Schrodinger's Box, and why you should scare people with too much time on their hands.
226 replies, posted
There is no actual box in Schrödinger's Cat, it's just a way of separating the system from the outside world.
Also this was a thought experiment.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;32188079]I'm sorry, but in this case the analogy is "if the only information we receive from the observer inside the room is that the cat is either dead or alive, not that it is dead or it is alive, but just that it did reach some definite state", which means that in theory, since it hasn't been determined to be any specific state, but it is in one, it hasn't had the state collapsed yet, which means that in theory everything inside the room could be reversed.
This isn't my example, Scientific American is pretty fucking accurate for hard science if you ask me.[/QUOTE]
Scientific American is a magazine, hardly on the same level as a journal. And once again, you are completely glossing over the fact that whether or not the cat is dead (regardless of the observer in the room) is a problem of classical, not quantum, logic. It doesn't work, the cat is either alive or dead, and it doesn't matter who's observing it, because 'observing' doesn't mean literally looking at it and passing messages to the rest of the world. Schrödinger's Cat is a thought experiment, no more than an analogy, it doesn't actually work, and that's the fact of it.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;32188079][URL]http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27582[/URL]
Nope. :v:[/QUOTE]
Read your own link. Finding the optimal means of energy transfer on an atomic level has nothing to do with the underlying paradox of Schrödinger's Cat, nor does it mention anywhere that it relies on an uncollapsed waveform as a means of transferring energy, which is what quantum (trinary) logic is about. If it involves individual atoms, it's operating on a quantum level, but 'quantum' isn't some buzzword that makes impossible things start happening all around. And in any case you seem to have totally missed that little bit at the end that points out that this finding isn't accepted by the whole scientific community, and that there are issues with it.
Wait long enough and if the cat dies then you'll smell the corpse thus your wont have to open it.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
And as long as it meows you'll know its alive.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32188677]Scientific American is a magazine, hardly on the same level as a journal. And once again, you are completely glossing over the fact that whether or not the cat is dead (regardless of the observer in the room) is a problem of classical, not quantum, logic. It doesn't work, the cat is either alive or dead, and it doesn't matter who's observing it, because 'observing' doesn't mean literally looking at it and passing messages to the rest of the world. Schrödinger's Cat is a thought experiment, no more than an analogy, it doesn't actually work, and that's the fact of it.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but you are a person on the internet, this is a magazine where the authors actually wrote about it sound a lot more credible: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlatko_Vedral[/url]
[url]http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v304/n6/box/scientificamerican0611-38_BX1.html[/url]
Take it up with the guy who wrote it, I'm just saying that this sounds pretty legitimate to me.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32188677]Read your own link. Finding the optimal means of energy transfer on an atomic level has nothing to do with the underlying paradox of Schrödinger's Cat, nor does it mention anywhere that it relies on an uncollapsed waveform as a means of transferring energy, which is what quantum (trinary) logic is about. If it involves individual atoms, it's operating on a quantum level, but 'quantum' isn't some buzzword that makes impossible things start happening all around. And in any case you seem to have totally missed that little bit at the end that points out that this finding isn't accepted by the whole scientific community, and that there are issues with it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="Living in a Quantum World"]Another biological process where entanglement may operate is photosynthesis, the process whereby plants convert sunlight into chemical energy. Incident light ejects electrons inside plant cells, and these electrons all need to find their way to the same place: the chemical reaction center where they can deposit their energy and set off the reactions that fuel plant cells. Classical physics fails to explain the near-perfect efficiency with which they do so.
Experiments by several groups, such as Graham R. Fleming, Mohan Sarovar and their colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, and Gregory D. Scholes of the University of Toronto, suggest that quantum mechanics accounts for the high efficiency of the process. In a quantum world, a particle does not just have to take one path at a time; it can take all of them simultaneously. The electromagnetic fields within plant cells can cause some of these paths to cancel one another and others to reinforce mutually, thereby reducing the chance the electron will take a wasteful detour and increasing the chance it will be steered straight to the reaction center.[/QUOTE]
It's not quantum superposition, never said it was, but it is entanglement.
