Topic: Please Explain Schrödinger's Cat to me

[gpw11]

The internet is not helping.  I may be looking in the wrong places.

[Quemaqua]

I've gotta' be honest... I've known about it for years, and it has never once made any sense to me.  Not because I don't get the concept, but because it seems like the weirdest fucking way to possibly express that concept that anyone could ever have come up with.

[TheOtherBelmont]

It's a weird thought experiment, maybe I can explain it though.

In quantum physics, a subatomic particle can exist in multiple states at once.  A good analogy for this is coming to a fork in the road and going both left and right. When the particle is observed, however, it collapses into a single state, giving us the option of left or right not some of both left and right at the same time.

Schrodinger's hypothetical experiment involves putting a cat in a box where it cannot be observed from the outside.  Also in the box is a container of poisonous gas and a radioactive substance.  The radioactive substance controls the container so that when the radioactive atom decays the gas in the container is released.  Now at any given moment from outside the box the cat is both alive and dead until we open the box.

Yes, its an odd way to describe that subatomic particles can exist in multiple states at once, which is the whole point.

[gpw11]

Is that all it is really?  Quantum physics aside, are we assuming the cat is both alive and dead just because we don't know which it is?

[Quemaqua]

Again, it seems like the weirdest possible way to explain it.  I just don't get it.  Sure, you get the idea, but... what the fuck?  Come on.

[PyroMenace]

I remember my chemistry teacher trying to explain this in high school. I agree with Que.

[TheOtherBelmont]

Is that all it is really?  Quantum physics aside, are we assuming the cat is both alive and dead just because we don't know which it is?

Pretty much.  The cat is simultaneously alive and dead, but when we look in the box, the cat is either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

[PyroMenace]

This is the same concept that brought us the show Sliders correct?

[TheOtherBelmont]

This is the same concept that brought us the show Sliders correct?

It evolved into it I guess yeah, though it is really more along the lines of the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics.

[gpw11]

Pretty much.  The cat is simultaneously alive and dead, but when we look in the box, the cat is either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

Uh....huh.  So it's like a divergent point?  You look in and you're either on the fork where it's alive or it's dead, but because of the existence of the other fork, it's both?

[gpw11]

Having stronger background, I looked it up on wikipedia. So abstractly retarded you might as well be talking about Plato's Cave Allegory. Fuck you Quantum Physics. Also, fuck you imaginary dinosaurs.

[nickclone]

Did you just watch A Serious Man?

[Schlotzky5]

Yeah, the whole cat thing is kinda dumb. I think Schrodinger's Fork sounds just as good and it is easier to understand.

[Cobra951]

What it illustrates to me is the absurdity of equating celebrated math models and other theories with physical reality.  Clearly, the cat is not alive and dead at the same time, regardless of whether a decaying subatomic particle triggers anything.

Edit:  Or just read gpw's last post. 

[WindAndConfusion]

What it illustrates to me is the absurdity of equating celebrated math models and other theories with physical reality.  Clearly, the cat is not alive and dead at the same time, regardless of whether a decaying subatomic particle triggers anything.

Famous Last Words. The Schrodinger's Cat experiment has been performed, using clocks and viruses instead of actual cats. Just like subatomic particles, large physical objects can occupy more than one state at the same time. A clock can read two times at once, and a virus can be simultaneously "alive" and dead. (The catch is that the more massive an object gets, the more certainty there can be in its state.)

[WindAndConfusion]

Jesus Christ, let's see if I can explain this.

Since you can't just "know" where a particle is or what it's doing, you have to measure it before you can talk about its location or its state. In order to measure a particle, you have to bounce another particle off of it. Since every action has a reaction, this changes the state of the particle you're measuring. Oh, and since you also don't know anything about the particle you use to make the measurement (it's a particle too!), all the same caveats apply. (In essence this means you can only measure one particle with respect to another particle.)

Necessarily, this means you have to use statistics when you talk about a particle. You can't just point to it and say, "It's there!;" instead you have to couch your statements like, "I am 49% confident the particle is in this region, and 49% confident the particle is over in that region. I am 2% confident I don't know what's going on."

As a matter of convenience, you could say that a particle is occupying both places with a probability of 98%, or that it is 49% occupying one place, 49% occupying another place, and 2% occupying all the places in the universe.

You could also make a second measurement on the particle, to better discover its position. This won't ever tell you the exact location of the particle, but it might refine your measurement to be something more like, "I am 90% confident the particle is here, 8% confident the particle is there, and 2% confident the particle is a shared hallucination." This is called "collapsing the wave function," and it's what happens whenever you make a measurement (in other words, when something you can't observe interacts with something you can observe.)

For the last 130 years or so, people have suggested that the particle might actually be in both places at the same time, in a real, physical sense. Ever since, Stupid Bitches have tried to argue otherwise, and I cannot emphasize enough that Stupid Bitches have been wrong every fucking time they opened their Goddamned mouths.

