• Schrodinger's Box, and why you should scare people with too much time on their hands.
    226 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cone;32201502]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.[/QUOTE] You're having trouble understanding special relativity but not general? How odd.
[QUOTE=Cone;32201502]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.[/QUOTE] Things fall "down"? Which way is "down"? I didn't know space HAD a "down".
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;32201714]Things fall "down"? Which way is "down"? I didn't know space HAD a "down".[/QUOTE] Oh, you know. Down relative to the observer. Doesn't really count in space, but if it has a shape I guess you might be able to define it. Edit: [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32201682]You're having trouble understanding special relativity but not general? How odd.[/QUOTE] I've got an odd brain.
I'd classify down as "towards the field-emitting body".
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;32197713]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.[/QUOTE] Are you fucking kidding me? So because it has been dumbed down the whole thing has slid past me. Maybe working in riddles should be left to comic book villains and not "quantum physics".
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32198480]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?[/QUOTE] It depends on if they are in free space or bound [QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32198480]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?[/QUOTE] Two electrons, bound to an atomic core can occupy the same space (but must have opposite spins, since they are Fermions). EM-Force is actually used to derive this behaviour in conjunction with the spin. Also there is no "flux of photons" for bound electrons, if they don't change their state to a lower energetic one. And yes, any "state change" a sort of measurement. If induced of spontaneous doesn't matter. [QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32198480]Shit, QM is fucking mindbending.[/QUOTE] If you take a look at the math behind it, it really makes sense. It's so harmonic and clear that everything sounds logic. The thing is, due to it's complexity in a variety of situations, there are so much enormous possible branches that it blows your mind. So yes, it's mind bending :) [QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32198480]Also, how the fuck did we manage make a machine that fires 1 photon at a time?[/QUOTE] There are several possibilities, to realize single-photon sources. Of course, it won't be that easy, but it is possible. [QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32198480]Also, what implications does this bring to Temperature?[/QUOTE] Temperature is only defined as a mean-value of several particle's velocity. A single particle can't really have a "temperature".
If nobody remembers, did it happen?
I'm interested on seeing if people would react differently to the whole deal if it was a dog instead of a cat. The thing most people don't realize is that, you're not meant to truly determine the outcome, the uncertainty of on which state the system is currently on is enough to describe the superposition phenomena. While the box remains closed you cannot accurately determine whether the cat is dead or alive, thus turning a deterministic binary outcome into a complex probabilistic outcome based on two extremes.
I read this thread to the beginning of page 4, and saw Lankist and JohnnyMo contradicting eachother (i.e., Lankist says that sentience matters for some unknown reason, and Johnny saying in the next post that it doesn't matter). I was almost tempted to google it myself to find out (which I did do anyway...), but then Avon saved the day, thank god. Woo
[img]http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8448/srating.png[/img] The ratings on this post amuse me.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;32206609][img]http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8448/srating.png[/img] The ratings on this post amuse me.[/QUOTE] i am going to collapse the superposition on that post
Something interesting: Some birds use quantum entanglement to see the Earth's magnetic field.
[QUOTE=Natrox;32204319]If nobody remembers, did it happen?[/QUOTE] If nobody remembers and there's no evidence it ever did happen, then it's fairly likely it didn't. I guess that depends on what you're trying to remember; if it has certain evidence that it did happen that's absent, then it's quite likely it didn't happen.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;32198441] 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] How do you know the thing firing the electrons doesn't just have recoil HUH actually a semi-serious question, I mean if the thing is aiming at the same spot all the time uh just explain more like I'm three
Pretty sure that it's supposed to have recoil, zeke. The electrons aren't supposed to go on a perfect trajectory.
I am probably going to get a LEGION of alarm clocks but... Wasn't this on "Through the Wormhole"? Something about the cat can be both alive AND dead, until you examined the box.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;32174469]Schrödinger's Cat walked into a bar. The other didn't[/QUOTE] Well played my good Sir, well played.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.