• Schrodinger's Box, and why you should scare people with too much time on their hands.
    226 replies, posted
This is the thing about philosophy. All it does is state truths. "If you don't look in you don't know if it is dead." No shit, philosophy.
[QUOTE=Clunj;32184106]This is the thing about philosophy. All it does is state truths. "If you don't look in you don't know if it is dead." No shit, philosophy.[/QUOTE] This isn't philosophy, it is quantum physics. Schrodinger's Cat is a metaphysical paradox, not a question of ethics, morality or human dignity. During its time, the thought-experiment could not have been conducted effectively with any manner of results. Now, however, the principle outlined in the Schrodinger's Cat thought-experiment has hard-evidence that it is, in fact, physically possible.
[QUOTE=Clunj;32184106]This is the thing about philosophy. All it does is state truths. "If you don't look in you don't know if it is dead." No shit, philosophy.[/QUOTE] It doesn't say, "If you don't look in you don't know if it's dead," it says, "If you don't look in it is both dead and alive." [editline]8th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;32184135]This isn't philosophy, it is quantum physics. Schrodinger's Cat is a metaphysical paradox, not a question of ethics, morality or human dignity. During its time, the thought-experiment could not have been conducted effectively with any manner of results. Now, however, the principle outlined in the Schrodinger's Cat thought-experiment has hard-evidence that it is, in fact, physically possible.[/QUOTE] Not just physically possible, it's been done. I remember there's was an article in the news section a while ago about a macroscopic object that was put in a superposition of states.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32184222]I remember there's was an article in the news section a while ago about a macroscopic object that was put in a superposition of states.[/QUOTE] Its name was Mr. Mittens.
I still have nightmares about that cat.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32183999]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] I've never thought of that, really interesting.
Well, what about the photon that we bounce off the system? It's a system itself, right? So, how does superposition work there? Does a photon bounce and not to bounce at the same time?
The cats name was Bernice, you understand...
[video=youtube;htI3lLmWs5s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htI3lLmWs5s[/video]
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32184390]Well, what about the photon that we bounce off the system? It's a system itself, right? So, how does superposition work there? Does a photon bounce and not to bounce at the same time?[/QUOTE] That's why it's in a box.
[IMG]http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/schrodingers-cat-is-alive-dead.jpg[/IMG] Better explanation. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat[/url]
[QUOTE=Zedicus Mann;32184520][IMG]http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/schrodingers-cat-is-alive-dead.jpg[/IMG] Better explanation. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat[/url][/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/2/2/5222bb419c7bec4e03c59e4d8a97b45d.png[/img] Yes it all makes sense now.
As physics currently stand, I'm calling bullshit. Schrodinger's Cat is at the top of my bullshit list.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32184642]As physics currently stand, I'm calling bullshit. Schrodinger's Box is at the top of my bullshit list.[/QUOTE] thank you for the input, credible physicist
[QUOTE=Lankist;32184659]thank you for the input, credible physicist[/QUOTE] Except Schrodinger's Cat is inherintly flawed, becuase what the fuck is 'observation'? At a base level all a human being is a bunch of matter, a large organic computer. The gieger counter is observing. The air around the decaying isotope is observing. It's bullshit. Non-newtonian physics are a very very young science, and I think it's fair to say what we know now amounts to almost absolutely nothing, and we're most likely very completely wrong. [editline]8th September 2011[/editline] And I'm not insisting that any of this is mathematically false, but that the model of why, not what is wrong.
Wait, hold on now. the physical world can only take 1 state at a time right? That's why we can't observe the cat both dead and alive, so does that mean there's a plane of existence is both and alive at the same time? And about that previous thing, what happens if we have a system that reads input from two atoms? Both have decayed and not decayed at the same time, but can't one atom interact with the other and snap that one out? And can't one state snap the other with which it coexists out? And if any system can be considered to have more than one state, than how can they snap out withotu a precisely defined thing to do so?
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32184781]Wait, hold on now. the physical world can only take 1 state at a time right?[/QUOTE] Only when it's being observed. Everything else exists in a state of superposition in which all possible outcomes occur simultaneously. Two systems that interact with one another are one system, in essence. They cannot interfere with themselves because they are the same system. What one system *can* do when it interacts with another is change the probabilities of possible outcomes, changing the superposition without collapsing it. This is why Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand Quantum Theory, you do not understand Quantum Theory."
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;32184046]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[/QUOTE] Except that as anything but an analogy it fails, because the whole 'whoah that's weird' factor is erroneous as it's only there because the analogy is flawed. [QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;32184046]If this wasn't true then it would be impossible for photosynthesis to achieve the efficiency that it does now.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. Photosynthesis does not rely upon quantum mechanics to achieve optimal efficiency.
why are people arguing about what observation is? It's fairly simple (if I understand it that is)...You don't know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box, however, you cannot assume that the cat is either alive or dead but in a state of both, which is what Schrodinger was trying to say, I think. You couldn't tell if the cat was one or the other unless you observed it which would require you opening the box and looking at the cat.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32184714]Except Schrodinger's Cat is inherintly flawed, becuase what the fuck is 'observation'? At a base level all a human being is a bunch of matter, a large organic computer. The gieger counter is observing. The air around the decaying isotope is observing. It's bullshit. Non-newtonian physics are a very very young science, and I think it's fair to say what we know now amounts to almost absolutely nothing, and we're most likely very completely wrong. [editline]8th September 2011[/editline] And I'm not insisting that any of this is mathematically false, but that the model of why, not what is wrong.[/QUOTE] You're not meant to take the experiment literally. What the experiment comes down to is: What is the state of something that has two possible outcomes with 50/50 chance each, before the outcome is observed?
