Schrödinger's Cat

Geriatrix said:
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Quantum mechanics starts talking about probability fields and where particles might be, and where they might not be. This also talks to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, the more you know the speed of an electron the less sure you can be about its location.

But back in the real world, the cat is either alive or dead, there is no inbetweener, to talk about a cat that is 64.53% alive is insane, yet that is the type of language and how we communicate quantum mechanics, because that is how it seems to behave.

Basically quantum mechanics is bat**** crazy, and Schrodinger didn't like the idea of probability fields and stuff (like a lot of other people). Curiously quantum mechanics has spun about a half dozen different theories about what reality really is, what is real and some other crazy stuff.
 
Phronesis said:
'twas but mindless goading ;).

Questions:
1) When you think about moving your arm, are you mentally affecting the movement of a physical object (your arm) when you decide to move it?

2) When you think about typing a word, are you mentally affecting the arrangement of electrons on your screen by mentally affecting the movement of your fingers?
Click to expand...

The questions are one in the same so:

I just thought about moving my arm and nothing happened. i.e. I merely thought about it - nothing more and it had absolutely no affect on my arm, nor the cat (luckily for her). I then went on to actually move my arm which resulted in a series of physical interactions from neurons to muscles. Thought alone has no affect on the physical world around us imo. Which is why I'm marginally interested in the Schrodingers Cat(s) thought experiment...
 
Arbiter said:
But if SC is correct, then it means something can be dead and alive at the same time.
Click to expand...

Who says it's true?

Arbiter said:
And that by the arbitrary act of observing it, you are forcing it into a state.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - it depends on a few factors:

1 - if Schrodingers Cat actually has any merit in the first place
2 - on which theory/explanation/interpretation you side with. If any.
 
ill patch up my knowledge on the big bang theory and post...can't remember the answer to this one.
 
Arbiter said:
Yes Kage, I am talking about the ONE and ONLY and ACTUAL Schrodinger's tikkytak.

What I'm saying here is that someone must be mistaken. Because saying something can exist in two states, alive and dead in this case, doesn't really flow well with basic physics. If I've got it right, SC was actually designed as a thought experiment that challenged the Copenhagen interpretation.

Also, the question here is to quantify the concept of observation. What is considered observation? Because apparently observation can solidify something into one of its possible states. Observation can't be just looking at something, because all that that implies is the intake of reflected light into receptive organs.

There must be another, more specific meaning. And perhaps that meaning includes some more, as Kage puts it, "metaphysical" "ways of observing".
Click to expand...

I have a limited understanding of QM and the relevant experiments. :o

The object does not dissapear until observed.
If we were to put the box and cat on a scale, we will see that the weight remains constant.

From what I understand.
The observation is only a way of measuring the object and through that the state of the object.
This observation does not have to remain at just visual, it relates to any scientific method of observation.

As for metaphysical observation, I am very sceptical to speculate on the methods of other observational methods beyond that which can be scientifcally proven. :)

EDIT:
@ Arbiter.
It took me some time to formulate my thinking and express it in a clear succinct manner.
I edited my post to be more constructive to the OP.

I never implied that there is a metaphysical observation method.
 
Last edited:
DJ... said:
The questions are one in the same so:

I just thought about moving my arm and nothing happened. i.e. I merely thought about it - nothing more and it had absolutely no affect on my arm, nor the cat (luckily for her). I then went on to actually move my arm which resulted in a series of physical interactions from neurons to muscles. Thought alone has no affect on the physical world around us imo. Which is why I'm marginally interested in the Schrodingers Cat(s) thought experiment...
Click to expand...
At least you are getting somewhere now. You thinking and doing before you actually do something like typing.
Does doing lead to thinking or thinking lead to doing? Either way, you seem to think that the mental has an effect on the physical through doing.
 
Last edited:
Hell, maybe SC and a lot of quantum mechanics is some crazy scientist's wet dream. There's no way of proving it (SC), because you can't observe it. You only have theoretical proof of it, because only in theory can something exist without it being observed.
 