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
Wait fuck just kidding I guess I accidentally said that it did. Quantum phenomena have been shown to work in the eyes of European robins and in photosynthetic plants.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32186767]You're completely wrong if you think any science whatsoever is based on proof.[/QUOTE]
This isn't to say science is wrong, I'm just saying that science is is an attempt to model our observations,. And our observations are necessarily on a probabilistic standpoint.
it's like I said before. We have no fucking clue if the laws of physics are going to keep going or if the Sun is going to rise tomorrow, but, fuck, there's a high probability that it will.
Yeah and Einstein was wasting his time when he was thinking about trains and mirrors. More like special ed relativity
Thought experiments are based on previous observations and mathematics based on previous observations.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;32189750]Sorry, but you are a person on the internet, this is a magazine where the authors actually wrote about it sound a lot more credible: [/QUOTE]
Read the end of that article:
'In developing this devious thought experiment, Wigner and Deutsch followed in the footsteps of Erwin Schroedinger, Albert Einstein, and other theorists who argued that physicists have yet to grasp quantum mechanics in any deep way'.
It's a thought experiment, it highlights a principle, it isn't literally true any more than the original cat scenario is. Note the line in the second column 'Doing such an experiment with an entire human being would be daunting'- if the experiment were literal, then it wouldn't be very hard to put a guy in a room with a cat and a decaying particle.
I'm not disagreeing with the articles, I'm pointing out errors in your reading of said articles.
[QUOTE=catbarf;32190952]Read the end of that article:
'In developing this devious thought experiment, Wigner and Deutsch followed in the footsteps of Erwin Schroedinger, Albert Einstein, and other theorists who argued that physicists have yet to grasp quantum mechanics in any deep way'.
It's a thought experiment, it highlights a principle, it isn't literally true any more than the original cat scenario is. Note the line in the second column 'Doing such an experiment with an entire human being would be daunting'- if the experiment were literal, then it wouldn't be very hard to put a guy in a room with a cat and a decaying particle.
I'm not disagreeing with the articles, I'm pointing out errors in your reading of said articles.[/QUOTE]
I know it's a thought experiment, why would I be talking about this literally?
It's just tacking on something to the original thought experiment that makes for an end result to the thought experiment that meaningfully extends upon the original.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32187226]I am getting tired of saying the words "Double Slit Experiment." So I'm not going to say them anymore. I'm going to say Quantum Monkey Bidness.[/QUOTE]
I've seen a bunch of videos of that, read a bunch of the wiki posted by Johnny and I'm still not phased. The cat will be dead, or it will be alive, or it will keel over when you open the box. If you look through its eyes, its either or. Not both.
Why not use a glass box
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;32191048]I know it's a thought experiment, why would I be talking about this literally?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I guess we had a misunderstanding, there are a lot of people in this thread taking the examples literally.
[QUOTE=Clunj;32194542]I've seen a bunch of videos of that, read a bunch of the wiki posted by Johnny and I'm still not phased. The cat will be dead, or it will be alive, or it will keel over when you open the box. If you look through its eyes, its either or. Not both.[/QUOTE]
You don't understand superposition. Read the thread.
[QUOTE=NanoSquid;32196323]Why not use a glass box[/QUOTE]
Because you cannot observe what is it happening, else it ruins the experiment entirely. It's the same as opening a box.
[QUOTE=Clunj;32194542]I've seen a bunch of videos of that, read a bunch of the wiki posted by Johnny and I'm still not phased. The cat will be dead, or it will be alive, or it will keel over when you open the box. If you look through its eyes, its either or. Not both.[/QUOTE]
Ok to make it easier for you to understand ignore the fact that there is a cat. It's no longer a cat but an electron. In the box it's a wave and a particle. The moment we open the box to observe the electron it comes out as one of those. The idea is that particles at that scale are essentially in different physical states, but the moment we try and observe them they only present themselves in a single form. That's the whole objective of this thread.
The cat is just an example for people to grasp this without having to use particles. People are thinking too hard about this.
I still can't understand one thing. If two particles are by themselves without being observed they're both dualities, right? Which means they act as both particles and waves.
Now, if they act as something, that means they interact with space. So does that mean space isn't composed of the same shit that makes other dualities be able to snap other dualities?
