Infinite Possibilities and Schrodingers Cat

i recently saw a show on quantum physicswhere they ahs the scrhodinger cat experiment and i was wondering where the cat is both dead and alive until an oberserver deems it daed or alive.

CAn this obersever be something such as the cage, or does it have to be consicious???

Would there then be infinite universes because youd need another universe already doing this experiment for one universe to have the dead cat and to have the llving???

Also another part was on i for et whos theory that for every event with a probabibility that both things occur such as a coin toss it lands both heads and tails because a universe is created for each.

does this only work with events like coin tosses or schroedingers cat where there are basically 2 possibilities???
or can this work with for example me getting out of bed at 6:40, 6:41, 6:42 and so on to where for almost every event infinite universes are created to account for the infinite things i could have done???

Would there then be infinite universes because youd, for example, need another universe already doing the schrodinger cat experiment for one universe to have the dead cat and to have the llving???

and off the subject be wouldnt this mean that in infinite universes would have infinte energy so you could move infinite mass making it possible to go faster than the speed of light???

I am if thesequestions dont make sense or unanswerable being that im only 13 i dont get some of thestuff involved. anything else anyone would liek to add about these subjects, or any quantum physics subjects would be greatly appreciated since i am very interested.

What?

Run you post through Spell check before you post, its hard to read about quantum physics ith words clummped together.

Edit: I like kittys.

[edit on 6/12/2005 by Schmidt1989]

^Heh I could understand him. Its hard for me to explain, lets say you have two choices. You want to wear a jacket today and maybe without, there would be one unverse that you will wear the jacket and the other you wont. Its something like that what he is trying to say. Someone can help me out.

Oh now i get it. But what would some of the differences be? You might get chilly without or too hot if you wear the jacket. we really dont know about this stuff, im sure this has been brought up before, firstly we dont know if there is another universe, and if there was it would be mulitverse because having more than one would cancel the uni (one). And if there is, who’s to say the people there are exactly the same. But i know what you mean now.

I've heard about this before...isn't that cat itself an observer? It's a conscious being able to feel the difference between being alive and dead.

Correct DJ. The cat itself is an observer but only from it's own perspective.
Sort of like this, while the cat is in the box, is there anything outside the box? Is the whole universe just what it sees?
I have always loved the Schrodinger's cat experiment as there can not be a "true" answer to it. As the nature of reality is dependent on the observer's perspective.

Another example, It has been theorized that there are something like 11 other demensions. Now, how can we see, prove or disprove this? We cannot as we are not able to interact, or observe these other demensions.
Here is decent source (short) that explains the Schrodinger's cat experiment and it is in layman's terms.
Schrodinger's cat

This problem is that the observation itself interferes with the 'state' of the cat. The problem crops up in Quantum physics because you can't measure the 'state' of an electron with a device - say an electron microscope (bad example, but you get the idea) - without something (photons, particles, etc.) interacting with the electron during the measurement and changing something. So, in effect, it's the observation that actually creates the state of the electron at the time of observation.

Oddly, they've found this holds true even when the observation has no direct physical interaction with the particle/photon being observed. Is it the effect of the 'spooky' realm cluttered with things like global consciousness, quantum entanglement, ESP, etc? The cause is unknown, but it's been experimentally verified.

They describe this as having particles in limbo - like having every state at once but with the probability of having certain states when measured - then, at the time of observation, the uncertainty collapses and the state of the particle becomes known.

I think this experiment shows that there is something wrong with the workings of relativity. Not all of it, of course, just this bit and it's cousin the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. - it seems to me to be dividing infinity by zero, and why they are still fiddling with the mathematics 80 years later, trying to come up with a working unified theory.
The cat cannot be both alive and dead. It is simply either alive or dead, and you find out which when you open the box.
For someone to say " I don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, therefore it must be both alive and dead" is illogical. The only logical thing you can say is "I don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, but it is either alive or dead"

The Farseer

The_Farseer,
The point is that without some kind of observation (which would invalidate the test) there is no way to prove if the cat is dead, if the cat is alive, is the cat even there.
Without opeing the box, or placing cameras in the box, there is no way to prove any of it empericaly,

[edit on 13-6-2005 by kenshiro2012]

Kenshiro
I understand the point you are making, but I still think it demonstrates the flaws in the theory.
What exactly is 'The Test' that would be invalidated? If it is to prove that you dont know what is in the box until it's opened, then that is a self-evident circular argument which does not prove anything.
Don't forget, Einstein never really agreed with Schroedinger and Bohr's quantum mechanics - see, for example,
www.sparknotes.com...

The Farseer

A few of the details of the actual thought experiment have been left out, such as the decaying nucleus and the poison gas. More details can be found here Schrödinger's cat.

From what I understand of the experiment is that the problem isn't whether the cat is alive or dead but whether the nucleus is decayed or not. Now according to the experiment there is a superposition of states in the nucleus, decayed/undecayed and Schrödinger thought it could only be one or the other and not a superposition. The cat was just an attempt to make it understandable to an everyday audience (in 1935).

I think the superposition of states is a sound enough idea (Cyrptography) but it cannot be directly applied to a cat. One thing does not imply the other, a superpostion of quantum states in the nucleus doesn't imply a superposition of dead/alive in the cat.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this experiment shows that there is something wrong with the workings of relativity

Einstein's work on relativity did not predict the uncertainty principle. As far as I know, it was his work on the photoelectric effect which was used to develop quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle and relativity had very little to do with either.

[edit on 14/6/05 by cmdrpaddy]

The_Farseer
We are on the same page. The Schrdinger's Cat experiment is one that could never be proven or disproven as it is a circular argument (but fun to think about! )
The ideal, of the test, is that there is no way to conclusively determine the life / death/ existance etc of the cat without making some kind of observation. The problem, under the terms set down for the experiment, any attempts to make such an observation invalidates the experiment. Got to love it
Einstein is not the only one that has problems with this experiment.

The way that I have explained this experiment to my son was use an old allegory (sorry I do not remember the source).
A man is traveling to Rome. On the way he meets a Roman heading in the opposite direction. The first man asks the Roman what can he expect in Rome.
In response, the Roman responded, "Be careful while in Roman. Do not believe any Roman as all Roman's lie."

Now the question comes into play, what does the first man believe? He is being told by a Roman that all Romans lie. So does that mean that the man next to him is lying? If so then that would make what the Roman said a Lie so all Roman's tell the truth.. And on and on and on around we go in a circle without end.