Schrödinger's Cat

[Buddha]

Can someone explain this to me.



Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment), sometimes described as a paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox), devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger) in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy) event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics). In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Schrodingers_cat.svg/320px-Schrodingers_cat.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schrodingers_cat.svg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf6/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schrodingers_cat.svg)
Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, a flask of poison and a radioactive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive) source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal Geiger counter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_counter) detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition). Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

What I'm getting is that since we don't know if proper radiation was emitted to shatter the poison flask. We don't know if the cat is dead or alive. Until the box in looked into.

But something can not be both dead and alive.

[midnight rambler]

But something can not be both dead and alive.

Actually, not only can the cat in this theory be both dead and alive, there's a third possibility as well - it could be in the course of dying (e.g. the flask is broken the moment the box is opened) when the observation is made. That's the key, ALL possibilities exist simultaneously until the observation is made.

[Glass]

I am going to bring up a word I despise, that is narrative. Everything is nothing until a human puts a narrative to it.

The cat is in an unknown state until it is observed. But even when it is observed, what is it's state? It's state is that which the observer puts on it. Thus the narrative.

How do I know what is in the box if I did not put the items in there? Is there a cat in there? Is there an elephant in there? Does the person who puts the items in the box also perform the observation or does someone else perform the observation? Is their observation affected by the narrative from the person who put the items in the box? Did the person who put the items in the box give a narrative of the box and it's contents?

Scientists wrongly call these things observations. They are not. I don't think observations are possible by humans as they always put a narrative to what they observe. People sometimes call this perspective or framing. Either way the observation is tainted IMO.

Its like the guys with their haldron collider. If anyone watched that cartoon video explanation by the scientist or student dude. They already have their narrative. They will now fit their observations to suit. They are performing millions of "observations" per day or year or whatever the time frame was, but it was millions of observations so they can get a statistical anomally that fits their narrative. Imperfect science but I think it's the best we can do in our current mind set.

Here's one. Is the colour of the leaves of trees the same green for you and me? When I see green I see green but when you see green do you see green green or some other colour which to you is green but to me would be something else. Ignoring colour blind people. The only thing we can be sure of, is that the colour of leaves is consistent for me as it is for you, so we can only assume I see green the same way you see green but we can never be sure. Scientists would state they can be sure by poking around with receptors and such but all they can really test for is consistency.

[Buddha]

Actually, not only can the cat in this theory be both dead and alive, there's a third possibility as well - it could be in the course of dying (e.g. the flask is broken the moment the box is opened) when the observation is made. That's the key, ALL possibilities exist simultaneously until the observation is made.

This is that I was thinking Mr. Sukoi .

Its just sounds like High-Filudent Bullshit to me.

yeah, I'm not gonna know if the cat is dead or alive until I see it. I can not trust to radioactivity to reach the point, and I also can not trust that the poison will kill that cat, so.... WTF?

I guess at this point the cat can be dead or alive, and since IDK it's both dead and alive, or the equivalent there of. What if the neko is neither dead nor alive, to me there is no such plane of existence. You Are, or You Are Not.

Edit: I'm a bit buzzed. I'm ready for tomorrow. This is very interesting to me.

[Buddha]

I guess that I am thinking this over too much as the answer is much more simple than I could have imagined.

Edit, End of thread, I got it.

[vacuum]

I guess that I am thinking this over too much as the answer is much more simple than I could have imagined.

Edit, End of thread, I got it.

No way, keep thinking about it

[Buddha]

No way, keep thinking about it
I am as I type this.

I remember your old sig, about problems having a simple, obvious, and wrong answer.

[Santa]

I think it has to do with "Time and Space" in a quantum mechanics sense.
In quantum mechanics, events don't occur in a linear fashion because time and space
no longer have 3 dimensional restrictions or limitations. Here is no longer there.

Bugger if I know, though. I spect it wouldn't be a paradox if I did....

[JDRock]

..my brain hurts!

[JohnQPublic]

..my brain hurts!

...but your brain may or may not be in your head. It cannot be known until a neurosurgeon opens your head and sees it.

