It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Schrödinger's Cat is a bunch of BS

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Imho people tend to seriously overthink the thought experiment.

When you open the box the subject will be either alive or dead. And if it is dead, an autopsy will be able to say the approximate time of its death.

Going a step further one could also place a camera in the box recording the whole thing, and watch the recording after opening the box to see the exact moment of death.

The important thing to understand imho is that quantum systems will approach classical behavior with increasing amount of interaction with the environment (other quantum systems). There is no need for wave function collapses and special "conscious" observers.




posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius

What you have said there about quantum systems approaching classic behaviour is interesting , because I just read of superfluid state of cooled helium exhibits quantum vortices and shows behaviour which goes against the classical mechanics
and this has also been shown to happen on the nano scale on droplets of helium.

Physics is crazy but really interesting .



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
Imho people tend to seriously overthink the thought experiment.

When you open the box the subject will be either alive or dead. And if it is dead, an autopsy will be able to say the approximate time of its death.

Going a step further one could also place a camera in the box recording the whole thing, and watch the recording after opening the box to see the exact moment of death.

The important thing to understand imho is that quantum systems will approach classical behavior with increasing amount of interaction with the environment (other quantum systems). There is no need for wave function collapses and special "conscious" observers.



The opposite happens with Quantum objects. Put a photon through a double slit with a camera watching and it goes through one slit or the other and you see two bands on the wall.

Turn the camera off and the photon stops behaving as a particle and instantly becomes a wave of possibility. You know longer see a two slit pattern on the wall but an interference pattern showing the photon is a wave.

Turn the camera back on again to watch the photon go through the slits and the photon stops behaving like a wave and becomes a particle and you will only get a pattern on the wall showing up as two bands.

The thought experiment doesn't mean the cat is alive and dead. Everyone knows the cat is one or the other. The thought experiment is designed to show how crazy quantum objects behave by assigning quantum characteristics to a classical everyday object.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Schrodinger's cat paradox is an ontological question about what can we know, but it also asks what effect does our knowing have on reality.

The real issue about the thought experiment is to do with time, or rather the length of duration we take to open up the box to determine if the cat is alive or dead?

When we place the cat into the box and close the lid, we know its state, we know it is alive. However, the more time that passes between placing the cat in the box and then re-opening the box to check on it, the more fuzzy our knowing the cat to be alive becomes.

We know that over time, the random decay of an isotope may have occurred and triggered the release of a poison, and as long as we don't monitor any decay of the isotope, we cannot truly know if the cat is either alive or dead, because we don't know if the poison has been released. So, in the abstract, the cat can be said to be both alive and dead, but in the classical physical world the cat can only be either alive, or dead.

The act of opening the box is what determines what knowledge we gain. It does not affect the fate of the cat, only the isotope does that. What is truly affected is our knowledge. Consciousness does not affect reality, but it is reality that determines consciousness. Knowledge does not enter into consciousness, but becomes consciousness, and consciousness becomes memory. It's an important point to understand.
edit on 11/9/19 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Okay, but what about the Double-Slit Experiment? It demonstrates that a "thing" can be two things at the same time, although a cat is arguably more physical than a photon. Still, all made of the same stuff.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ziplock9000
You're a random nobody on the internet against 1000's of the most intelligent scientists in the world.
Go back to bed.


You're on an Internet discussion board and you're trying to stop people from discussing things.

Brilliant move.

Way to show everyone you're in the wrong place.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
Imho people tend to seriously overthink the thought experiment.

When you open the box the subject will be either alive or dead. And if it is dead, an autopsy will be able to say the approximate time of its death.

Going a step further one could also place a camera in the box recording the whole thing, and watch the recording after opening the box to see the exact moment of death.

The important thing to understand imho is that quantum systems will approach classical behavior with increasing amount of interaction with the environment (other quantum systems). There is no need for wave function collapses and special "conscious" observers.


The problem is that people overthink what an "observer" is.

Think about Special Relativity. If I see a space ship moving near the speed of light, and the space ship has a clock on board, it looks to me as if the clock is ticking very slowly.

However, to a guy on that space ship looking back at me, it looks like the clock on my wall is moving very slowly.

We both disagree about whose clock is moving slower. And..... we are both right!!


Same thing for the Schrodinger's cat experiment. From the cat's perspective, its survival/death is a certainty, and whether or not I'm eating cereal as I wait outside the box is a juxtaposition of states.

