Schrödinger's Cat is a bunch of BS

a reply to: CryHavoc

I'm pretty sure this constitutes Blasphemy!

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: CryHavoc

..."...Schrondinger's Cat ..."..., ...Einstein, Einstein.

Like the sound: Shrondinger's ...
Kinda rolls-off the toungue, don't 'cha think ?
Sounds better that way, well: to me, at least.
Well: maybe some other folks as well ?
Maybe it's another Mandellla Effect ?

SCHRONDINGER’S CAT

a reply to: CryHavoc

There is no box, there is no cat, and there is no spoon. But there is an overabundance of people preoccupied with cats in boxes, and also...Spoons.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
No, Zeno's Arrow was about movement, or lack there of depending on frame of reference. It shows that when time is removed from an equation and broken down into timeless instances there is no movement.

It's founding basis is the same principle of incomplete information.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't want to know what you do with your cats.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Correct.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Was going to mention this as well.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Many Worlds Theory

Young Hugh Everett agreed with much of what the highly respected physicist Niels Bohr had suggested about the quantum world. He agreed with the idea of superposition, as well as with the notion of wave functions. But Everett disagreed with Bohr in one vital respect.

To Everett, measuring a quantum object does not force it into one comprehensible state or another. Instead, a measurement taken of a quantum object causes an actual split in the universe. The universe is literally duplicated, splitting into one universe for each possible outcome from the measurement. For example, say an object's wave function is both a particle and a wave. When a physicist measures the particle, there are two possible outcomes: It will either be measured as a particle or a wave. This distinction makes Everett's Many-Worlds theory a competitor of the Copenhagen interpretation as an explanation for quantum mechanics.

When a physicist measures the object, the universe splits into two distinct universes to accommodate each of the possible outcomes. So a scientist in one universe finds that the object has been measured in wave form. The same scientist in the other universe measures the object as a particle. This also explains how one particle can be measured in more than one state.

As unsettling as it may sound, Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then -- if Everett's theory is correct -- the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action.

This means that if you have ever found yourself in a situation where death was a possible outcome, then in a universe parallel to ours, you are dead. This is just one reason that some find the Many-Worlds interpretation disturbing.

science.howstuffworks.com...

* Not saying it is correct, but it is a theory. You might be correct in saying it is "wrong", but your reasoning did not disprove it.

a reply to: Extorris

Thanks for your reply and link.

I don't like the theory.

There's no need to have alternative universes.

It works fine in reality. Where we (every individual that has ever been/is/ and will be) are the many worlds universes.

This is the reality we know.

but your reasoning did not disprove it.

It's not proven.

My explanation matches reality and the state of what we know.

I can only agree with with The Many Worlds Theory in the way i describe it.

Right or wrong.

originally posted by: rom12345
Schrödinger's Cat
is both BS and not BS at the same time

You win the thread.

Wasn't the whole premise to show that mathematical probability for both the cat being dead and alive was identical?

In essence a paradox which shows mathematics, however grand and beautiful the equation, can be trivialised.

I always enjoyed the concept, especially when you see these theoretical physicists clamouring over a blackboard trying to prove something that we have no way of measuring directly and yet claim it to be gospel.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: jidnum
I agree. The observer has no effect on the state of the object. The object is what it is. We just don't know what it is until we look at it our selves. The act of seeing it with our own eyes did not change the state at all, it merely just confirms the state of the object in question.

But you still have to look.

And looking doesn't change what it was, it was always like that whether you look or not.

It sounds more like simplification of what the observer see's, much like heads or tails of a coin being synonymous with the wave or particle theory. The problem from what I've read with quantum physics is that quantum physics, compared physics isnt actually real at all sort of speak.

Which defies all the crap they tried making me cram in school.

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: jidnum
I agree. The observer has no effect on the state of the object. The object is what it is. We just don't know what it is until we look at it our selves. The act of seeing it with our own eyes did not change the state at all, it merely just confirms the state of the object in question.

But you still have to look.

And looking doesn't change what it was, it was always like that whether you look or not.