[FreeEnergy]

Two things:

only works in quantum mechanics i.e. theoretical concept.

outside theoretical construct only works on self-centered people who believe their perception is reality.

:)

[Gaillo]

...but your brain may or may not be in your head. It cannot be known until a neurosurgeon opens your head and sees it.

Until that time, his brain exists in all three states... working normally, braindead, and empty skull.
Goes a long way toward explaining his posts here! ;D

[madfranks]

If I understad the paradox correctly, it's not that nobody knows if the cat is alive or dead, it's that the cat exists in both states simultaneously until the event of observation solidifies one of the two possible realities. Meaning, at the point of observation, the universe splits, one universe where the cat is alive, and one universe where the cat is dead, both universes existing together prior to the point of observation.

[Gaillo]

Buddha,
With respect to your OP, here's what I think. The cat is not "half dead", it does not exist simultaneously in more than one state. From the observers viewpoint, the state of the cat is UNKNOWN (unobserved) until the box is opened. In my objective view of the universe, this means that the cat is EITHER dead OR alive in the box, not both, but the actual state will remain UNKNOWN until the box is opened and the observation is made (at which point the TRUE [conforming to reality] state of the cat is observed.)

No real "paradox" involved at all, unless you INSIST as an observer that you CAN know something about the actual state of the cat without making an actual observation... which is (in my opinion) the height of scientific folly.

P.S. I disagree with madfranks explanation above, in my world view there is only ONE universe, and just because the phenomenon hasn't been OBSERVED yet does NOT mean that it is not already in a specific state of observable existence.

In my world view, it is axiomatic that REALITY EXISTS and that IT IS WHAT IT IS, regardless of observation, subjective interpretation, or "feelings" about it. Science, in its PURE form, should be about observation, experimentation, and discovery... NOT the creation of grandiose nonsenses to try and explain something we don't yet understand (so-called "string theory" comes to mind!)

[FreeEnergy]

madfranks, it is the Einstein and whole under-educated Theory Of Relativity bunch who came up with this.

They also destroyed classical physics, so for 80 years we are having a bunch of quacks giving each other Nobel prizes, coming up with idiocies like "vacuum is everywhere", "wave-particle duality", "90% of black matter everywhere" , generating bunch of made up particles , spending billions on finding Bosons and other such nonsense.

:)

[FreeEnergy]

probably need to update my last one.

constructs exist where there's no need for off-shoot theories like wave-particle duality of light, because everything can be explained easier within classical physics. Hence that construct is dead. Here's just one example:
http://www.the-phoney-photon.com

It just somehow this Einstein brigade has so much oligarch money behind it... one wonders if it is not because his theories help someone maintain grip on energy...

At least 4 ways to look at the Cat right way from people who understand quantum mechanics:



1. However, one of the main scientists associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, Niels Bohr, never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave function, so that Schrödinger's Cat did not pose any riddle to him. The cat would be either dead or alive long before the box is opened by a conscious observer.[6] Analysis of an actual experiment found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave function before there is any conscious observation of the measurement.

2. In 1957, Hugh Everett formulated the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not single out observation as a special process. In the many-worlds interpretation, both alive and dead states of the cat persist after the box is opened, but are decoherent from each other.

3. Ensemble interpretation

The ensemble interpretation states that superpositions are nothing but subensembles of a larger statistical ensemble. The state vector would not apply to individual cat experiments, but only to the statistics of many similarly prepared cat experiments. Proponents of this interpretation state that this makes the Schrödinger's Cat paradox a trivial non-issue.

This interpretation serves to discard the idea that a single physical system in quantum mechanics has a mathematical description that corresponds to it in any way.

4. Relational interpretation

The relational interpretation makes no fundamental distinction between the human experimenter, the cat, or the apparatus, or between animate and inanimate systems; all are quantum systems governed by the same rules of wavefunction evolution, and all may be considered "observers." But the relational interpretation allows that different observers can give different accounts of the same series of events, depending on the information they have about the system.[11] The cat can be considered an observer of the apparatus; meanwhile, the experimenter can be considered another observer of the system in the box

Wiki


Free Energy.

