Schrödinger's Cat

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cadbury
 


were talking about the rules for the experiment here, In the post by UK Wizard did it say that shaking the box was forbidden? No it did not. Therefore we could collect telemetry from the box by shaking it and make a more educated determination the well being of said cat in the box. The rules of the experiment were simply that we cannot look into the box, there was no rule stating that we could not shake the box.

Otherwise without any observation one must assume that without any noise or vibration from the box that the cat must have died due to lack of any outward appearance. As anyone knows a cat in a box will tend to fight and make lots of noise especially in a environment so close in proximity to two different hazards IE the radioactive item and the cyanide. The cat would have been freaking out in there and so knowing this distinction about an animal in an enclosed space one can make the deduction that the cat must be dead because the box is still and there is no signs of struggle within the box.

Therefore my previous statement stands, Dude ain't too bright...

[edit on 6/12/2008 by whatukno]




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Schrodinger (I can't type an umlat) postulated this as a 'thought experiment', much as Einstein used to. For the one posting above who didn't seem to understand nor had never heard of it, sorry your science education slip is showing a little.

Did anyone mention the 'double slit' experiments with light? Gives actual results, in laboratory settings, that demonstrate the 'duality'. No, they don't kill any cats!!

Spelling....and short course on the 'double slit'....it shows the duality of light, it is both a particle, and a wave....until 'measured'. I believe electrons follow that weirdness too.....



[edit on 6/12/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I propose it doesn't matter if the cat is dead or alive. If you wanted the cat, you wouldn't be putting it in such a contraption.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Man, some of yall are really gumps..

It is a thought experiment....much like "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one heard it, did it really fall?"



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PokeyJoe
 


thanks,

lets see if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Of course it does, one shouldn't be so myopic as to think that sound must be heard in order to exist.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Ah!! but how do you know the cat will make a noise..thats an expectation!!!

And indeed is it a cat in the box??? we only go by what we are told and led to believe!!



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I hope that you are not being serious with your posts in this thread, because if you are then you possess absolutely no capacity for higher level thinking.

If the tree falls, and no one hears it, how can you be sure it made a sound, or even fell at all? You didnt observe this happening, so you really have no way of knowing for sure. You may answer "Well, every other tree ive ever seen fall made a sound, so this one must too." When thinking in these terms, assumptions like that will get you in a lot of trouble.

If you cannot observe an experiment, whether it be a cat in a box or a tree in the forest, you really do not have any way to tell if it is one way, or the other.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by shuck
 


simple to deduce, all one has to do is go find a cat and attempt to place it inside a box with a carcinogen and a deadly toxin to see if the cat will attempt to struggle.

Believe me, getting the cat inside the box will result in severely damaged limbs as the cat will not be willing to be put in an enclosed space especially with those substances.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Cadbury
 


were talking about the rules for the experiment here, In the post by UK Wizard did it say that shaking the box was forbidden? No it did not. Therefore we could collect telemetry from the box by shaking it and make a more educated determination the well being of said cat in the box. The rules of the experiment were simply that we cannot look into the box, there was no rule stating that we could not shake the box.


Maybe UK Wizard didn't think he needed to be so specific. This particular paradox, or thought-experiment, is very famous and should be known to almost everyone already.



Otherwise without any observation one must assume that without any noise or vibration from the box that the cat must have died due to lack of any outward appearance. As anyone knows a cat in a box will tend to fight and make lots of noise especially in a environment so close in proximity to two different hazards IE the radioactive item and the cyanide. The cat would have been freaking out in there and so knowing this distinction about an animal in an enclosed space one can make the deduction that the cat must be dead because the box is still and there is no signs of struggle within the box.

Therefore my previous statement stands, Dude ain't too bright...

[edit on 6/12/2008 by whatukno]


It's not a christmas present. Obviously it would be a special box so you couldn't hear whatever escape attempts the meow vehicle was hatching inside.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
i like it- it is a fun analogy to explain or not some ideas.

but isn't it important waht color the cat is?

or in a dark box with no light is has no color?

haha lol



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yes, but in space no one can hear you scream!

I think there's a lot of tongue in cheek, here, so forgive me for falling for it, but I think it was a serious thread, worthy of serious discussion and comprehension.

It didn't have to be a cat!! Obviously, as a thought experiment, it was needing something to act as a 'detector', to be in a state of duality, until observed. People focus on an 'animal', when they miss the point: It is about radioactive decay, remember? Radiation was just being discovered, and was not well understood....doubt if it fully is understood today!!!

Maybe I'm naive, and SpiderJ wanted to be funny too....??

Marge Simpson: "Why are there Mod footprints on the ceiling?!?"

Sorry, couldn't resist after seeing the sig!



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by PokeyJoe
 


Im just going by rudementary knowlege. a collapsing tree will certanly make a sound. It will make that sound whether or not anyone is there to listen. The sound waves will continue on as long as an outside force does not stop them. Show me one tree that colapsed and made no noise whatsoever.

As for the cat experiment. Given the rules of the experiment my theory stands as to find out whether or not the cat still lives because in this instance the rules of the experiment do not say we could not shake the box, just not open the box or use any other means to "look" inside the box. Therefore shaking the box is an acceptable way to determine the fate of the cat.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Perhaps a silent animal should have been used in this experiment. A frog perhaps or perhaps even a snail. Something that does not struggle or make noise.

