So, Shrodinger's Cat was actually a ball bust all along...

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I never knew that until yesterday.

Apparently, the whole Quantum Mechanic "the item is in a superposition until observation collapses that superposition into a randomly chosen quantum state" notion (The Copenhagen Interpretation) was ridiculed by both Einstein and Shrodinger, with Einstein actually publishing his critique and Shrodinger creating his cat within a letter he wrote to Einstein agreeing with him on his own view of Bohr's interpretation.

This is from en.wikipedia.org...


Schrödinger intended his thought experiment as a discussion of the EPR article—named after its authors Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen—in 1935.[1] The EPR article highlighted the strange nature of quantum entanglement, which is a characteristic of a quantum state that is a combination of the states of two systems (for example, two subatomic particles), that once interacted but were then separated and are not each in a definite state. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the state of the two systems collapses into a definite state when one of the systems is measured. Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.

Schrödinger wrote:[3][2]

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 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.

—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)


I like Einstein's ball bust on the subject as well (the exploded and unexploded keg of gunpowder). It's amazing that so many "brilliant minds" completely misunderstand the point that Schrodinger was trying to make with his dead and undead cat. He was mocking the Copenhagen Interpretation, not elaborating on it.

I learned about Schrodinger's Cat in this forum, only not about the fact that it was Schrodinger's joke about how ludicrous superposition is as a Quantum Mechanics interpretation. I thought it best to establish this after so many threads where this "paradox" has been stated as logical evidence of the validity of superposition.




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You've got to be careful of that Quantum mockery, though. One example of quantum mockery was called the "watched pot" experiment. To illustrate the absurdity of the Quantum mechanics, a scientist devised an experiment, where he showed that by making constant observations of radioactive decay, the substance would never decay. He mockingly compared it to the old phrase "a watched pot never boils." So scientists did the experiment, and indeed, radioactive decay, if constantly watched, doesn't happen. The effect is called Quantum Zeno Effect:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
As far as Einstein's rejection of superposition is concerned, it persisted long after that initial exchange; as apparently did Schrodinger's.

From the same Wiki page...


The thought experiment illustrates this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:


You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.


Note that the charge of gunpowder is not mentioned in Schrödinger's setup, which uses a Geiger counter as an amplifier and hydrocyanic poison instead of gunpowder. The gunpowder had been mentioned in Einstein's original suggestion to Schrödinger 15 years before, and apparently Einstein had carried it forward to the present discussion.


So much for the universal embrace of superposition within the Quantum Theory community. I guess the greatest minds in physics never really did believe in the mysterious nature of Quantum Mechanics. At least not to the extent that recent quantum theorists would have us believe.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by tridentblue
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You've got to be careful of that Quantum mockery, though. One example of quantum mockery was called the "watched pot" experiment. To illustrate the absurdity of the Quantum mechanics, a scientist devised an experiment, where he showed that by making constant observations of radioactive decay, the substance would never decay. He mockingly compared it to the old phrase "a watched pot never boils." So scientists did the experiment, and indeed, radioactive decay, if constantly watched, doesn't happen. The effect is called Quantum Zeno Effect:

en.wikipedia.org...


Take it up with Schrodinger and Einstein. They were the ones mocking the Copenhagen Interpretation. I wasn't even there when all this went down.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Finally an explanation .......... Thanks for ammo for future arguments. I've always thought it was ridiculous, but didn't quite know why. It's simple. The cat is alive until it's dead.

The powder keg is unexploded, until it explodes.

There you go.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
What's also critical to understand is that regardless of the experiment being conducted, Quantum mechanics (as in relative to car mechanics, I suppose) build very specific and very isolated systems that they then use to conduct their experiments. This has the effect of these experiments being conducted within artificial worlds, relative to the processes being observed.

I watched a "Criminal Minds" episode where one psycho had kidnapped and trapped three high school suburban girls in an underground bunker and after breaking them down sufficiently (prepping the system) he introduced a weapon and made it clear that one girl must die or they would all die together; thereby establishing the experiment's protocols. Of course (it was "Criminal Minds" after all) the experiment was a success, and one girl was murdered by one of the others; revealing that the researcher's prediction that even the most nonviolent human beings will resort to barbarism when exposed to a certain existential threat that can only be alleviated by resorting to abject barbarism.