Also, if you hit a duality with a wave, will it snap into something different than if it were a particle doing it? 'Cause if so, if I hit two dualities together, what the fuck happens?
See, this is the problem with teaching quantum physics to most highschool students that just get up to Newtonian physics.
Most quantum physics don't seem entirely "logical" as to their macrometric counterparts, because they're impossible to truly observe (You can't exactly see quanta), but you have to accept they're true as many quantum phenomena explain much bigger events easily (The whole point of reductionism is to follow an inverse "gestalt", the explanation of each part of the system will explain how the whole works).
Want a real application for this whole quantum superposition thing? Quantum computers. What's the great thing about quantum computers? Qubits, the whole basis of it. You see, while regular bits that we know and love can have two values, 1 or 0, quantum bits can be 1, 0 or [I]a superposition of both[/I]. This means that, for example, three qubits don't have to be on a single state like three bits, who must necessarily be displaying a single state (One of 2^3), the three qubits can be any of those states at the same time.
It's hard to explain as to why exactly does this make them better than regular deterministic computers, keep this in mind though, in a system with 300 qubits, you would have 2^300 different quantum states at the same time, something which would take 300 bits 2^300 cycles to perform (as they have to change to match each different permutation).
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32198195]I still can't understand one thing. If two particles are by themselves without being observed they're both dualities, right? Which means they act as both particles and waves.
Now, if they act as something, that means they interact with space. So does that mean space isn't composed of the same shit that makes other dualities be able to snap other dualities?
Also, if you hit a duality with a wave, will it snap into something different than if it were a particle doing it? 'Cause if so, if I hit two dualities together, what the fuck happens?[/QUOTE]
Dude that's not what particle-wave duality is.
Duality implies that the quanta is behaving BOTH as a particle and as a wave. If two particles collide, usually energy is released, if two waves collide energy is also released (as gamma waves). It's the same phenomena only that observed differently.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32198195]I still can't understand one thing. If two particles are by themselves without being observed they're both dualities, right? Which means they act as both particles and waves.
Now, if they act as something, that means they interact with space. So does that mean space isn't composed of the same shit that makes other dualities be able to snap other dualities?
Also, if you hit a duality with a wave, will it snap into something different than if it were a particle doing it? 'Cause if so, if I hit two dualities together, what the fuck happens?[/QUOTE]
Avon can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, and I defer to anyone with a real education on the subject, but I'm gonna give a shot at explaining this.
Let's say you have Electron 1 (E1) and Electron 2 (E2).
E1 can possibly occupy the positions A, B and C.
E2 can possibly occupy the positions D, E and F.
Therefore these two don't interfere with one another, and collectively there are nine possible permutations in the system.
However, let's say:
E1 can occupy positions A, B and C
E2 can occupy positions C, D and E.
E1 and E2 cannot both occupy position C at the same time, therefore there are now eight possible permutations in the system. It is still a superposition, however the probabilities have shifted. Two things interacting does not necessarily collapse the superposition, but it likely changes it and leaves fewer possible permutations. Observation, for instance, will collapse a superposition because only one permutation can be observed.
[QUOTE=Clunj;32194542]I've seen a bunch of videos of that, read a bunch of the wiki posted by Johnny and I'm still not phased. The cat will be dead, or it will be alive, or it will keel over when you open the box. If you look through its eyes, its either or. Not both.[/QUOTE]
If you're not fazed by that you didn't understand the experiment.
Anyway, the cat is not really a cat. It's just a metaphor. You can remove the cat to get rid of the problem of the cat observing itself and the experiment is the same. Imagine it's just a particle instead. It's just that a cat being dead and alive at the same time grabs the average person and shows to them how absurd the implications of quantum mechanics are. The double slit experiment is the exact same in principle as Schrodinger's cat. A photon travels through both slits at the same time, until you observe which slit each photon goes through, after which it collapses back to the expected classical result.
[editline]9th September 2011[/editline]
The double slit experiment works even if you slow it down to firing one photon at a time through the slits at a screen. You get the wave interference pattern with two slits if you don't observe which the photon goes through even if you release only one photon at a time.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32198375]Avon can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, and I defer to anyone with a real education on the subject, but I'm gonna give a shot at explaining this.