You see, that is what common sense says. Bjt everything was turned on its head when we realized that if the universe as a whole works like particles do at the smallest level, then there are only undetermined possibilities, some more probable than others,and until you come to that point in time it is random and all possibles are both executed and not executed at the same time.

It's just like a computer game. The old ones where the screens actually phase in and out as you move. You may move to a screen once that is empty while you exit and come back and there's a level 3 monster. Or come back again and it's a level 1 little bat. The bat, upon defeat, could drop a gold coin or a dagger or a vial of healing elixir. The game doesn't randomly decide that till you kill it since it would be a waste of processing speed to plan out actions the player doesn't take. All the more reason the world is likely a simulation.

It makes no sense at all but we found the world is something so incredibly different than what you'd think. We have no clue what that is but it's a place where everything, even inanimate plastic, is made of particles whose electrons KNOW when they are being watched. And that is scientific fact. Blows the mind. Makes you rethink everything.

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
We have no clue what that is but it's a place where everything, even inanimate plastic, is made of particles whose electrons KNOW when they are being watched. And that is scientific fact.

No that's woo, not scientific fact. The electrons don't know when they're being observed anymore than a tire knows when you're checking the tire pressure. It's hard to check tire pressure without a little air leaking out in the process of checking it so making the observation can affect what you're observing, it's called the "observer effect".

The idiotic idea that electrons know when they're being watched was promoted by the video "What the Bleep do we know" which is a mix of scientific fact and complete fantasy involving the spirit of an ancient Lemurian warrior that has nothing at all to do with science, and unfortunately some people who haven't studied the science don't know where the science ends and the fiction begins.

I saw a physicist got hammered for using that video by an audience who was aware of its scientific inaccuracies, and she had to post another video to apologize for using it. Here's the first video showing people's reactions to the double slit experiment using the woo claim about electrons knowing when they are being observed:

People See the Double-slit Experiment for the First Time


Here's the follow up apology video for using an inaccurate source talking about electrons knowing when they are observed: and she tries to explain why that's not true even though Dr. Quantum implies it.

The Problem with Dr. Quantum's Double-slit Experiment

a reply to: dubiousatworst

It was distance.

Zeno would persuade party goers that math has infinite spaces between numbers and they could never reach the wall if they walked towards it. After a jug of wine, some brave soul would either believe him or try to prove him wrong. Him and his students would laugh their @$$ off as the poor soul ran into wall.

The lesson being, because you can describe an infinite measured space doesn’t mean a finite body can occupy that infinity.

The arrow is the same argument. Time is meaningless in this context.

a reply to: CryHavoc

You're a random nobody on the internet against 1000's of the most intelligent scientists in the world.
Go back to bed.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Schrödinger's Cat is a bunch of BS

Superposition isn't some profound concept. It just requires some selfish guy who thinks whether he observed something or not makes a bit of difference. It doesn't. The Cat is either dead or alive. It's not both.

We can apply this to eating breakfast. When I reach for my box of cereal, am I going to be able to eat or did my roommate eat it all but put the empty box back on the shelf like a slob? My observation has nothing to do with the answer. The cereal box doesn't exist in a state of superposition. Either my roommate was a slob or he didn't finish the whole box. Whether I observed it or not is irrelevant.

I think Schrödinger just hated Cats.

Change my mind.

Your problem is that you assume that the box is filled with cereal because the packaging says so. It could be filled with dead scorpions for all you know. That is the premise, and unless you know what is in that box before you open it, then you sound like an idiot. Nothing personal, but I do not think that you know what you are talking about.

The cat is irrelevant. If you did not see anything go into the box it can only be nothing anything. Until it was perceived. Until then it is only a guess. So the answer to this is until you see the cat you can not know it is a cat in the box. You can not just deny perception to make a thought experiment work. If you do it is just BS. The existence of the cat if in the box means yes it was in the box. If that experiment was about how stupid we can be then I get it. Only Humans could think that their sight may effect reality.

a reply to: TheSkunk

but the premise of the thought experiment is that there is indeed a cat in a box , with also a radioactive element in a geiger counter and a flask of Hydrocyanic acid .





its not "there is a box , there may or may not be a cat in it, and may or may not have a radio active element decaying inside and we dont know either unless we open it"