah, yeah, that makes sense.
Here's a question for you. If things change when they are observed or unobserved. Is it possible to observe from such a distance that these things would be unaware of being observed in the first place? What about satellite images or listening from a greater distance. The hubble telescope. Do these things effect how these things react?
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32183938]Here's a question for you. If things change when they are observed or unobserved. Is it possible to observe from such a distance that these things would be unaware of being observed in the first place? What about satellite images or listening from a greater distance. The hubble telescope. Do these things effect how these things react?[/QUOTE] No, it's not possible. "Observing" refers to interacting with the system in a way that interferes with the system itself. For instance when you look at something, you don't tend to consider that you're doing anything to it, but to see something you have to bounce photons off the object and then the photons have to travel to your eye. You're affecting the system by photon interactions just by looking at it.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32183938]Here's a question for you. If things change when they are observed or unobserved. Is it possible to observe from such a distance that these things would be unaware of being observed in the first place? What about satellite images or listening from a greater distance. The hubble telescope. Do these things effect how these things react?[/QUOTE] Distance doesn't factor in. The question is collapsing probability. The more you know about the system, the higher the probability is that it will exist in one particular, finite way. With Schrodinger's Cat, you know that there is a 50/50 chance that the cat is either alive or dead. If you gave the poison a 75% chance of releasing, then the probability is 75% in favor of a dead cat and 25% in favor of a living cat. Any manner of observation, whether you look into the box or poke the box with a stick, will cause the probability of one particular variation of the system to collapse into 100%. It is not about your eyes, it is about your perception. Quantum physics assumes you cannot perceive all things happening at once, so when you perceive a system only one particular thing happens at a given time. That's called Quantum Strangeness. The mere act of observing a system (in all senses of observation), directly alters how the system behaves. The Double Slit experiment, for instance, didn't involve scientists looking at the electrons. The electrons were right in front of their eyes, microscopic and invisible. It wasn't about looking at them. They set up sensors to detect how the electrons behaved and which slit they passed through, and they behaved differently. The mere fact of *knowing* something can *change* it. In the case of the Double Slit, the act knowing the results of the experiment defined the results of the experiment, creating a sort of chicken-and-egg conundrum.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32179500]Except no, because once again, the experiment doesn't actually work. This is all on a quantum level and there's much more to observation than passing a note under a door.[/QUOTE] In this case it's an analogy that uses the original thought experiment and uses the slip of paper as the only information that the outside observer receives about the inside room [editline]8th September 2011[/editline] If this wasn't true then it would be impossible for photosynthesis to achieve the efficiency that it does now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.