From my perspective, my eating/not eating cereal is a certainty, and the cat's survival/death is an uncertainty.

And.......... we are both right!!!



QM predicts that no matter who or what you choose as your "observer", quantum superposition will work out to be true from that observer's perspective.

The only sticky issue is when one observer reports its findings to another. Then both observers are tied together as one observer.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   
So because we humans see time as linear , we are born we live and we die

but really we are both alive and dead at the same time as time isnt linear but all at once one giant continuous thing

we just see it as linear incremental changes



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   
To be fair, the thought experiment is supposed to be absurd. Schrodinger sided with Einstein in taking a more classic/realist approach to quantum mechanics (God does not play dice.) They believed that the Copenhagen interpretation, developed by Bohr and Heisenberg, was nonsensical.

That's what Schrodinger was trying to get across with his cat in a box.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
To be fair, the thought experiment is supposed to be absurd. Schrodinger sided with Einstein in taking a more classic/realist approach to quantum mechanics (God does not play dice.) They believed that the Copenhagen interpretation, developed by Bohr and Heisenberg, was nonsensical.

That's what Schrodinger was trying to get across with his cat in a box.


Looking at it as a whole , reality is nonsensical



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
To be fair, the thought experiment is supposed to be absurd. Schrodinger sided with Einstein in taking a more classic/realist approach to quantum mechanics (God does not play dice.) They believed that the Copenhagen interpretation, developed by Bohr and Heisenberg, was nonsensical.

That's what Schrodinger was trying to get across with his cat in a box.


Looking at it as a whole , reality is nonsensical


No. Our quantum-mechanical depiction of reality is what is nonsensical. That's why many physicists want to overthrow the Copenhagen Interpretation. A cat is not a qunatum object so it is not subject to the Supposition Principle.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
To be fair, the thought experiment is supposed to be absurd. Schrodinger sided with Einstein in taking a more classic/realist approach to quantum mechanics (God does not play dice.) They believed that the Copenhagen interpretation, developed by Bohr and Heisenberg, was nonsensical.

That's what Schrodinger was trying to get across with his cat in a box.


That is true. But he inadvertently ended up adding real value to the discussion.

What the cat in the box really describes is the rules of time travel. A time traveler cannot change events that have been observed to be definite.

However, nothing says a time traveler couldn't go back in time to when the cat in the box experiment began, sneak into the box, and choose to save, or kill the cat.

There would be no "disruption of space-time-continuum" if they did that, because the cat had never arrived at a definite dead/alive state in the future that the time traveler has traveled back from.

That is the sense in which our cat truly is, quite meaningfully, in a juxtaposition of states.


But the idea of time travel is viewed by the public as being so absurd, that an explanation that invokes it is automatically dismissed as impossible.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

I think reality is pretty nonsense

like for example humans think they are great and we do all these wonderful things then one day an asteroid from space hits earth and wipes us all out !

Thats pretty funny and absolute nonsense



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I agree with the OP. We really don't know a whole lot about particles to begin with. Maybe they do things like that, but there is a big difference between a tiny particle and a living breathing cat made up of numerous particle's that is self aware and controls it's movement etc. It's a huge extrapolation. Why didn't Schrödinger just shove himself into a box with radioactive material? It sounds ridiculous because it is.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: micpsi

I think reality is pretty nonsense

like for example humans think they are great and we do all these wonderful things then one day an asteroid from space hits earth and wipes us all out !

Thats pretty funny and absolute nonsense


I find it neither funny nor nonsense. And it has nothing to do with quantum reality.

What is absurd is the response of some people to the seeming chaos in the universe. Because it seems to fly in the face of a purposeful, meaningful universe, these people draw the absurd conclusion that the universe itself is absurd. It was the view of a branch of European existentialists in the early 20th century, e.g., Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. It is the response of anyone who wrongly thinks that his experience takes priority over all thought. But experience can never be the final arbiter of truth because it always has limited knowledge and understanding that shapes that experience. Someone with greater understanding of the universe and its behaviour will not react to displays of seeming absurdity by attributing it to the universe itself. That's plain silly, because the reaction is not based upon understanding but on ignorance and lack of understanding of the subtle nature of reality, such as the quantum world. The latter does not have the properties of the world of normal human experience, but that is no reason to call it absurd. Certainly, non-locality and entanglement are strange. But that is because we do not encounter them in the world we normally experience; it is NOT because the universe is absurd.
edit on 13-9-2019 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: micpsi

I think reality is pretty nonsense

like for example humans think they are great and we do all these wonderful things then one day an asteroid from space hits earth and wipes us all out !