[JohnQPublic]

If I understad the paradox correctly, it's not that nobody knows if the cat is alive or dead, it's that the cat exists in both states simultaneously until the event of observation solidifies one of the two possible realities. Meaning, at the point of observation, the universe splits, one universe where the cat is alive, and one universe where the cat is dead, both universes existing together prior to the point of observation.


I think it is more of a stochastic argument: the cat has some statistical chance of being in some state, confirmed upon observation. The wave function is a probability function.

[Santa]

It just ain't so unless I say it's so,... dag blangit all to hell! o)(~

[Libertytree]

Is this kinda like....it's not really a fart unless it stinks?

[Buddha]

Buddha,
With respect to your OP, here's what I think. The cat is not "half dead", it does not exist simultaneously in more than one state. From the observers viewpoint, the state of the cat is UNKNOWN (unobserved) until the box is opened. In my objective view of the universe, this means that the cat is EITHER dead OR alive in the box, not both, but the actual state will remain UNKNOWN until the box is opened and the observation is made (at which point the TRUE [conforming to reality] state of the cat is observed.)

No real "paradox" involved at all, unless you INSIST as an observer that you CAN know something about the actual state of the cat without making an actual observation... which is (in my opinion) the height of scientific folly.


This is pretty much the conclusion that I came to. It's ridiculous as one could pin point the exact time of death of the cat, a wireless pulse transmitter, or a RFID chip lol. The wiki also talks about the uncertainty principle, but there doesn't need to be anything uncertain about this.

[Glass]

Is this kinda like....it's not really a fart unless it stinks?

yes! If a bear shits in the woods does anybody step in it?

[midnight rambler]

outside theoretical construct only works on self-centered people who believe their perception is reality.

:)

Seems to work like gangbusters for elitists. lol See the Heinz Stern quote in my sig.

[sirgonzo420]

yes! If a bear shits in the woods does anybody step in it?

Or... if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?



By the way, if nobody is around to hear it, it does *not* make a sound. Sound is produced in the ear...

Without something to turn the vibrations into "sound" there is no "sound", but only vibration.

[freespirit]

Or... if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?



By the way, if nobody is around to hear it, it does *not* make a sound. Sound is produced in the ear...

Without something to turn the vibrations into "sound" there is no "sound", but only vibration.

what if a tree fell in the forest and lands on schrodinger's cat...would it make a sound then? ;D

[Santa]

what if a tree fell in the forest and lands on schrodinger's cat...would it make a sound then? ;D

Well, that damn cat... might finally get dead if a tree fell on it.

[JohnQPublic]

Or... if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?



By the way, if nobody is around to hear it, it does *not* make a sound. Sound is produced in the ear...

Without something to turn the vibrations into "sound" there is no "sound", but only vibration.

I've been thinking about that recently, and that is the conclusion I came to. But then, what if a bird heard it or a bear? Does that count? Or does it have to be a rational being who could consciously associate the specific sound to the specific event (as opposed to just reacting to it in a frightened manner)? Of course once the rational being comes into it, then likely God heard it, so it happened.

Next important question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[chad]

schrodinger's cat is something you whip up when you need to publish, or you're going to get fired. originally, you get the idea from the tree in the forest one liner, then you embellish it up to 30 or 40 pages for bullshit effect and to make yourself look uber educated with big fancy words, radiation, death, etc. in the end, it's still the tree one liner.

[sirgonzo420]

I've been thinking about that recently, and that is the conclusion I came to. But then, what if a bird heard it or a bear? Does that count? Or does it have to be a rational being who could consciously associate the specific sound to the specific event (as opposed to just reacting to it in a frightened manner)? Of course once the rational being comes into it, then likely God heard it, so it happened.

Next important question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


I interpret the "if no *one* is around to hear it" part of the question to include any and all sentient beings (with eardrums or the like).

If you want to bring God into it, then He hears everything... but He also designed the tree and made it to grow and fall to begin with, so I reckon God hears what He wants.

