Schrödinger's Cat is a bunch of BS

a reply to: CryHavoc

Simplified: Observation affects the outcome, and the outcome doesn't exist until the observation is made.

a reply to: CryHavoc

The difference in your cereal example, is the potentiality.
A closer example would have been the milk for your cereal, that was borderline fresh yesterday.
The rest of the milk is awaiting this mornings cereal.
Has it gone south, or one more day of viability ?

As the wise members posting ahead of me mentioned: it's just a thought experiment.
Don't be too rigid, and open your mind to the crazy wondrous world of QM.

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: CryHavoc
Simplified: Observation affects the outcome, and the outcome doesn't exist until the observation is made.

Outside observation doesn't have any effect on the Cat.

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: CryHavoc

Simplified: Observation affects the outcome, and the outcome doesn't exist until the observation is made.

It's not just that the observer causes the collapse of the wave function that is important in the discussion. What boggles my mind beyond all its capacity is what is the IT that decides or knows now is the time to collapse the wave function!!!!

I don't think people appreciate all the imperfections we have in reality. People blindly assume realism with hard determinism and clockwork Universe. However, the reality of it is no two objects are ever exactly duplicated in the macro world. There is sublime symmetry in nature but what is more astounding is how unique everything is!

cats suck.

originally posted by: Lysergic
cats suck.

Cats are lot like women.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Yes it does in this theoretical experiment because what the philosophical theory often leaves out is the vial and hammer. Opening the box would kill the cat but you would not know if the atomic decay had killed the cat already before you opened the box.

The one thing about this "experiment" that puzzles me, is:
The Cat knows.

But from the Cat's point of view, are we outside the box or are we not???

originally posted by: Lysergic
cats suck.

Schrödinger's Cat even more so.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Lysergic
cats suck.

Cats are lot like women.

You don't have any? lmao!!!!!

😘😋😝😝😝😝😝😝😝

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Lysergic
cats suck.

Cats are lot like women.

Except they tend to suck a little more.

Or DO they??

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Lysergic
cats suck.

Cats are lot like women.

Is this a pussy thing?

So let me get this straight, the only way to answer the Schrödinger's Cat riddle is to think outside the cereal box?

originally posted by: Identified
Yes it does in this theoretical experiment

There is nothing in this thought experiment that says the Cat changes from observation. The Cat only changes because of radioactive decay. Not from anything the observer does. Lack of observation doesn't change a thing either.

Knowledge of or lack of knowledge of the state of the Cat on the part of the observer does not change the state of the Cat.

Schrödinger's Cat is a complete fallacy.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: Identified
Yes it does in this theoretical experiment

There is nothing in this thought experiment that says the Cat changes from observation. The Cat only changes because of radioactive decay. Not from anything the observer does. Lack of observation doesn't change a thing either.

Knowledge of or lack of knowledge of the state of the Cat on the part of the observer does not change the state of the Cat.

Schrödinger's Cat is a complete fallacy.

There is no cat...... 🙄

Here is the thing if you want an based in reality versus just a thought experiment, if there is a box on the floor easy to access and you have an indoor cat, odds are the cat is going to get into that box. That probability increases the smaller the box but yet large enough to still fit. Now if the box originally contained a kitty bed that you paid good money for, then the odds of that cat having anything to do with that bed approach zero the more it cost.

Schrödinger over emphasized the importance of the observer because cat was going to be alive or dead relative to the cat. The observer obviously didn’t care because they would have checked earlier. But whether alive or dead, the cat wanted to be left alone which is why it was in the box and neither made a sound nor stuck a paw out to play, unless it just couldn’t due to being dead. In any case the observer doesn’t change the outcome if they check or not.

a reply to: CryHavoc

You are actually correct but maybe not quite the way you think. In the Schrödinger Cat setup the cat its self is an observer because it's a highly complex system which will cause quantum systems to decohere if they become entangled with the cat. The same thing applies to your roommate, if they eat the cereal then it most certainly is gone because they act as an observer.

The main pseudo-scientific belief that people have is that only humans can act as an observer, when in reality we have experiments which show inanimate measuring devices also behave like observers because they are macro sized systems with highly complex structures consisting of trillions of particles. Superposition does indeed occur but it only happens in quantum scale objects, not cats.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Pssst.. let ya in on a little secret.

Einstien didn't even have a train, and there were no blokes on it with lighters. Even worse, there was no woman on the station watching the same event happen at two different times.

Shhhh though... Mum's the word.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The supposition is that we affect the outcome by observing it, therefore it must know it's being observed.

The reality is, we have to interfere with it in order to determine the state of it. Thus, it enters into one.

Imagine a dark room and a glass of water on the table. At least you're sure it's there. You reach around, blindly, and suddenly you knock it over. Then you examine an empty glass... so was there a glass full of water on the table or not, before you interfered with it?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: BoneSay

until you open the box you don't know whats the state inside lol

Unless you factor in the knowledge of how much food and water the existential cat is given. If the cat in the box has a finite amount of food and water, or none, or infinite, the timeline of existence of life can be postulated.

Well, the radioactive material that will kill the cat at a point, would prove that this is not the case. Also, cats are fussy eaters.

Either you don't understand the maths or physics behind it or you don''t understand what the thought experiment Schrodinger came up with. Or the more modern version 'The Cat's Schrodinger' - where the cat places Schrodinger in the box for ethics etc...

Superpositions are a term for when a quatumn or wave state has several separately weighted probabilities of what the eventual particle-wave function collapse may be (these are plotable using markoc chains, hessian matrices and other advanced maths).

Indeed while the cat is in the box with the randomly decaying radiactive isotope it will either be a) alive or b) dead - however as the box is not see through, unless Schrodinger or another scientist opens it one can only guess if it is dead or alive - it's assumed to be both for the unobserved part of the thought experiment - it is modelled as being in a state where all posibilities are possible or have equal probability at the same time.

Once the box is open, you'd either find an alive or a dead cat in it depending on if the randomly decaying radio active isotope has decayed or not - this is the fixed state.

Your cereal box example has no relevance as the Schr.Cat experiment is based on random decay or particles and similar in an unobserved, unknown system state, while your example is a simple yes/no answer with info available without having looked or touched the box and is reliant on information not relevant to what is occurring inside the box. It's a polar opposite example to what Schrodinger's experiment is designed to demonstrate, which I'm pretty sure is why you're getting confused.

General tips:
Don't interpret it literally - Schrodinger designed it to be a 'dumbed down' version.
Study advanced mathematics ad physics before looking into the thought experiment otherwise you won't grasp the purpose, significance,
Read up on all the scientific, mathematic and technological advancements that have occured because of usage of superpositions.

/Only just got out of bed and not had my first coffee yet so may not be 100% - in precis, it's good to question, it's not a thought experiment people grasp straight away in early years physics education as it's 'alien' to 'real world world' scenarios, keep reading on the subject and asking questions.