Thats pretty funny and absolute nonsense


I find it neither funny nor nonsense. And it has nothing to do with quantum reality.


Too bad, cause he kinda nailed it, imho.

Yeah: quantum reality, whatever that may be, is totally, and completely ridiculous, when put side-by-side with the 'common' vision of consensual reality, whatever the hell that is.

Is not this whole 'experience' ridiculous ?

If you're not chuckling, and giggling your way through 'life': why not ?
What exactly needs to be taken sooooooooooo seriously ?



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: micpsi

I think reality is pretty nonsense

like for example humans think they are great and we do all these wonderful things then one day an asteroid from space hits earth and wipes us all out !

Thats pretty funny and absolute nonsense


I find it neither funny nor nonsense. And it has nothing to do with quantum reality.


Too bad, cause he kinda nailed it, imho.

Yeah: quantum reality, whatever that may be, is totally, and completely ridiculous, when put side-by-side with the 'common' vision of consensual reality, whatever the hell that is.

Is not this whole 'experience' ridiculous ?

If you're not chuckling, and giggling your way through 'life': why not ?
What exactly needs to be taken sooooooooooo seriously ?


So we all have to be comedians, now, do we? Quantum reality is what needs to be taken seriously instead of the flippant way you seem to approve of.

Calling quantum reality absurd or ridiculous is the ignorant person's way of dealing with his inadequate understanding of reality and the paradoxes displayed by it. Reacting to quantum reality by calling it absurd is not "nailing it". The reaction is misconceived and philosophically wrong. But such subtleties no doubt pass over your head, so I won't waste my time defending what I said.
edit on 13-9-2019 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

you can take it seriously and we should to the extent of finding out what it all means etc , but not so seriously I cant say that it still seems ridiculous as well .

Who says it has to have meaning ?

Just because I think something is funny , doesn't mean I don't understand it . It is entirely your opinion that calling quantum reality absurd or ridiculous is an ignorant persons way of dismissing it through personal incredulity.

Ok so tell me then dont you find it funny or absurd
that helium droplets as a superfluid exhibit behaviour that goes against classical descriptions of physics.
The ability for helium droplet in super fluid state can allow helium to defy gravity.

I think that its absurd because its basically doing the opposite of what we expect from our current understanding.
Its absurd and funny , and makes we want to know why it does that.

But thanks for reinforcing your intellectual superiority because we thought something was absurd or funny.

Remember comedy is subjective , so I can find it funny if I like
you dont have to like it.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: micpsi

I think reality is pretty nonsense

like for example humans think they are great and we do all these wonderful things then one day an asteroid from space hits earth and wipes us all out !

Thats pretty funny and absolute nonsense


I find it neither funny nor nonsense. And it has nothing to do with quantum reality.

What is absurd is the response of some people to the seeming chaos in the universe. Because it seems to fly in the face of a purposeful, meaningful universe, these people draw the absurd conclusion that the universe itself is absurd. It was the view of a branch of European existentialists in the early 20th century, e.g., Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. It is the response of anyone who wrongly thinks that his experience takes priority over all thought. But experience can never be the final arbiter of truth because it always has limited knowledge and understanding that shapes that experience. Someone with greater understanding of the universe and its behaviour will not react to displays of seeming absurdity by attributing it to the universe itself. That's plain silly, because the reaction is not based upon understanding but on ignorance and lack of understanding of the subtle nature of reality, such as the quantum world. The latter does not have the properties of the world of normal human experience, but that is no reason to call it absurd. Certainly, non-locality and entanglement are strange. But that is because we do not encounter them in the world we normally experience; it is NOT because the universe is absurd.



how do you know that a meteorite hitting earth has nothing to do with quantum reality, what if there are bunch of laws we are not yet aware of which govern the movement of meteors that eventually come to earth .

I am willing to bet there is a quantum interaction that WILL bring a meteor to hit earth because you dont find it funny or ridiculous and now thanks to you , there is a meteor headed for earth with your name on it .



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Einstein was apparently very uncomfortable with the implications of non-determinism and the primacy(and "realty") of a probabilistic universe. So the OP could be a time traveling Einstein as 12 year old. so S&F

the cat is an allegory.
You may ask why he chose a cat ?
Was his choice of a cat deterministic, probabilistic, or philosophical ?
edit on 0000009020692America/Chicago13 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)







 
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join