It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't understand this interpretation. Sure we "touch" something. It may actually be an electrical field from an electron shell interacting with another but that's good enough to count in my book.
Per my first statement, what is "contact"? What's "the world"? As far as I can observe there's only one world regardless if our familiar material one is not the totality of it.
How is particles as forces, fields and probabilities not a material world? What is the working definition of a "material world" for you? Big, solid things that are really real in the way they appear?
Help me out here. I'm not really certain where you stand.
Matter does not actually exist
Well, for one thing, it redefines what matter is. If it isn't solid, tangible objects and its solidity is only an appearance, then it makes you question what matter really is and whether it actually exists at all.
borrows his famous thought experiment from Hinduism, and resolves the paradox just as it is resolved in Hinduism: by introducing consciousness.
Schrödinger's thought experiment was intended as a discussion of the EPR article, named after its authors — Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen — in 1935.
Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states.
I hate to disappont you but I am a dude
You either cannot read or cannot bring yourself to accept what you read.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Somebody is about to be really embarrased, and it ain't me:
The modern equivalent would be one person looking in the box to see if the cat is alive or dead, while a second person waits out in the hall. As we discussed, in this modern form the state "collapses" for the first person while it does not collapse for the second person.
not really sure who should be embarrassed by what you've said. . . . perhaps its yourself. This says hewre plain as day that perception is what changes not reality. Its different for the two because there perspective is different.
You kind of just added to sirnex and my own posts. . . thank you for the help
[edit on 24-12-2009 by constantwonder]
"The whole point of Schrodinger's cat is to put the misinterpretation of quantum physics to shame. Of course the paradox is impossible and that is the point. Still, it didn't stop the new age fanatics from their mystical thinking. They took the paradox literally and formed a cult from the impossible"
To further illustrate the putative incompleteness of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger applied quantum mechanics to a living entity that may or may not be conscious. In Schrödinger’s original thought experiment, he describes how one could, in principle, transform a superposition inside an atom to a large-scale superposition of a live and dead cat by coupling cat and atom with the help of a "diabolical mechanism". He proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box, wherein the cat's life or death was dependent on the state of a subatomic particle. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened.
Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses.
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks