It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Schrodinger's cat probably is alive ...and dead

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:22 PM
a reply to: JBurns

They are all wrong the answer is there is no cat .
If the cat isnt alive or dead until you look to see if its alive or dead then the truth is this.
The only reason you think there is a cat in there becuase some one told you there was.
But until you see the cat you dont know if it really exist let alone if it is alive or dead or not.
So if you dont see the cat there is no cat.
If you ask me this study is really to see how people look at god and then they make the people who are taking the test
feel smart by making them wonder about some imaginary cat .
But what is really happening is someone is judging how you feel about god by how you answer.
And the to top it all off they try to tell you the ? is about physics or some other damned thing lol

posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:51 PM
a reply to: InTheLight

That's great. Where in Einstein's work is this covered?

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:36 AM

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: InTheLight

That's great. Where in Einstein's work is this covered?

From what I recall from the book Einstein's Universe and the theory that space-time may be bent, plus I just envisioned wave and/or particles doing their thing but following 4D theoretical laws (time attached to space and gravitational forces, therefore time would also be in motion), as well as throwing in the double slit experiment observational paradox, then it seems likely to me that how we physically observe quantum matter cannot be realized, only theorized or imagined. Mathematics falls short because we don't have all the knowns to add to the equation.
edit on 5-2-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:28 PM
Some argue that the cat itself is an observer, but I'd go as far as considering the apparatus itself as an "observer", because it reacts to a quantum event to produce real, tangible effect.

There may be a supposition of states, but as soon as the macro-universe is affected in some way, the wavefunction is collapsed and the properties become defined. It's somewhat similar to the pairs of virtual particles appearing at a black hole's event horizon. When one of the virtual particles flies away from the black hole (resulting in the Hawking radiation), it becomes a real particle.

We can tell that quantum properties become certain without our (as observers) involvement, because there are several cosmic phenomena we can observe that signify quantum certainty. For example, a certain wavelength of radio emission from interstellar gas clouds comes from when an electron changes its spin to be the opposite of the proton's spin. Since those interstellar clouds are located many light years away, we can only observe the effect of what had already happened all those years ago. We are not influencing the result by measuring it, therefore it's a reality independant from us.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:15 PM
here the translation from QM into real world

superposition - we don't know, we haven't looked at it yet

probability - we have no idea how or what forces are acting exactly , so it could go right or left, 50/50 chance

quantum state - we ignore all the rest and use 0 or 1

quantum entanglement - if one is up, the other is down, lets go and confuse people why it is like so

on top of that is how people are talking about this, is a mix of different languages of physics,
but it doesn't matter, most people have no idea what it actually means anyway...

for those who can think at least a little, the quantum entanglement on tube

edit on 7-2-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 07:23 PM
a reply to: KrzYma

At around 15 mins. where the electron beam splits into two definite areas onto the detector and this is proof that something non classical is occurring. However the first thing I thought of, was that it could be that the 1st particle/s movement through the magnetic field, and subsequent forceful interaction causing the particle to go up or down, could cause a ripple, or equal and opposite force the opposite way, in essence, altering the momentary nature of the magnetic field which until the particle entered was average and un point being, could it be explained classically as in the first particle (/s in a line of many) causing the magnetic field to 'wobble' back and forth, thus the next particle will come in and get pushed up or down, also, re disturbing the wobble of the magnetic field?

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:12 PM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey, thanks for a thoughtful reply.

As far as silliness, you want to know what's really silly? Mathematical Realism. This philosophy states that mathematical objects have an inherit existence, which is independent from physical space. For instance, axioms of the real numbers state that in between any two real numbers, is an infinite set of other real numbers. Some of these numbers will have no representation anywhere in this physical universe, and indeed, cannot be expressed in terms of a finite algorithm to enumerate their digits (Chaitin talks a lot about this, picture these numbers as having decimal places which are infinite strings of random digits) Such numbers can thus never be expressed in the physical realm. Yet people believe they are real, why?

The answer is because the alternative, mathematical constructivism, where a number doesn't exist until it can be expressed, doesn't work as well. As a result, the vast majority of mathematicians and physicists have been realists. If some number can be imaged with certain properties that is consistent with the laws of maths, they assume it exists, even if it can never be written down, or expressed fully. Chaitin's constant is a good example of such a number.

I'm bringing up mathematical realism, with its absurd existent infinities of numbers that will never manifest in this universe in any way, because it gives the proper framing for many-worlds thinking. Somewhere between 0 and 1 on the real number line is a number, which encodes in its digits, an atom by atom representation of Elvis at one of his best shows wearing a pink tutu in front of the screaming crowd and the rest of the universe unfolding in response to that act. Do mathematical realists concern themselves with this fact? No, because the math that allows freedom for any possibility manifests at the numbers level as a greater level of mathematical simplicity and freedom than the math which forbids Elvis dancing in a pink tutu. freedom works because freedom is simple and cheap.

That's the wisdom behind the Everett interpretation: Like mathematical realism it gives a picture of vast realms, where anything is possible, and anything that can happen has happened, and it manifests as the most mathematically simple of all the interpretations, which means it allows the most.

And that's why I love it. Its true its incomplete, as many point out it lacks interpretation of the Born Rule for instance. But rather than being religious about the minimalism, I see this as allowing the possibility for expansion, acknowledging how much at present we don't know. To me that's its power.

