Schrödinger's Cat

A

Arbiter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Location
In the Mind Field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

Has always been a very interesting concept. I've been wondering about some things regarding the concept.

Firstly, is the Copenhagen interpretation proven wrong by the experiment, or does it prove the possibility of something being both dead and alive, however much that might defy modern laws?

Secondly, according to the interpretation, the objects in question only settle into a certain state when observed. Schrodinger's Cat considers looking into the box an observation. Does thinking about it also count as an observation?
 
I'd say so.

If you disturb the experiment's behaviour by observing it - then it ruins all chances of the cat being alive, without ruling out the possibility that he was dead to begin with.
 
I think for your second question no, thinking about the cat does not qualify as observation.
 
But then it proves that just because someone has died, does not mean he is "gone"?

Why not, wizard? Because we don't yet understand whether you can mentally affect "physical" things?
 
oh wait - you said thinking ... then no.

Sorry - I skip-read the last sentence >.<
 
Arbiter said:
But then it proves that just because someone has died, does not mean he is "gone"?

Why not, wizard? Because we don't yet understand whether you can mentally affect "physical" things?
Click to expand...

Were speaking in the natural sciences section so we need to keep our science hats on.

Whether we can effect things or cant effect things with our mind is speculation as we cant apply the scientific method to it. When we have, from what I understand all studies came up showing that we cant really (yet), or perhaps we just have not found a way to measure or observe it.

If you are thinking about the cat... thats it.. ure thinking about it.. you have not observed it yet. To me observation implies some kinda actual physical interaction to view/record/measure the object.

You could put the cat in the box and think it alive as much as you want, but its still could be dead when you open the box.
 
w1z4rd said:
Were speaking in the natural sciences section so we need to keep our science hats on.

Whether we can effect things or cant effect things with our mind is speculation as we cant apply the scientific method to it. When we have, from what I understand all studies came up showing that we cant really (yet), or perhaps we just have not found a way to measure or observe it.

If you are thinking about the cat... thats it.. ure thinking about it.. you have not observed it yet. To me observation implies some kinda actual physical interaction to view/record/measure the object.

You could put the cat in the box and think it alive as much as you want, but its still could be dead when you open the box.
Click to expand...

Well... some company did come out with a gamepad-thingy that uses brainwaves, so that isn't strictly true...
 
Arbiter said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

Has always been a very interesting concept. I've been wondering about some things regarding the concept.

Firstly, is the Copenhagen interpretation proven wrong by the experiment, or does it prove the possibility of something being both dead and alive, however much that might defy modern laws?

Secondly, according to the interpretation, the objects in question only settle into a certain state when observed. Schrodinger's Cat considers looking into the box an observation. Does thinking about it also count as an observation?
Click to expand...

1st Q:
The experiment proves that something could exist be in multiple states at once until observed.

Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.
Click to expand...

2nd Q:
No, thinking has not been proven to affect the state.
Only through observation - opening the box can it be one or the other.

Arbiter said:
But then it proves that just because someone has died, does not mean he is "gone"?

Why not, wizard? Because we don't yet understand whether you can mentally affect "physical" things?
Click to expand...

What is your actual agenda with this thread?
 
smokey said:
Well... some company did come out with a gamepad-thingy that uses brainwaves, so that isn't strictly true...
Click to expand...

Brainwaves or electrical stimulations? Big difference.

@Wiz ... "affects" ;)
 
Kage said:
But we are talking whether "thinking" about the cat will effect the state of the cat in the box.
Click to expand...

Which is something that we will never know unless we figure out how to "remote view" and then record those "remote viewings".

EDIT: By the by, was just pointing out that we can affect things with our brains (maybe not our minds as yet... though I'm hoping for something in that direction:p).
 
Last edited:
Agenda with this thread? Well, I thought I would start out by indoctrinating the world with my obviously superior knowledge of everything. I would then enslave them and build a harem where all my pretty ladies could stay and...Do I have a sign under my name that says "I have an agenda?". Generally speaking, the only agenda I have is to promote thinking about things. So maybe that's my agenda. Shhhh, it's a secret.

Wiz, can we apply the scientific method to Schrodinger's box? We've got a hypothesis, but no way of proving it. Doesn't that fail the scientific method?
 
Kage said:
Now we are moving into tinfoil hat territory, let's rather not.
Click to expand...

I just stated what would be needed, never mentioned that it was possible or likely (however much I wish it could be so)...
 
Arbiter said:
Wiz, can we apply the scientific method to Schrodinger's box? We've got a hypothesis, but no way of proving it. Doesn't that fail the scientific method?
Click to expand...
Hey my knowledge on quantum mechanics and superposition is rather limited. I know that the principles in qm theory have practical uses today such as quantum processors and memory.

You would need someone who knows physics way better than I to to explain the observation, experimentation and empirical evidence to quantum theory. Sorry. Im just kinda looking at this from my limited point of view :D The only valid bit I know about the cat is that it was an argument used by Schrodinger against quantum mechanics (when the who atom debate was the rage).

If I ever understand how all this works, Ill let you know. I do know its beyond my ken currently. My armchair physics knowledge on qm is limited to a couple of memorized equations which I dont fully understand yet.
 
Last edited:
Guys, guys. Its just a thought experiment to explain the difficulty in mathematically explaining quantum phenomena. Its got nothing to do with real cats and/or poison. It only applies to the observation(or method used) of quantum phenomena, not real life size objects like cats.

Its sort of like a metaphor.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4[/ame]
 
Arbiter said:
Agenda with this thread? Well, I thought I would start out by indoctrinating the world with my obviously superior knowledge of everything. I would then enslave them and build a harem where all my pretty ladies could stay and...Do I have a sign under my name that says "I have an agenda?". Generally speaking, the only agenda I have is to promote thinking about things. So maybe that's my agenda. Shhhh, it's a secret.

Wiz, can we apply the scientific method to Schrodinger's box? We've got a hypothesis, but no way of proving it. Doesn't that fail the scientific method?
Click to expand...

My apologies, agenda was perhaps too strong.
I only asked as your OP was refreshingly succinct and logical.
Your 2nd post (as below) was completely the opposite and moved away from the OP.

I could of course be too hasty and you may be using a posts to build an argument which incorporates your 2nd post in a logical manner.
If that is the case, I do apologise. :o

Originally Posted by Arbiter
But then it proves that just because someone has died, does not mean he is "gone"?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X