Of course, the psycho's interpretation of the data was flawed since the extreme nature of his threat was unrealistically controlled and defined, as was his system preparation and isolation. The fact that he engaged in unreasonable inductive reasoning (declaring all human beings to be similar in psychological/emotional/and physical nature to these three teenage suburban girls) should also be noted, since experimental physicists seem to be similarly prone to the same kind of inductive reasoning. He was wrong at all levels of his research process, not counting the fact that he was a sick predator and probably got killed in the end (although I can't really recall how that episode ended).

It kind of reminded me of how QM studies are carried out (except for the kidnapping and murder aspects, of course) and how the indications are declared as fully applicable to similar activities as they occur "in the wild". The truth is that (as much more obviously illustrated in the "Criminal Minds" episode) a prepped and isolated system is literally its own version of Reality, and really can't be likened to the comparatively wide open system that exists beyond the research lab. And yet, it's not as if QM experiments can be conducted "in the wild", so, at best, all research experiments are better than no experimentation at all, but not by much. And worse than no experimentation at all if the data indications are poorly interpreted by the researchers involved.

Just an observation.
edit on 7/19/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tridentblue
 


Aaahh yeah... Schrödinger's cat is onto that concept....





posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Awesome.

Another quantum foolery I find seduces the easily seduced is the idea that atoms are mostly empty space, leaving some solipsists to proclaim, quite wrongly, that everything is mostly empty space. This, of course, is refutable by walking into a wall or biting into a rock. But nonetheless, the view that we are mostly empty space is perpetuated in spiritual woo woo (Osho for instance). Sure, there is mostly empty space in an atom, but it is still an atom, and we are composed of atoms, with very little empty space between them. A bundle of balloons is composed of a bundle of balloons, not the air that keeps them solid.

Quantum mechanics, though interesting, is creating a religious revival of sorts, with implications such as "God particles", "quantum entanglement", "Quantum observer effect", and so fourth.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Awesome.

Another quantum foolery I find seduces the easily seduced is the idea that atoms are mostly empty space, leaving some solipsists to proclaim, quite wrongly, that everything is mostly empty space. This, of course, is refutable by walking into a wall or biting into a rock. But nonetheless, the view that we are mostly empty space is perpetuated in spiritual woo woo (Osho for instance). Sure, there is mostly empty space in an atom, but it is still an atom, and we are composed of atoms, with very little empty space between them. A bundle of balloons is composed of a bundle of balloons, not the air that keeps them solid.

Quantum mechanics, though interesting, is creating a religious revival of sorts, with implications such as "God particles", "quantum entanglement", "Quantum observer effect", and so fourth.


Mysticism will always do what it can to slip back into the mainstream of human thought if it can find a crack large enough to allow it to. The problem with QM and most other scientific disciplines is that the folks who ultimately define it are forced to compete with each other for a livelihood when they're starting out, and forced (by their own tenured status and their acknowledged inclusion into a legendary cultural tradition of highly regarded individuals that comes with tenure at a prestigious university) to aggressively defend whatever it was that enabled them to join the tenure club back when they were still fighting for professional survival. This makes it improbable (at best) that a fundamental error will be even examined, let alone addressed or corrected. At least as long as the author of that error, or anyone who's leveraged that error in their own climb to professional success, still occupies a staff position of any influence within that community of scientists. As the OP clearly reveals, QM got derailed early on, and it's really obvious to anyone with a cable modem that QM hasn't gotten up out of the ditch yet, and may not for quite some time.

Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next" is an enlightening, if somewhat frustrating, read. It really makes the case from the perspective of a Quantum Theorist who's getting fed up with the term "quantum" being used to peddle mysticism as science.

edit on 7/19/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I think you're missing Schrödinger's point, which was about the consequences of quantum entanglement and its application to the macroscopic. If, mathematically, we can say that we don't know the state of a particle until it is observed, and therefore it, mathematically, simultaneously holds both states, how does that apply to the macro? If the state of the particle in the box is unknown, and the cat, as a result is mathematically both alive and dead, what is the cat's position in this? The cat cannot observe the particle, and yet it knows whether it is alive or dead (well, it knows that it is alive.)

Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics was a result of his place in time, not in the invalidity of the field.


Would Einstein have lived just ten more years, he would have liberated himself from the shackles that bounded him to classical physics. A stupefying new insight derived by the UK physicist John Bell would probably have given him the shock of his life, but it would have helped him taking the mental hurdle to accept quantum physics as our deepest view on reality. Einstein would probably have felt his famous physics intuition had lost contact with reality, and he would certainly happily have admitted that Feynman's claim "nobody understands quantum physics" makes no exception for him. (Einstein Got It Wrong, Can You Do Better?)

I do agree with you that people who really have no idea of what the field is about tend to use it to explain "how we can do magic," which is, of course, utter rubbish. See the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" for a prime example of the misuse of physics.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I didn't finish reading the whole thing so your thread both agrees and disagrees with my own opinion until I do.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I didn't finish reading the whole thing so your thread both agrees and disagrees with my own opinion until I do.



This made me laugh...SO MUCH. LOL!!!!!

Nice one, Cuervo



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Science and its potential is misused when its not considered with an open mind.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by adjensen
 


Science and its potential is misused when its not considered with an open mind.

If that's a defense of the "What the Bleep Do We Know" crowd, no. The movie is a propaganda film for a cult in Washington state, and the only real expert in it, David Albert, has long since denounced the filmmakers for misrepresenting his perspective, which was that the cult knew nothing of quantum mechanics and that the claims made in the film were completely fictional.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I think you're missing Schrödinger's point, which was about the consequences of quantum entanglement and its application to the macroscopic. If, mathematically, we can say that we don't know the state of a particle until it is observed, and therefore it, mathematically, simultaneously holds both states, how does that apply to the macro? If the state of the particle in the box is unknown, and the cat, as a result is mathematically both alive and dead, what is the cat's position in this? The cat cannot observe the particle, and yet it knows whether it is alive or dead (well, it knows that it is alive.)

Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics was a result of his place in time, not in the invalidity of the field.


Would Einstein have lived just ten more years, he would have liberated himself from the shackles that bounded him to classical physics. A stupefying new insight derived by the UK physicist John Bell would probably have given him the shock of his life, but it would have helped him taking the mental hurdle to accept quantum physics as our deepest view on reality. Einstein would probably have felt his famous physics intuition had lost contact with reality, and he would certainly happily have admitted that Feynman's claim "nobody understands quantum physics" makes no exception for him. (Einstein Got It Wrong, Can You Do Better?)

I do agree with you that people who really have no idea of what the field is about tend to use it to explain "how we can do magic," which is, of course, utter rubbish. See the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" for a prime example of the misuse of physics.


Schrodinger's point was that the Copenhagen Interpretation was ridiculous. What part of his own words making that point did you have a problem with? The "paradox" was actually a parody. Like the sort of ting that these guys do. Not much anyone can do to help you here if his own statement wasn't clear enough for you. Oh well.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by adjensen
 


Science and its potential is misused when its not considered with an open mind.

If that's a defense of the "What the Bleep Do We Know" crowd, no. The movie is a propaganda film for a cult in Washington state, and the only real expert in it, David Albert, has long since denounced the filmmakers for misrepresenting his perspective, which was that the cult knew nothing of quantum mechanics and that the claims made in the film were completely fictional.


Actually it in defense of the fact that research into psi has never been preformed to what historically are the origins of these issues.

This being individuals who are members of indigenous cultures.

What about David Bohm...



David Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. Bohm postulates that the ultimate nature of physical reality is not a collection of separate objects (as it appears to us), but rather it is an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. For Bohm, the insights of quantum mechanics and relativity theory point to a universe that is undivided and in which all parts merge and unite in one totality.


Source
edit on 19-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
AdJebsen:

If, mathematically, we can say that we don't know the state of a particle until it is observed, and therefore it, mathematically, simultaneously holds both states...