Speaking of "the head of a pin"... there are as many points on the head of a pin as there are in the entire Universe!

[Libertytree]

As far as the cat in the box is concerned....Even if you never looked in the box to see, after a period of time you'd still have the same result, a dead cat. Either because the chems killed it or by starvation. The stench would eventually solve the conundrum.

[Santa]

Here's an interesting take on the state of theoretical physics these days.




Is speculation in multiverses as immoral as speculation in subprime mortgages? (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/01/28/is-speculation-in-multiverses-as-immoral-as-speculation-in-subprime-mortgages/)

By John Horgan | January 28, 2011 | http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/icon_comment_small.gif53 (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/01/28/is-speculation-in-multiverses-as-immoral-as-speculation-in-subprime-mortgages/#respond)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/flair/share.gifShare http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/flair/email.gifEmail http://www.scientificamerican.com/assets/img/flair/print.gifPrint (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/01/28/is-speculation-in-multiverses-as-immoral-as-speculation-in-subprime-mortgages/?print=true)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/01-28-hiddenreality.jpgI’m becoming a moralistic prig in my dotage. Someone dear to me just proudly told me that her son, a freshly minted Harvard grad, is training to be an investment banker. This privileged young man, I grumbled, should try to make the world a better place rather than playing in a rigged, high-stakes gambling racket.

I apologized later—and vowed privately to be less self-righteous in my judgments of others’ career choices. After all, I ain’t exactly Gandhi. But then I read Brian Greene’s new book, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos (http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Cosmos/dp/0739383523/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296254633&sr=8-1) (Knopf, 2011), and my moral hackles got all quivery again. (Weird coincidence alert: In 2006, the publisher RiskDoctor, Inc., released a book titled Options Trading: The Hidden Reality (http://www.amazon.com/Options-Trading-Perception-Deception-expanded/dp/0977869172).) A physicist at Columbia University, Greene is an immensely talented science explicator who has brought physics to the masses through his smart, witty bestsellers, The Elegant Universe (turned into a television series narrated by Greene) and The Fabric of the Cosmos.
My beef with Greene is this: He has become a cheerleader for the descent of theoretical physics into increasingly fantastical speculation, disconnected from the reality that we can access empirically. Greene has argued eloquently for the plausibility of string theory, which (as I pointed out in a previous post (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=cosmic-clowning-stephen-hawkings-ne-2010-09-13)) postulates the existence of particles that are far too small to be detected in any conceivable experiment.
In his new book Greene takes us even further away from reality, asking us to consider not just hypothetical particles but entire universes that lie beyond the reach of our instruments. Multiverses are old hat, of course. In a 1990 article for Scientific American on cosmology I included a sidebar, "Here a universe, there a universe…," about speculation that our universe "is only one in an infinitude of cosmos."
My tone was lightly mocking, because cosmologists themselves seemed to be kidding—even embarrassed—when they talked about all these alternate universes. But now Greene—as well as Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Sean M. Carroll and other prominent physicist/popularizers—want us to take multiverses seriously.
In Hidden Reality Greene notes that different theories of modern physics yield many different multiverse theories. One of the oldest is the many-worlds theory, which conjectures that all of the possible histories of our world allowed for by quantum mechanics are realized in other universes. Greene also touts the inflationary multiverse, which holds that new universes are constantly springing into existence via a mysterious antigravity force called inflation. String theory yields the brane multiverse; strings plus inflation produces the landscape multiverse; and that still leaves us with the quilted, cyclic, holographic and simulated multiverses, all of which Greene cheerfully elucidates.
These multiverse theories all share the same fundamental defect: They can be neither confirmed nor falsified. Hence, they don’t deserve to be called scientific, according to the well-known criterion proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Some defenders of multiverses and strings mock skeptics who raise the issue of falsification as "Popperazis"—which is cute but not a counterargument. Multiverse theories aren’t theories—they’re science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence.
At their best, science fiction and theology can leave us awestruck before the unutterable strangeness and vastness of the cosmos. Multiverse theories used to arouse these emotions in me. When the Russian physicist Andrei Linde—one of the inventors of the inflation theory of cosmic creation—first explained his chaotic, self-reproducing, fractal, inflationary multiverse theory to me 20 years ago, my reaction was, "Wow! That’s so cool!"
Multiverse theories don’t turn me on anymore. Perhaps it’s because of 9/11 and all its bloody consequences, especially the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, I have two teenage kids, and I’m worried about the enormous problems they’re inheriting from my generation. Not only wars overseas but also global warming, species extinction, pollution, poverty, pandemics and so on.
Now, multiverse theories strike me as not only unscientific but also immoral, for two basic reasons: First, at a time when we desperately need science to help us solve our problems, it’s irresponsible for scientists as prominent as Greene to show such a blithe disregard for basic standards of evidence. Second, like religious visions of paradise, multiverses represent an escapist distraction from our world.
I find two multiverse concepts especially loathsome. One is the idea that an infinite universe contains infinite copies of our world. Greene writes that in another cosmos "your doppelganger is now reading this sentence, along with you. In others…he or she has, well, a less than felicitous disposition and is someone you’d rather not meet in a dark alley." Even worse is the proposition that our world is artificial, a simulation being run on a computer designed by an alien civilization. This sort of adolescent claptrap devalues our reality even more than heaven, Valhalla, nirvana and other ancient fantasies do.
Is theorizing about parallel universes as immoral as betting on derivatives based on subprime mortgages? I wouldn’t go that far. Nor do I think all scientists should be seeking cures for cancer, more efficient solar cells or other potential boons to humanity. But scientists should, at the very least, investigate the world in which we live rather than worlds that exist—as far as we will ever know—only in their imaginations.
P.S.: Earlier this week, I learned that JR Minkel, a former writer for Scientific American, died. Even before we met five years ago, I was a fan of JR’s work. He was not only a talented young journalist with an offbeat sensibility; he was also a thoughtful, gentle soul. I’ll miss him.