Imagine you have a particle next to an impenetrable wall. You measure it, and conclude there is a 90% chance it's on one side of the wall, an 8% chance it's on the other side of the wall, and 2% fuck you. Then you measure it a second later, and there's a 90% chance it's on the OTHER side of the wall. "Well fuck you, I don't believe a single particle can occupy two places at once. Imma gonna put a positron on one side of the wall, and if the electron is on that side, it will annihilate with it and produce a detectable gamma ray photon."

So you put your fag positron on one side of the wall, and wait to see if it annihilates. It doesn't, so you conclude the electron is on the other side. Then suddenly it does... but the photon is emitted on the WRONG SIDE OF THE FUCKING WALL. Surprise! Your positron just teleported from one side of the wall to the other, because there was a small probability of it appearing on the other side. It's called quantum tunneling. At subatomic scales, shit can do that.

Fuck this I'm done. You want to know about Schrodinger's Cat? Tough shit, quantum physics is hard, and you are not ready for the mind-fuck that is Erwin Schrodinger.

[Quemaqua]

Haha, that post is going down in the OWnet hall of fame.  That was awesome.

EDIT - I know, I said something positive about a W&C post.  I feel a bit dirty too.  But hey... credit where credit is due.

[Cobra951]

Amusing, to be sure.  So the cat really is alive and dead at the same time?  OK, then!  Then pardon me while I ridicule and praise you at the same time.  Or is it that you can't measure whether I'm ridiculing or praising, since I'm here and you're there?  Hmm.  I must be in an uncertain state.  I'll have to ascertain the matter.

[gpw11]

Did you just watch A Serious Man?

No.

Amusing, to be sure.  So the cat really is alive and dead at the same time?  OK, then!  Then pardon me while I ridicule and praise you at the same time.  Or is it that you can't measure whether I'm ridiculing or praising, since I'm here and you're there?  Hmm.  I must be in an uncertain state.  I'll have to ascertain the matter.

Oh snap! I like it.

Jesus Christ, let's see if I can explain this.

Since you can't just "know" where a particle is or what it's doing, you have to measure it before you can talk about its location or its state. In order to measure a particle, you have to bounce another particle off of it. Since every action has a reaction, this changes the state of the particle you're measuring. Oh, and since you also don't know anything about the particle you use to make the measurement (it's a particle too!), all the same caveats apply. (In essence this means you can only measure one particle with respect to another particle.)

Necessarily, this means you have to use statistics when you talk about a particle. You can't just point to it and say, "It's there!;" instead you have to couch your statements like, "I am 49% confident the particle is in this region, and 49% confident the particle is over in that region. I am 2% confident I don't know what's going on."

As a matter of convenience, you could say that a particle is occupying both places with a probability of 98%, or that it is 49% occupying one place, 49% occupying another place, and 2% occupying all the places in the universe.

You could also make a second measurement on the particle, to better discover its position. This won't ever tell you the exact location of the particle, but it might refine your measurement to be something more like, "I am 90% confident the particle is here, 8% confident the particle is there, and 2% confident the particle is a shared hallucination." This is called "collapsing the wave function," and it's what happens whenever you make a measurement (in other words, when something you can't observe interacts with something you can observe.)

For the last 130 years or so, people have suggested that the particle might actually be in both places at the same time, in a real, physical sense. Ever since, Stupid Bitches have tried to argue otherwise, and I cannot emphasize enough that Stupid Bitches have been wrong every fucking time they opened their Goddamned mouths.

Imagine you have a particle next to an impenetrable wall. You measure it, and conclude there is a 90% chance it's on one side of the wall, an 8% chance it's on the other side of the wall, and 2% fuck you. Then you measure it a second later, and there's a 90% chance it's on the OTHER side of the wall. "Well fuck you, I don't believe a single particle can occupy two places at once. Imma gonna put a positron on one side of the wall, and if the electron is on that side, it will annihilate with it and produce a detectable gamma ray photon."

So you put your fag positron on one side of the wall, and wait to see if it annihilates. It doesn't, so you conclude the electron is on the other side. Then suddenly it does... but the photon is emitted on the WRONG SIDE OF THE FUCKING WALL. Surprise! Your positron just teleported from one side of the wall to the other, because there was a small probability of it appearing on the other side. It's called quantum tunneling. At subatomic scales, shit can do that.

Fuck this I'm done. You want to know about Schrodinger's Cat? Tough shit, quantum physics is hard, and you are not ready for the mind-fuck that is Erwin Schrodinger.

Is there determination in quantum physics? Granted, I don't know shit about it, but it seems like the only rule is that it's a clusterfuck.

[Quemaqua]

it seems like the only rule is that it's a clusterfuck.