I think many-worlds is here to stay.


posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:46 PM
a reply to: tridentblue

What if qualia or eigenstates make up "objective" reality?

Like the color green being real, yet only existent as a "property" of multiple things.

So we do not need infinity in the way you're thinking - we just need infinite objective properties which are relative to something that is absolute.

Like two mirrors facing one another thereby creating infinite feedback - yet the feedback is undeniably there / must have always been (a possibility.)

Can we say that is not how reality works? The four fundamental forces supposedly give rise to all other forces, don't they?

eta: I'm not patronizing you by adding this, I am just adding so I can be understood:

noun ei·gen·state "+ˌ-
: a state of a quantized dynamic system (such as an atom, molecule, or crystal) in which one of the variables defining the state (such as energy or angular momentum) has a determinate fixed value

A determinate fixed value [that is a qualitative state.] But are not crystals also a qualitative state of protons, neutrons, electrons... and those states of ... and those of ... until there is nothing left to see?

singular: quale : plural: qualia
n. quality considered as an independent object; essential distinctive quality; a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience; "The 'what it is like' character of mental states. The way it feels to have mental states such as pain, seeing red, smelling a rose, etc."

The effects of "forces" are objectivity? Forces which must have come from something eternal, that has infinite potential, lest something come from nowhere and nothing, and I not be able to dream anything.


Infinite potential/states being expressed as fixed values. I think I can wrap my head around it. Like everything not needing to be green for green to be real or infinite, just as you not needing to be everyone, for someone to be real, yet undeniably, you are apart of, or from, or a quality of, the infinite.
edit on 2/9/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:10 AM
a reply to: ImaFungi

nice idea but I don't think the magnetic field has any ability to remember anything,

first to say is that magnetic fields not only diffract any moving charge due to the Lorentz force but also interact magnetic.

electron has a spin, or better said a direction ( not the velocity direction ), that always modulate to the magnetic field and its change in the nonuniform magnetic field causes the split into UP and DOWN depending on electrons velocity and spin.
the change in spin direction also changes the velocity direction and both costs energy.
if you do the math you will find out that independent of the incoming spin direction, the alignment and change in velocity direction eat up always the same amount, the only difference is the spin of the charge that directs the velocity movement. UP or DOWN.

BTW> in this video he talks about magnets, calculates what forces act on them, but is to stupid to realize that forces also act on this magnets, changing the configuration of the system all the time. But this seems to be to high for his parrot brain.

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:04 AM

WRONG! And the number of physicists who get this spectacularily wrong is frightening. The whole point of the thought experiment was to show that the assumption that a particle was in multiple states until "observed" was wrong.

At last! There's no by-passing Yorkshire common sense! The wild interpretations of abstract thinking on quantum waveforms truly shows just how spectacularly unreal physicists can be. I have written on this subject myself here on the forums, seeking to 'ground' posters in the reality they inhabit, and to try to get them to see past the absurdity.

Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment highlights the absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quanta existing in dual states at the same time, both as a wave and as a particle, and that only when we make a measurement (as an observation) of some property of the quanta does its wave/particle duality breakdown into either a wave or as a particle.

Wave/particle duality is simply an imaginative mathematical abstraction. Schroedinger showed us the error of it, by elegantly stating that measurement (as an observation) does not determine the cat's existential fate, but only what we can know of it. This rebuts the idea that consciousness determines doesn't.

When we place the cat into the box it is alive and well. If we leave it for an hour and return to it, we cannot state the cat's true current state, because it is possible that there has been an atomic decay that broke the phial of poison which will have killed the cat. Then again, there may not have been an atomic decay? The real knowledge gained by opening the box is not simply the existential state of the cat, itself, but whether or not there has been an atomic decay?

Measurement (as observation) does not determine the outcome. Consciousness does not breakdown wave/particle duality, because there is no duality, but in imagination, and as a mathematical abstraction, there is. However, it is not a reflection on true reality, even at the level of quanta.

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 01:32 PM
a reply to: elysiumfire

I like what you say, and I see it the same way, there is no duality and no superposition or superstate.
Those are just abstract names for "we don't know".
We don't know because we haven't looked/measured, or we don't know because we don't understand how it works.

If you look at QM closely you will find the "creation" part. It becomes like any religion in the world, a question of belief.
This comes from the math and the unknowns in it.

Proposing, that an observer creates the realm of reality is not a bad idea. But here we need to define what an observer really is.
Any charge is an observer of another charge.
Simple like this!
So an Universe with only two charges in it can and already exists.
There is no need for consciousness or mathematics or any higher anything than two charges. It doesn't even matter what those charge are. But you always need two and at least just two.

I disagree with your thoughts on measurement.
Measurement does determine the outcome to a certain degree from the simple fact that measurement is an intrusion into the measured system. Measurement gives in or takes away energy, so it is responsible for the outcome.

I said before, any single charge is an observer of any another charge.
Observation is interaction and outcome is the result of it.

OH.. BTW... an atomic decay is NOT a spontaneous event at all. They tell it is and it's simpler this way but it isn't.
It has a cause otherwise it wouldn't happen at all.
The probability of decay already shows us that there is more behind it, but we just don't know now what.
QM will not give us any answer to it as it is already satisfied with probability as outcome.

edit on 15-2-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in