Then we would have to deduce that the animal is indeed dead because of the probability that the radioactive component would have shed it's radiation thereby activating the Geiger counter and releasing the cyanide. The safe bet would of course be to assume the animal is dead because there would have to be safeguards in place in order to open the radioactive and cyanide gas filled box at the end of the experiment without causing the person doing the experiment to suffer an untimely demise.

And as for in space, I have heard that saying as well, however because sound travels in waves only acted on by outside forces if one were to simulate a noise in space would it not cary on forever?

[edit on 6/12/2008 by whatukno]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I havent heard every tree collapse, so i cannot say for sure.

What if the cat inside the box is just unconscious, and not dead....how could you tell by just shaking the box?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Originally posted by Cadbury
Tell that to Erwin Schrödinger...

Give me his contact info and I will.



I want to read that:

Dear ancient Nobel prize laureate and father of the quantum mechanics. Your example is rubbish.
Sincerely
Someone



Sometime this threads are really funny.
He was one of the most famous men. Heck without his famous equation with his name we would still be in a technical stonage.
The methapor he made with his cat is a little unlucky. Agreed.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HEAR THE SNAIL, DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T MAKE A NOISE!! (and a frog ribbits, thought you should know
) but in the spirit of the debate, how do we know they make a noise, unless we 'hear' them.


Sorry, had to, your opinion, while true in a sense, is just argumentative. This has nothing to do with the cat, although I liked someone else's point on not taking the cat's point of view into account.

Not sure about this but wouldn't shaking the box affect the radioactive decay, therefore compromising the experiment?

thanks. EMM



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno

 

i really cannot understand why you are being so antagonistic. are you purposely derailing this thread?

reply to post by Spiderj
 



If the experiment started at 10am and the vile broke at 10:15am and I died soon after, even though you open the door at 11 does it mean that I was in a dual state of both being alive and dead for the past 45 minutes?"


it means that to YOU, you are dead at 10:15, and to your friend, your state is indeterminate until his observation.

the whole point of the experiment is to point out that there is no such thing as "objective" reality. reality is entirely dependent on a witness.

the sound of the tree falling is meaningless without the hearer, and thus it did not happen.

you can extend the experiment further by saying that there is a person in the next room. the original experimenter has the results of the cat's fate, but to the second person, without knowledge of the outcome, the cat is still 50/50.

thus reality is a shared experience in which we all participate cumulatively. (and that is NOT new-age mumbo-jumbo, that is real science)


...dkp



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
To Whatyoukno (I messed up the "reply" feature)


I understand your thinking, and it's not out of line. Kudos on you for continuing to nibble at the edges of the problem. It's thinking like yours that worries at a problem until variables and solutions present themselves and I commend you for it. In regards to the old thought experiment, though, it really doesn't matter what animal is in the box. It really doesn't matter if it's an animal at all; it could be a mechanical detection device. What is important about the thought experiment is the duality of is/not is that is the crux of quantum mechanics. It's relative to the experiments that collide particles that can paridoxically be detected fractions of a second prior to the collision. It's a probability, and duality of conditions that exist simeultaneously in a field.

We've gotten used to the old-fashioned models of molecules that are depicted as spheres -- water -- two "blue" hydrogen spheres, one usually "white" oxygen sphere. Now, I know you and everyone else realizes that these models don't represent a true color of the atoms, but the shape of the models don't represent a true picture of the atoms either. They are models. When looking at a subatomic particle, it manifests as a probability field. A here/not here/everywhere.

[edit to address the reply, again for spellink ]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by argentus]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by argentus]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Did everyone miss my comments about the experiments with light?!?

I'm inept, not able to 'link' from Wikipedia....but just go and read for yourselves, I think it's pertinent.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


Very good points. shaking the box could in fact even break the cyanide canister releasing it and thus killing the cat. However that was not pointed out in the original exercise.

tgidkp, not trying to derail the thread at all, just pointing out a flaw in the original argument that made it possible to shake the box in order to try and determine the likelihood of the wellbeing of the cat.

If I were to derail the thread I would have to not talk about the experiment at all, and try and take the thread in a completely different direction. I offered a solution to the problem that was not against the experiments parameters. So therefore I am able to do so without causing the experiment to fail and thus a solution to the problem. I thought outside the box to use a phrase. So therefore within the confines of the experiment at hand and the parameters of the thread itself I have followed along with it.

Just because a solution that does present itself comes along that you do not like, it does not mean that the solution is invalid. To change the peramiters of the experiment because I came up with a viable solution to the problem without violating the terms of the experiment does not make the solution null and void. And it also does not justify a change in the peramiters of the experiment. The origional theory is flawed, as I have found a solution to the problem within seconds. If the cat were alive in the box once you shook it, there is a quite good probability that the cat would make a noise. If the cat is dead the probability that it would make no noise (other than the body hitting the sides of the box itself of course) is 100% A dead animal will make no verbal noise.



[edit on 6/12/2008 by whatukno]





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join