Schrodinger's Cat revisited

The theory is that a box containing a cat, a vial of poisonous gas, a hammer attached to a Geiger counter along with a Geiger counter, and a piece of radioactive material creates a potential for the cat to be both dead and alive regardless of the inevitability of the cat's death, until determined by observation. So if someone watches the box can't tell what may have happened, the cat is both alive and dead, seemingly impossible but according to quantum theory, correct. Inside the box, the cat cannot be both according to Newtonian laws of physics. If it was a person inside rather than a cat, would he be aware of being alive or unaware or both? If all possibilities are happening at the same time, if the observer were in a larger box and another observer were outside that second box, he could not observe whether or not the first observer saw the cat dead or alive, so does this mean the second observer's inability to observe the first observers' observation, the first observer MUST have seen both the cat dead and alive? Are the two possibilities, unknown, thus a both? Is it perspective that makes the differences? What exactly does the cat see under the circumstances? If both a live cat and a dead cat must be true at the same time, then the cat must have observed something, so how does this affect a determination inside the first box or the second box?

I'm more of a dog person.
just open the box.

Are, cats, dogs, etc..., conscious beings? If the cat is conscious can it really be in two states? Because the cat would be aware that it is alive, right?

To determine if the cat was conscious could we put it in front of the Rutherford Gold Foil Experiment to see if the atom splits. If a split the cat is not conscious thus can be in two states at one time. Right?

I got confused and just started writing lol.

Awesome post

a reply to: jaxnmarko

Wasn't Schroedinger's cat just a joke. Like mentioned in a letter he wrote poking fun?

Also, i kinda hate cats.

a reply to: jaxnmarko

This is why the many worlds interpretation is so nice. The way to think of it is to see yourself as an observer walking a path with forks in it. Each time a quantum event happens, you take one fork. So at the minute of the quantum event, the cat was either killed or not. All that's left is for you to find out which fork you took, by opening the box. This makes so much more sense than the cat being in superposition.

a reply to: tridentblue

"Each time a quantum event happens, you take one fork...
All that's left is for you to find out which fork you took, by opening the box."

So when Two-Face flips a coin to determine if he is going to let you go or not, he creates two possibilities, a fork. Quantum event (A) I lose my face (B) i get to hop and skip back home.

But if I am aware of (A) does that mean (B) does not exist. If (B) doesn't exists then this would all be hog-wash.

a reply to: jaxnmarko

That thought experiment was an analogy made up for people to comprehend what is happening on extremely small scales. It's if you acctually did the experiment the cat would either be alive or dead because it is a macroscopic object. So it is trying to discribe quantum phenomena using marcroscopic objects it is not acctually discribing a real situation if that makes sense.

I'd rather play this game with the assumption the cat's asleep…..
tetra50

a reply to: Eyemin

The Interpretation says that B exists, all these side by side universes exist. But one one exists for you (or any observer) at a time.
en.wikipedia.org...
Its also called the Everett interpretation. It is the most minimalist (in terms of math) of all the quantum intreprations, so has a nice Occam's razor feel to me.

does a tree fall over and make a sound if no one is around.
its stupid to say things Only happen when humans wahtch it.
iis a god complex.

a reply to: jaxnmarko

It's not about the observation. A scientific experiment has been done where future events can change past events.

future events past events

Essentially it boils down to it doesn't matter if an event happened, Only if that data regarding the event is released for someone to be able to see it. Once that information is released, this future event is able to change a past event.

Time didn't matter, Locality didn't matter.

a reply to: Eyemin

It has nothing to do with consciousness. Also, S's C is a thought experiment meant to parody the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, it's not meant to be taken literally.

Dead or alive, drop that cat in some water to understand hell.

And if the cat is technically alive and dead simultaneously, shoot, I'll get in the box myself if somebody gets me two pounds of the red skittles. Just the red, people. Slip a green one in there and my offer is off.

a reply to: jaxnmarko

Not quite. Schroedinger came up with this thought experiment to show that the assumption that a particle is in two states at once is wrong. The problem is our current math prevents us from knowing the state of a particle at a point in time without "measuring" it. The measurement can change the state of the particle therefore you cannot know what its state was before you measured it. So it must be both! Wrong wrong wrong.

Some people, even in physics, forget the reason for the cat and thus the current flaw or rather incomplete nature of current quantum mathematics. The maths is perfectly OK when we start with a known state.

a reply to: Eyemin

It is all choice, including which way to accept this thought experiment. Some understand the double slit experiment and how everything reverts back into wave function when not observed. It does not end at just the cat. That was only one aspect. To some of us, the opposite being said is just the illusion fighting back.

There is no wrong answer. You will get replies in this very thread supporting and dismissing the idea. It is all choice. Personal choice.

If you want to see it, you will. If not, you won't.

The universe might be a 4d singularity, with 3d space wrapped around it as the event horizon. What are the implications?

I choose to error on the side of caution now, and think happy thoughts. Ya never know.

N o. Google the experiment/theory. a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

originally posted by: jaxnmarko What exactly does the cat see under the circumstances? If both a live cat and a dead cat must be true at the same time, then the cat must have observed something, so how does this affect a determination inside the first box or the second box?

+This paradox has always puzzled me, as a layman, for that reason.
They say "Nothing happens until the result is observed"; but surely the cat himself is an observer, meaning that the result is observed instantly, by the cat, and so the paradox doesn't arise?

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: jaxnmarko What exactly does the cat see under the circumstances? If both a live cat and a dead cat must be true at the same time, then the cat must have observed something, so how does this affect a determination inside the first box or the second box?

+This paradox has always puzzled me, as a layman, for that reason.
They say "Nothing happens until the result is observed"; but surely the cat himself is an observer, meaning that the result is observed instantly, by the cat, and so the paradox doesn't arise?

No it's quantum states are not defined unltill observed. That cat is not a quantum state it is a macroscopic object. Like I said in my previous post:

That thought experiment was an analogy made up for people to comprehend what is happening on extremely small scales. It's if you acctually did the experiment the cat would either be alive or dead because it is a macroscopic object. So it is trying to discribe quantum phenomena using marcroscopic objects it is not acctually discribing a real situation if that makes sense.

The cat is an analogy for quantum states not an actual cat.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It means someone is in charge, and he knows it.

Wink.

Nothing wrong with having this discussion here, but I wanted to point out for further reference a most excellent conversation about the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment here.