[QUOTE=TheThing;32185088]You're not meant to take the experiment literally. What the experiment comes down to is: What is the state of something that has two possible outcomes with 50/50 chance each, before the outcome is observed?[/QUOTE]Yes but any collision or interaction between two particles is technically an 'observation'. One particle observed the state of another.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32185127]Yes but any collision or interaction between two particles is technically an 'observation'. One particle observed the state of another.[/QUOTE]But we're talking about human observation, right? Or observation by things outside the box, I suppose is a better way to put it. We aren't inside the box, we're outside it. We don't know what happened inside it, so while there are things that are "observing" the cat, we don't know what is going on. Thus, we still have to assume it's dead and alive at the same time.
[QUOTE=Pedro the Fuzzy;32185045]why are people arguing about what observation is? It's fairly simple (if I understand it that is)...You don't know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box, however, you cannot assume that the cat is either alive or dead but in a state of both, which is what Schrodinger was trying to say, I think. You couldn't tell if the cat was one or the other unless you observed it which would require you opening the box and looking at the cat.[/QUOTE] It's about quantum-mechanics. It's not about what you know, it's about how the things that you know directly affect the physical world. It's not a "ha ha oh that's weird" kind of puzzle. It's an "Oh shit this cat is literally both alive and dead at the same time" kind of puzzle. Your ignorance of the cat's condition means the cat is in a superposition, which is *not* some philosophical term for an unknown state but a proven state in which all possible outcomes occur simultaneously. Google the Double Slit Experiment. It's less to do with you and more to do with how the laws of physics don't give a fuck when you aren't around.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32184871]Only when it's being observed. Everything else exists in a state of superposition in which all possible outcomes occur simultaneously. Two systems that interact with one another are one system, in essence. They cannot interfere with themselves because they are the same system. What one system *can* do when it interacts with another is change the probabilities of possible outcomes, changing the superposition without collapsing it. This is why Richard Feynman said "If you think you understand Quantum Theory, you do not understand Quantum Theory."[/QUOTE] But they don't exist in the same plane of existence, right? I mean, something can't be dead and alive at the same time. One can only be if the other isn't
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32185127]Yes but any collision or interaction between two particles is technically an 'observation'. One particle observed the state of another.[/QUOTE] No, it isn't. [editline]8th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32185204]But they don't exist in the same plane of existence, right? I mean, something can't be dead and alive at the same time. One can only be if the other isn't[/QUOTE] There's only one "plane of existence." The cat is both dead and alive at the same time in the same box on the Planet Earth in the Sol System of the Milky Way Galaxy of the Local Cluster. The cat is not a distinct entity outside of the universe. It is in the universe just as a cat would be, only it's in two places simultaneously. Though, superposition is mostly reserved for subatomic matter. It's possible, as Mo said, for macroscopic matter to exist in a state of superposition, but it's when you get tiny that the (conventional) laws of physics just don't exist anymore. I'm not going to get into String Theory here because I'm not a hack, but that's basically it. [editline]8th September 2011[/editline] Also, the existence of superposition is evidence against the existence of an omniscient God. Were there a God that knew everything, there would be no collapsing probability. Where there Divine Fate or a Plan, there would be no superposition. So that about wraps it up for God.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32185252]No, it isn't. [editline]8th September 2011[/editline] There's only one "plane of existence." The cat is both dead and alive at the same time in the same box on the Planet Earth in the Sol System of the Milky Way Galaxy of the Local Cluster. The cat is not a distinct entity outside of the universe. It is in the universe just as a cat would be, only it's in two places simultaneously. Though, superposition is mostly reserved for subatomic matter. It's possible, as Mo said, for macroscopic matter to exist in a state of superposition, but it's when you get tiny that the (conventional) laws of physics just don't exist anymore. I'm not going to get into String Theory here because I'm not a hack, but that's basically it. [editline]8th September 2011[/editline] Also, the existence of superposition is evidence against the existence of an omniscient God. Were there a God that knew everything, there would be no collapsing probability. Where there Divine Fate or a Plan, there would be no superposition. So that about wraps it up for God.[/QUOTE] Except it is. That's exactly how our eyes work. Particle hit shit. Particles bounce off shit. Particles hit eyes. It's not magic.
Trust Lankist to be the one to disprove God.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32185416]Except it is. That's exactly how our eyes work. Particle hit shit. Particles bounce off shit. Particles hit eyes. It's not magic.[/QUOTE] Again, it is not about our eyes. Our eyes are not magic. It is about the fact that we perceived information. A superposition collapses when something perceives it. The use of eyes is merely one manner of doing so. Scientists did not use their eyes to perceive particles during the Double Slit Experiment, they used sensors that relayed data to a computer. When they told the computer to scrap the data the sensors picked up, thus meaning the sensors were still sensing but the scientists weren't perceiving its information, the particles behaved as waves. The experiment has been repeated ad-nauseum and it always boils down to whether or not we, the humans, observed it.
How can a cat be dead, which is to say "not alive" and alive which is to say " not dead" at the same time? I mean, I guess it isn't a paradox if you just don't assume that something to be spinning on one side, it can't be spinning on the other. And you can still claim that God is the one nullifying the superpositions and shit. But then it, God needs to follow patterns to fit the probabilities.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32185441]Again, it is not about our eyes. Our eyes are not magic. It is about the fact that we perceived information. A superposition collapses when something perceives it. The use of eyes is merely one manner of doing so.[/QUOTE] Yes but our perception boils down to simply more particles. Perception is just more particles interacting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.