Let's say you have Electron 1 (E1) and Electron 2 (E2).
E1 can possibly occupy the positions A, B and C.
E2 can possibly occupy the positions D, E and F.
Therefore these two don't interfere with one another, and collectively there are nine possible permutations in the system.
However, let's say:
E1 can occupy positions A, B and C
E2 can occupy positions C, D and E.
E1 and E2 cannot both occupy position C at the same time, therefore there are now eight possible permutations in the system. It is still a superposition, however the probabilities have shifted.[/QUOTE]
Actually I think their quantum states add up, thus producing a single system which states they are simultaneously in ALL 9 positions.
Note that two quanta can occupy the same space, it's called quantum entanglement.
But doesn't a collision occur when both electrons attempt to be in the same position? I mean, if those two electrons collide shouldn't they observe each other?
Also, what about EM force? If electrons can occupy more than one space at the same time, what about their EM forces? Shouldn't we be able to know the exact position of the electron by measuring its flux of photons? e wouldn't be measuring the electron itself, either.
And can photons destroy the superposition o the electrons that gave birth to them?
Shit, QM is fucking mindbending.
[editline]9th September 2011[/editline]
Also, how the fuck did we manage make a machine that fires 1 photon at a time?
Also, what implications does this bring to Temperature?
[QUOTE=Big Bang;32198471]Actually I think their quantum states add up, thus producing a single system which states they are simultaneously in ALL 9 positions.
Note that two quanta can occupy the same space, it's called quantum entanglement.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm a layman so this is just my layman's understanding of shit that goes way over my head. I reserve the right to fallibility.
i lol'd cause i saw this on futurama and didn't know what it was
Hey
Hey
Hey guys
You guys
Hey you listening?
Whatabout
You know guys
Hey
Whatabout you ya know
Stop making my brain hurt
Ya know
Hey?
I don't understand Schrodinger's cat.
He just says "Meow" a lot.
[editline]9th September 2011[/editline]
seriously though I'm shite at theoretical physics
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;32201034]I don't understand Schrodinger's cat.
He just says "Meow" a lot.
[editline]9th September 2011[/editline]
seriously though I'm shite at theoretical physics[/QUOTE]
The maths part or just the understanding? I'm fairly good at the latter, shit at the former.
The understanding, mostly. I mean, I was looking at the theory of relativity for a bit and was like "My head is full of fuck" until someone broke it down simply.
I still don't understand all of it, though. Something about lightning striking a train in two places at the same time? Or a guy standing in front of a train and shining a laser in the driver's eye?
Physicists are so crazy.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;32176941]Just an FYI, the cat was never put into a box. [B]The experiment was never done because science with good morals does not justify the murder of a living creature.[/B][/QUOTE]
You're kidding right? That is so not the reason.
Also I don't see how cats are much different from the cockroach we all squash. Wouldn't really faze me if they threw a cat in a box with some cyanide (as long as it's for an experiment, thousands of cats are experimented on daily for disease cures, and so are other animals, just because it's hairy and fuzzy doesn't make it any different).
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;32201286]The understanding, mostly. I mean, I was looking at the theory of relativity for a bit and was like "My head is full of fuck" until someone broke it down simply.
I still don't understand all of it, though. Something about lightning striking a train in two places at the same time? Or a guy standing in front of a train and shining a laser in the driver's eye?
Physicists are so crazy.[/QUOTE]
From what I understand of general relativity i.e. what I found Wikipedia, it would seem that things fall downwards when there's no force applied to them because space it curved, not because there's gravity. As a result, light can be bent when there's sufficient gravity placed upon it, the same happening with time, or at least clocks. Special relativity is, so far, the only bit that I'm having trouble understanding.
Are you comparing the nervous system of both animals? I'm pretty sure both animals are capable of pain anyway, so yes, it would be evil to crush cockroaches too.
Also, darth: light travels at c, always.
So, when you shine a flashlight from the back of the train to the front of the train, light takes X to travel that distance.
Now, if someone else sees you doing that, they'll see the beam travel a much bigger distance, since the train's moving, but if c is a constant 8and the formula of speed is distance per time) than, if you have a bigger distance, you must have a bigger interval of time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.