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

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Hey i watch The Big Bang Theory....


I'm watching it right now, in fact.




posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

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....

It doesn't matter what Einstein had to say, because we know that he didn't understand quantum mechanics in the state that it was in during his life. He was stuck in classic physics and didn't see evidence to back up the claims of the qm physicists at that time.

Saying that Schrödinger was joking when he postulated his cat because Einstein didn't understand it is an unreasonable conclusion.


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.

I have never seen anyone claim that Schrödinger was joking, apart from you, and I am fairly well read on the subject. He created the thought experiment to explain the difficulty of reconciling quantum mechanics and classic physics, period.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


This was mentioned earlier by another member....



Unstable quantum systems are predicted to exhibit a short time deviation from the exponential decay law.[12][13] This universal phenomenon has led to the prediction that frequent measurements during this nonexponential period could inhibit decay of the system, one form of the quantum Zeno effect. Subsequently, it was predicted that an enhancement of decay due to frequent measurements could be observed under somewhat more general conditions, leading to the so-called anti-Zeno effect.[14]

In quantum mechanics, the interaction mentioned is called "measurement" because its result can be interpreted in terms of classical mechanics. Frequent measurement prohibits the transition. It can be a transition of a particle from one half-space to another (which could be used for atomic mirror in an atomic nanoscope[15]) as in the time of arrival problem [16] ,[17] a transition of a photon in a waveguide from one mode to another, and it can be a transition of an atom from one quantum state to another. It can be a transition from the subspace without decoherent loss of a q-bit to a state with a q-bit lost in a quantum computer.[18][19] In this sense, for the q-bit correction, it is sufficient to determine whether the decoherence has already occurred or not. All these can be considered as applications of the Zeno effect.[20] By its nature, the effect appears only in systems with distinguishable quantum states, and hence is inapplicable to classical phenomena and macroscopic bodies.


quantum Zeno effect

By Tridentblue..



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:


Any thoughts?
edit on 19-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Schrodinger did propose the cat scenario to show the illogicality of the theories, and I think him and einstein both agreed that the math equations were not congruent with reality, but only the most in depth methods of predicting reality at that point. The math is not an objective map or model of reality, it is a set of rules of probabilities to determine situations, reality always works exactly. Our math cannot predict exactly what will occur planck second to planck second particle to particle, but the universe is actually doing these functions without break every moment. Schrodingers cat is ridiculous and does show how ridiculous superposition is, (unless, super position is not like a particle spinning both left and right at the same time, but it is just not spinning at all..that would make physical and logical sense).



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
In the context of Psychology, Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Philosophy. An important consideration is that what we experience with respect to the common sense's is solely based upon internal representations.

Beyond that is the development of comprehension related to Quantum Mechanics as well as Multiverse Theory.

As then one should consider the issue Fractals.....




Any thoughts?
edit on 19-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Any thoughts?

Yes.

Quantum mechanics is weird, and anyone who tells you that they understand it is lying.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
So some cat that does not even have a name creates all these words? Perhaps those 'scientists' who spent so much time ruminating on that damn cat had spent it on food production instead, we would not have so many starving people on this sorry little ball of rock.
'Scientists' are at the other end of the spectrum from 'religious nuts' both hold back human advancement
.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Just thought, if I ever get a cat, guess what I will call it? No not tibbles.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Kashai
Any thoughts?

Yes.

Quantum mechanics is weird, and anyone who tells you that they understand it is lying.


I agree completely no reputable person would claim that, if anything we are just beginning to scratch the surface.

Nice talking to you friend
edit on 20-7-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NorEaster

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

It doesn't matter what Einstein had to say, because we know that he didn't understand quantum mechanics in the state that it was in during his life. He was stuck in classic physics and didn't see evidence to back up the claims of the qm physicists at that time.

Saying that Schrödinger was joking when he postulated his cat because Einstein didn't understand it is an unreasonable conclusion.


Except that the specific quote I provided in the OP states the obvious fact that Schrodinger called the cat analogy a "ridiculous case" in his own words. Man, I provided the link and the link provides the source that was used. You're fighting reality in this situation, not me.



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.


I have never seen anyone claim that Schrödinger was joking, apart from you, and I am fairly well read on the subject. He created the thought experiment to explain the difficulty of reconciling quantum mechanics and classic physics, period.


Apparently you're not as educated on the subject as you are well-read. The fact is that this problem in QM is at near pandemic levels. So much misinformation and misinterpretation, and the entire field of physics is in crisis as a direct result.

But don't take my word for it.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
So some cat that does not even have a name creates all these words? Perhaps those 'scientists' who spent so much time ruminating on that damn cat had spent it on food production instead, we would not have so many starving people on this sorry little ball of rock.


I see. So, no one should ever bother to figure out what's real as opposed to what's imaginary. They should all be growing food. Interesting. So, then, I take it that you're a farmer yourself?


