I was bored last night and ended up developing an interesting thought experiment. Let's quantify the life of an animal (ala Schrodinger's Cat) and measure when exactly it stops living relative to a fixed point it is moving past. Basically, did the cat die before, after, or as it entered a room and are all three possible in the same scenario?

For this experiment, let us entangle the final point that is outside the room and the last moment which the cat could be considered alive, thus leaving pre-existing momentum as the only variable that can influence our "observation".

Cat's Life:
(Birth)----------(Last moment of life)(Indeterminate value)(Death)---->

This establishes a difference between the last moment said cat is alive and the moment it can be considered dead. Upon being considered dead, the cat's "life" maintains a value that will not change indefinitely. Inbetween these two finite values is an area of data that might favor one or the other yet cannot be determined to be either. Simply put, the cat has stopped producing the energy required for it to live but there is a residual energy that has not yet dispersed thus leaving it to be in both and neither statuses at the same time. Is that gray area relevant to the experiment? Let's find out.

Room Area:
(Outside)--------(Edge of Outside)(Indeterminate midpoint)(Inside)---->

Again, a difference is made between the last point that can be accurately described as outside and the point at which inside the room begins. Once inside, the status of being inside remains constant just like being dead reamins constant.

Now, let's take into account all three possible scenarios:

1. The cat's residual energy runs out (death status) while its body is moving past the indeterminate midpoint. So it died BEFORE entering the room.

2. The cat's residual energy runs out exactly as it reaches the first point of inside the room. Entanglement remains as it dies AS it enters the room so neither the cat's life nor the room's barrier can be differentiated in relation to one another.

3. The cat's residual energy run's out after it passes both the indeterminate midpoint and the initial point of being inside. So it died AFTER it entered the room.

If we had an exact measurement of the cat's momentum as it was entangled to the outer edge of the outside of a room, we could say with confidence which of the three scenarios unfolded however, without an "as it happened" observation, we would always find a dead cat inside a room with only enough evidence to support scenario 3 and no evidence to support scenarios 1 or 2 yet as you see here, all three are equally plausible and only one actually happened.

What all this means is simple. The laws of physics happen regardless of a conscious observation. Despite our inability to locate an electron with precision, it is only in one place at one time. It doesn't have any "uncertainty" about where it was, where it is, or where it is going. It follows laws that govern its existence without fail. If you have a theory that states it can sometimes "break" your theoretical laws, your theoretical laws are wrong.

Actually to be fair, the 'sound of the tree falling in the forest' is not apt to quantum theory.

Also, to be even fairer to the OP, and though I disputed the necessity of belief in my previous post, it must be conceded that on the surface, quantum theory seems to invite a greater leap of faith than most religions.

It is a heck of a disconnect. All observational and quantifiable science defeats the nature of its own process at the last. That is to say the method through which one gets to, lets say quark observation, leads to its own oblivion.

Argh, I wish I could explain it better.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
The very foundation of quantum theory, if it teaches nothing else, is that all that is thought to be objective in nature is by definition subjective.

Sorry, SD. Quantum mechanics teaches nothing of the kind. It merely teaches that, for an event in the real world to occur, a choice among probable outcomes is inevitable, and the actual choice of outcome depends on factors in the real world at the moment the probability field collapses. Consciousness does not create the world; we do not choose the world we live in, and objects remain objects, not projections from a subject.

Surprised at you, frankly... I expect this kind of thing from a very different kind of ATS member.

Guys, you want me to concede the point? Fine.

As a parting suggestion, try a 'google scholar' search on quantum theory/subjectivity/consciousness.

Just saying ...

Originally posted by Astyanax
Surprised at you, frankly... I expect this kind of thing from a very different kind of ATS member.

Meaning - just to clarify - that I consider you intelligent, rational and thoughtful, not at all the kind of person likely to be gulled by What the Bleep Do We Know? and other examples of Quantum Cargo Cult Science.

hate to tell you this but some tried this beyond theroy with a group of boxes sealed shut some with cats in them some not the boxes were numbered and only one person knew which boxes contained he wrote down what was in each box and sealed it in a safe they had a diferent person open the boxes and write down what he found in each box i think there was 20 boxes and 10 cats well they opened the safe and compared notes and most cats were found to be dead one switched boxes one was missing not in its box or in the other boxes i read this in a book somewhere i cant find it on the internet i was kinda upset about it being i love cats