Schrödinger's cat

[Narnoldshmarnold]

I read this in a book once, and decided that I'd research it further. basically, it says that if you put a cat in a box with radioactive material that may or may not cause poisonus chemicals to be released, then the cat is both dead and alive untill you find out. I got the wikipedia for it:
Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and the simple english wiki (I always find this easier to understand ^^)
Schrödinger's cat - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
do you think this is true? It kinda confuses me, but I believe that just because we don't know something doesn't mean that it isn't. I'm sure the cat knows if it's dead or not!

 

[JuttingRock]

I remember my physics teacher mentioned it in class once, but just told us the basic theory behind it because the quantum mechanics was more complex than what we were studying. I'm kind of confused as to how it applies as well.

Here's a comic regarding the Schrodinger experiment.

 

[Akans]

.....What the hell.

This is interesting, I want to join this thread, but I can't contribute XD

 

[Q]

The theory says that, because you can't possibly make a statement about the nature of the cat until you actually observe the cat in some way, shape or form, there is no possible way to conclude whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box. It also means that the cat must have both the states of being alive or dead - as all possible options are kept open in quantum mechanics.

I read about it, need to research it again.

 

[violent_anger]

 

[Pelafina]

Schroedinger's Cat is awesome.

 

[frisson]

I understood the idea behind it, but I think it's more complex than that. As Narnold already suggested, the Cat should also be witness to its own death.

The "observer" in question could be anything, even the atom itself, if it's interacting with the substance. Observer in the sense of all senses of awareness. It's obvious that it doesn't just apply to sight, otherwise a blind man would be subjected to this phenomena on frequent occasions.

The box that the Cat is contained within, regardless of composition, would be interacting with the potentially dead Cat through electromagnetic repulsion, otherwise the Cat wouldn't be contained in the first place. Isn't this a form of affirmation in itself?

 

[Akans]

But would the box know the relevance of a dead cat inside it?

 

[frisson]

Why does it matter? Relevance is another human concern.

 

[Q]

From the standpoint of an observer, if the cat is stuck in a box that is IMPOSSIBLE to observe (i.e., with any of the senses), and left with something that has a 50% chance of killing it, then the cat is mathematically stuck in two completely different states at once, until YOU observe it, whether by smelling it dead, by hearing it meow, etc. This is taking only YOUR point of view into account. You do not know if anyone else even has a point of view, but that's philosophy, and although relevant, not to be brought up now.

It is not interaction that is the problem; I could interact with water by putting my hands through it. But that isn't observing the cat.

 

[frisson]

Interaction is affirmation.
Observation is affirmation.

Interaction = Observation

At least in this case. If you touch a dead cat it'll react differently to say... a living one. Experience with these things would suggest to you that the cat is dead. Experience determines perception. Perception is observation. You may not be interacting with the cat, but the box still is.

The box may not have perception or experience, but the particles composing it react to each combination of matter in a particular way, though it's usually the same (ie. containing it). The composition of a dead cat is different to a living one.

Mathematically, you're making an assumption. Even if there's a 50% chance of it dying, there's a non-inclusive 0.000000000etc.1% chance that both the box and the cat would spontaneously decay anyway.

But just because you don't know, it doesn't change what has happened. This entire stance ignorantly suggests that all the happenings of the universe revolve and depend upon human observation.

 

[frisson]

Interaction is affirmation.
Observation is affirmation.

Interaction = Observation

At least in this case. If you touch a dead cat it'll react differently to say... a living one. Experience with these things would suggest to you that the cat is dead. Experience determines perception. Perception is observation. You may not be interacting with the cat, but the box still is.

The box may not have perception or experience, but the particles composing it react to each combination of matter in a particular way, though it's usually the same (ie. containing it). The composition of a dead cat is different to a living one.

Mathematically, you're making an assumption. Even if there's a 50% chance of it dying, there's a non-inclusive 0.000000000etc.1% chance that both the box and the cat would spontaneously decay anyway.

But just because you don't know, it doesn't change what has happened. This entire stance ignorantly suggests that all the happenings of the universe revolve and depend upon human observation.

 

[Hollow Bastion]

Well, Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment brought about by Schrodinger's criticism of Copenhagen's quantum mechanics when applied outside atomic and subatomic systems. Superposition is what Schrodinger found strange.

To quote wikipedia regarding this:

In simple terms, the thought problem involves a cat placed in a box with a sealed vial of poison that will break open at an uncertain time. Since no one knows when or if the poison has been released, until the box is opened, the cat might be thought of as both alive and dead, until the box is opened and the cat is observed by someone else.

The concept of superposition, one of the strangest in quantum mechanics, helped provoke Schrödinger's conjecture. Broadly stated, the superposition is the combination of all the possible positions of a subatomic particle. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the superposition only undergoes collapse into a definite state at the exact moment of quantum measurement.

Measurement, according to Copenhagen, collapses superposition into a single definite state. Schrodinger found this odd, made it large scale, and tossed in a cat who was kept away from all outside influence. If you never observe, the cat could be either dead or alive, but you'd never know. Gotta observe to know.

Or, in the case of what Einstein originally wanted (or rather, a combination of the two),

Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gun powder + 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

 

[violent_anger]

so like agnosticism, this is all just yes, no, maybe so?

 

[Akans]

so like agnosticism, this is all just yes, no, maybe so?

Nope, agnosticism believes that there IS a god, just not what type of god.

However, Schrödinger's cat could be alive or dead (lol, this brings the mind the game Dead or Alive), from what the argument says.

So god will have to exist and not exist.

Interaction is affirmation.
Observation is affirmation.

Interaction = Observation

Is that reasonable? Isn't it Interaction CREATES affirmation, Observation CREATES affirmation?

 

[frisson]

You affirm through these methods. The affirmation isn't "created". =/

 

[Phoenix]

Nope, agnosticism believes that there IS a god, just not what type of god.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

Just an fyi.

 

[Wehrmacht]

Nope, agnosticism believes that there IS a god, just not what type of god.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

Just an fyi.

With that definition, there IS such a thing as an agnostic atheist. Which would be what I was a while ago (I'm not sure if I'd still consider myself atheist), and what Phoenix is.

You are describing agnostic theism, which is just a branch of it.

 

[Akans]

With that definition, there IS such a thing as an agnostic atheist. Which would be what I was a while ago (I'm not sure if I'd still consider myself atheist), and what Phoenix is.

You are describing agnostic theism, which is just a branch of it.

So I guess it is similar to Schrödinger's cat then...

You affirm through these methods. The affirmation isn't "created". =/

But either way, its a process you go through, the two terms are not congruent. Observation may not affirm, and interaction may not affirm either.

 

[frisson]

But either way, its a process you go through, the two terms are not congruent. Observation may not affirm, and interaction may not affirm either.

How else do you affirm, then?