Arbiter said:
Hell, maybe SC and a lot of quantum mechanics is some crazy scientist's wet dream. There's no way of proving it (SC), because you can't observe it. You only have theoretical proof of it, because only in theory can something exist without it being observed.
Click to expand...

I wish you would read threads and links supplied to you. What you are showing pretty clearly is I am wasting my time responding to you.
 
Phronesis said:
Either way, you seem to think that the mental has an effect on the physical through doing.
Click to expand...

Of course - that's an observed fact one cannot refute unless of course Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect. Going by the implication that thought alone (or some inherent thought within an object) affects its state goes back then to Aristotle who believed all objects had their place in the universe - which Newton proved incorrect.

Thought alone does not result in any affect on an object.
Thought and physical action though, does affect on object.
Would you agree?
 
Arbiter said:
What I'm saying here is that someone must be mistaken. Because saying something can exist in two states, alive and dead in this case, doesn't really flow well with basic physics.
Click to expand...

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law.

There is a very interesting new interpretation mentioned in Geriatrix's post:
The theory suggests the existence of a state space (the set of all possible states of the universe), within which a smaller (fractal) subset of state space is embedded. This subset is dynamically invariant in the sense that states which belong on this subset will always belong to it, and have always belonged to it. States of physical reality are those, and only those, which belong to this invariant subset of state space; all other points in state space are considered “unreal.”

...

According to the Invariant Set Postulate, the reason that Schrodinger’s cat seems to be both alive and dead simultaneously is not because it is, in reality, in two states at once, but rather because quantum mechanics is ignorant of the intricate structure of the invariant set which determines the notion of reality. Whichever point (alive or dead) lies on the invariant set, that one is real.
Click to expand...
 
BattleMoose said:
But back in the real world, the cat is either alive or dead, there is no inbetweener, to talk about a cat that is 64.53% alive is insane, yet that is the type of language and how we communicate quantum mechanics, because that is how it seems to behave.
Click to expand...
I have just read "Quantum Enigma" and the authors are at pains to point out that QM does not speak about the cat being 64.5% alive but that the probability of finding the cat alive is 64.5%.

They also point out a few other things:
QM has never been wrong with any of its predictions.
QM has no inherent limitation as to the size of object it applies to.
QM experiments and the observed effects now involve far larger object than just subatomic particles, so far molecules and clusters of atoms. A researcher, when asked what the limits are to demonstrating that QM applies to objects of any size, answered "only budget".
 
Last edited:
DJ... said:
Of course - that's an observed fact one cannot refute unless of course Newton's Laws of Motion are incorrect.

Going by the implication that thought alone (or some inherent thought within an object) affects its state goes back then to Aristotle who believed all objects had their place in the universe - which Newton proved incorrect.
Click to expand...
Newton actually has nothing to do about "the mental" having an effect on the physical. How did Aristitle get into the discussion?


DJ... said:
Thought alone does not result in any affect on an object.
Click to expand...
Hold on here.
You agree that the mental has an effect on the physical through doing.

Let's go through a thought experiment then.
You sit in front of your screen and do not move one inch. Now think of something. Say... without moving, count to 20 and multiply it by 20 and try and figure out a way to get to a final answer of 4200. Nothing too difficult, there are many ways to get to 4200.

Now, you agree that the mental has an effect on the physical through doing. What you just did, was doing arithmetic without physically moving.

A) I am sure you agree that your brain and brain states are physical, nothing mystical about it.
B) I am also sure you will agree (taking A as a given) that your physical brain states will correspond to your thought patterns as you did your arithmetic without moving.

Now the question is, does your mental capacity have an effect on your brain states (which are physical) since you agree that the mental has an effect on the physical through doing (in this case doing arithmetic)?



DJ... said:
Thought and physical action though, does affect on object.
Would you agree?
Click to expand...
Thought and physical action would be needed to affect other objects yes.
 
Last edited:
You're twisting my words there, phrony. The last part of your post sums up my point of view on the matter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X