[JohnQPublic]

Here's an interesting take on the state of theoretical physics these days.

Yep. He and Max Tegmark. Given the choice between:

1. Admitting the earth is in a special place/situation (the anti-Copernican Principle);
2. or assuming that yes, it is true (the earth is in a special place/situation), but only in this one of infinite other universes;

They chose 2. That way they get to keep their game going for a while longer until other contrary evidence is found. Of course, this is tautological, so, there will never be any evidence against it (you cannot prove there are NOT infinite other universes). Welcome to the religion of scientism. Presenting the current high priests...

[Santa]

Shrodinger wrote, "the world extended in space and time is but our representation."

What do you suppose he meant by that?

[JohnQPublic]

Shrodinger wrote, "the world extended in space and time is but our representation."

What do you suppose he meant by that?

Not sure exactly, but these theoretical types see the universe as equations. Space and time are human perspectives.

[sirgonzo420]

Shrodinger wrote, "the world extended in space and time is but our representation."

What do you suppose he meant by that?

The "world" (Cosmos) exists as it is. Here and Now. Time and Space are human conceptions.... coping mechanisms, if you will.

[Santa]

The "world" (Cosmos) exists as it is. Here and Now. Time and Space are human conceptions.... coping mechanisms, if you will.


He had a lifelong interest in the Vedanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta) philosophy of Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism), which influenced his speculations at the close of What is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe).

One Mind.

The Great Quest in Philosophy is to ask, "What is Reality?"

Is there just One Reality? In fact, the idea of One Reality has been essentially the basis of civilization since Babylon or earlier.
Monotheism, or One God expresses the same concept as One Reality.

Then how can there be anything Unreal or apart from reality? In One Reality everything must be Real. Every Thing, object, thought, Concept, Event or Otherwise. No exclusions. It's all One and it's all Real.

So, what about imagination? That which is imagined. Imaginary.

Is imagination not real? If it's imaginary and not real, then what is it and how can it be so relevant in our real world.

It's ironic that what human beings create must always first be imagined before it can become real,

and yet while that which is imagined is so vitally important to the creation of reality, it is simultaneously not real at all?

This is the paradox of Schrodingers Cat.