'Scientists' are at the other end of the spectrum from 'religious nuts' both hold back human advancement
.


And in between them are all the money-grubbing sh*ts who complain about those lazy people who refuse to work for the food that their own "hard-earned" money is being stolen from the government to pay for. Yeah, it's all just a big sea of human excrement out here in reality-ville. Somedays it just don't pay to get up off the bowl.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Except that the specific quote I provided in the OP states the obvious fact that Schrodinger called the cat analogy a "ridiculous case" in his own words. Man, I provided the link and the link provides the source that was used. You're fighting reality in this situation, not me.

Well, you're the one who has failed to understand the basic premise of Schrödinger's Cat, even though it's been explained to you several times.

Here, this is from your "wikipedia" article, I underlined the important bit for you:


It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, resulting in a contradiction with common sense.

The problem wasn't with the Copenhagen interpretation, it was with its application to the macro scale.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   


Scientists have been able to entangle particles in the lab before, but only under special conditions, by isolating them and cooling them to ultra-low temperatures. "What we did was to demonstrate that you could make these wacky states in these everyday normal objects sitting in a regular laboratory under no particularly special conditions," study author Ian Walmsley says. To do this, his team used a laser to start the crystals of a millimeter-size diamond vibrating. The vibrations were reflected in the diamond’s entangled twin a few centimeters away. The researchers used ultra-fast optical technology to create and measure the entangled state before it broke up.

It was this fast detection that made the diamond entanglement experiment possible. Most physicists, Walmsley says, believe that quantum entanglement is a property present in all objects in our macro world; we just don’t see it happening. "In the everyday environment, objects are connected to other objects," he says. "They’re sitting on the floor, wafting in the wind, and those connections are ways in which information and energy can leak out of one system into another." So objects lose their entanglement quickly. By using super-speedy technology, this team caught the diamonds acting entangled before environmental interactions overcame the effect.


Source

Further

Center for Quantum Technologies

Any thoughts?





edit on 20-7-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Find me one (or more) theories on how entanglement occurs.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
An Introduction to Quantum Entanglement: a Geometric Approach

Further



Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.



Stanford Univercity



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Can you tell us where the mockery exactly happens? Because for a simple illustration how QM 'works', isn't Schrödinger's cat a relatively good example? I mean the idea of having the *two* cats in *two* different states at the same time is exactly what this comes down.

So..was the mockery that Einstein/Schrödinger actually rejected the idea and he brought in the cat as an example how absurd it is? (When, in reality, the example is a pretty good fit, IMO) ???

**

So..when a photon is *either* a wave OR a particle, until I try to 'catch' the wave and then it always turns into a particle (or vice versa)....it's legitimate to apply this also on a macroscopic level. Otherwise, what sense would it make? I cannot exclude observations I make on a particle level and say this doesn't apply to macroscopic...or can I?
edit on 20-7-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Thanks Ill admit I didnt get much of that paper, though the introduction did touch upon a bit of what has been discussed in this thread.

Do you think there is any way you can summarize the simple and general explanation of how entanglement works? (I know there is no simple and general explanation, but try).


Tell me where I am wrong; There exists particle A, and it is entangled with particle B, they both were created in the same lab. Particle A is sent to lab A which is in another galaxy. Particle B stays in the lab it was created. Entanglement states that when a measurement on Particle B is made in the lab, instantaneously, particle A will show signs that its entangled partner has been measured and will be the opposite state.

How?

You cant simply give me a theory on how this is possible? If it is possible there must be some reason as to why its possible and occurs. Can you simplify what your article said is the reason and way this occurs? It has to do with space, energy/particles right? So what about space and particles allow this to happen?
edit on 20-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Because the present exist and is a very real aspect of reality.

Bells theorem and Bohm's Implicate Order have things in common. I think a difference between perhaps a radio transmission and quantum entanglement for the purpose of communication would be the issue of signal degradation.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


There exists particle A, and it is entangled with particle B, they both were created in the same lab. Particle A is sent to lab A which is in another galaxy. Particle B stays in the lab it was created. Entanglement states that when a measurement on Particle B is made in the lab, instantaneously, particle A will show signs that its entangled partner has been measured and will be the opposite state.

How?

Your answer is: Because the present exists and is a very real aspect of reality.

Can you further expand on that? how does that statement attempt to describe or explain how the particles influence one another instantly at any distance?



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
It would be like saying the present is some kind of event horizon or surface. While the future is an environment where that surface exist.

In so far as the past that would constitute the object related to what is underneath the surface.

In consideration electrons in there orbits with respect to the nucleus of an atom generate waves in space-time.

From a perspective one could consider that in this regard (as an example), that the past is in this perspective an aspect of the present.

Any thoughts?
edit on 20-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join