Of course, you are referring to the situation of not being able to 'measure' and 'know' both a particle's position and its momentum simultaneously. We can know one at the forfeit of knowing the other. The measurement is an act of observation by an observer. Yes, we can indeed provide an abstraction of the situation prior to making a measurement of a particle's position, or alternatively, a measurement of its momentum using mathematics, which will state in the abstract that the particle must be in both states simultaneously until an act of observation is made upon it.

This abstraction is not, however, stating anything 'real' about the particles existential reality. All particles have the potential to be in one of three states: rest phase; excited phase; and momentum when kicked out of position by a sufficient external energy...it cannot be in more than one phase at a time, no matter how abstract a statement mathematics conceptualizes.

Of course, you will claim I am only perceiving things in the classical macro sense, but the truth is, there is only ever classical mechanics involved.

Schrödinger's cat in the box is indeed to our expectation either alive or dead, but because we have not made an observation to determine the cat's actual state by opening the box to see, it is useful to some degree to assume that it is both 'alive' and 'dead' at the same time. This is not an abstraction of the cat's reality, it is an abstraction of the limit of our knowing. The cat, of course, cannot be both alive and dead in reality, but one or the other, and our making an observation upon it does not determine its state, it only determines what we come to know of its state (either alive or dead), only.

Schrödinger's cat is a conceptualized ontological puzzle that shows quite starkly the absurdity of the idea of superposition in real terms of existence. Nature would not allow for 'superposition' as such a state would be being and non-being, existence and non-existence simultaneously, and as information cannot be exchanged (energy interaction) between the two states, it's absurdity is plain to see.

We have to be vary cautious when we are dealing with conceptual ideas, and insure we do not treat them as factual without the empirical evidence and scientific measurement to support them.
edit on 19/7/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)
edit on 19/7/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)
edit on 19/7/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Schrodinger's point was that the Copenhagen Interpretation was ridiculous. What part of his own words making that point did you have a problem with? The "paradox" was actually a parody.

No, it wasn't.


Schrödinger's cat is a seemingly paradoxical thought experiment devised by Erwin Schrödinger that attempts to illustrate the incompleteness of an early interpretation of quantum mechanics when going from subatomic to macroscopic systems.

Schrödinger proposed his "cat" after debates with Albert Einstein over the Copenhagen interpretation, which Schrödinger defended (Schrödinger's cat)

It's exactly as I described above -- an effort to explain the difficulty of moving from quantum mechanics on the sub-atomic level to classic physics on the macroscopic level. Until someone opens the box and looks, the mathematical state of the cat is both alive and dead, regardless of its actual state, which is not known until the observation is made.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Hey i watch The Big Bang Theory....



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NorEaster
Schrodinger's point was that the Copenhagen Interpretation was ridiculous. What part of his own words making that point did you have a problem with? The "paradox" was actually a parody.

No, it wasn't.


Schrödinger's cat is a seemingly paradoxical thought experiment devised by Erwin Schrödinger that attempts to illustrate the incompleteness of an early interpretation of quantum mechanics when going from subatomic to macroscopic systems.

Schrödinger proposed his "cat" after debates with Albert Einstein over the Copenhagen interpretation, which Schrödinger defended (Schrödinger's cat)

It's exactly as I described above -- an effort to explain the difficulty of moving from quantum mechanics on the sub-atomic level to classic physics on the macroscopic level. Until someone opens the box and looks, the mathematical state of the cat is both alive and dead, regardless of its actual state, which is not known until the observation is made.


Take it up with Einstein. In his own words....


You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.


Obviously, if what your web page states is true, then Einstein didn't understand Schrodinger's point either. Then again Schrodinger did make the following statements within his legendary cat story within that letter to Einstein...


One can even set up quite ridiculous cases.......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.


Maybe Schrodinger didn't actually understand his own point either. At least, this seems to be the case if what your web page states is true.

Of course, the easiest explanation, given the evidence presented, would be that the web page author's statement is inaccurate. Occam's Razor and all that.
edit on 7/19/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join