No you're figuring it out.

[Ghandi]

Jesus Christ, let's see if I can explain this.

Since you can't just "know" where a particle is or what it's doing, you have to measure it before you can talk about its location or its state. In order to measure a particle, you have to bounce another particle off of it. Since every action has a reaction, this changes the state of the particle you're measuring. Oh, and since you also don't know anything about the particle you use to make the measurement (it's a particle too!), all the same caveats apply. (In essence this means you can only measure one particle with respect to another particle.)

Necessarily, this means you have to use statistics when you talk about a particle. You can't just point to it and say, "It's there!;" instead you have to couch your statements like, "I am 49% confident the particle is in this region, and 49% confident the particle is over in that region. I am 2% confident I don't know what's going on."

As a matter of convenience, you could say that a particle is occupying both places with a probability of 98%, or that it is 49% occupying one place, 49% occupying another place, and 2% occupying all the places in the universe.

You could also make a second measurement on the particle, to better discover its position. This won't ever tell you the exact location of the particle, but it might refine your measurement to be something more like, "I am 90% confident the particle is here, 8% confident the particle is there, and 2% confident the particle is a shared hallucination." This is called "collapsing the wave function," and it's what happens whenever you make a measurement (in other words, when something you can't observe interacts with something you can observe.)

For the last 130 years or so, people have suggested that the particle might actually be in both places at the same time, in a real, physical sense. Ever since, Stupid Bitches have tried to argue otherwise, and I cannot emphasize enough that Stupid Bitches have been wrong every fucking time they opened their Goddamned mouths.

Imagine you have a particle next to an impenetrable wall. You measure it, and conclude there is a 90% chance it's on one side of the wall, an 8% chance it's on the other side of the wall, and 2% fuck you. Then you measure it a second later, and there's a 90% chance it's on the OTHER side of the wall. "Well fuck you, I don't believe a single particle can occupy two places at once. Imma gonna put a positron on one side of the wall, and if the electron is on that side, it will annihilate with it and produce a detectable gamma ray photon."

So you put your fag positron on one side of the wall, and wait to see if it annihilates. It doesn't, so you conclude the electron is on the other side. Then suddenly it does... but the photon is emitted on the WRONG SIDE OF THE FUCKING WALL. Surprise! Your positron just teleported from one side of the wall to the other, because there was a small probability of it appearing on the other side. It's called quantum tunneling. At subatomic scales, shit can do that.

Fuck this I'm done. You want to know about Schrodinger's Cat? Tough shit, quantum physics is hard, and you are not ready for the mind-fuck that is Erwin Schrodinger.

Well done. *applause*

[Cobra951]

A few interesting takes on our cat after a quick search:

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

A cat could be dead in one universe and alive in another universe; however, it cannot be both dead and alive in the same universe, as that would constitute a logical impossibility. The above statement depends upon the correctness of many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics. Yet we have to realize that quantum mechanics does not say the cat is alive and dead at the same time. It’s [sic] state (to a potential observer) is described mathematically as a combination of possible states. Until the cat is observed none of those states or possibilities are real.

http://www.fluther.com/disc/40472/being-alive-and-dead-at-the-same-time-why-are/

Schroedinger's Cat is a good example of a "thought experiment," a device often used in physics to investigate the consequences of hypotheses. It is a great heuristic device that illustrates some of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics while sharpening our inquiries. But problems arise from the many people who take it too literally. These include some scientists who should know better and a lot of would-be philosophers of science who believe esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived).

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/SCHRCAT.HTM

Clearly, we rapidly end up with absurdities if we assume that conscious observing determines the state of a system. What is important are the changes that occur in the system, and any physical object that is potentially capable of being influenced by the event is an "observer". The atomic decay has already been "observed" because the nucleus that decayed has changed. The system whose quantum state "collapses" is the particle in the atomic nucleus that changes during a radioactive decay. Everything else after that - the geiger counter, the vial, the cat - is classical deterministic physics. Whether a sentient being takes note is irrelevant.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/SCHRCAT.HTM

[Xessive]

I think we can argue that we are all both alive and dead if we go by the theory that all of our iterations are happening simultaneously but , as humans in this plane of existence, we are limited to observing time in a linear fashion only.

I am not smoking anything, I swear, I just finished writing a paper on media transformation.

[Cobra951]

I've proposed before that current views about time are themselves a mindfuck.  No doubt, that makes me a stupid bitch as well.  If you take blackboard theories and superimpose them on actual reality without another thought, you will twist your head into knots.  Science is supposed to be the very antithesis of religion, yet only religious fervor over a scientific theory would lead someone to believe, truly believe, that a cat can be alive and dead at the same time.  It can't be empirical observation.  The "thought experiment" itself excludes that as a possibility.  It's a mystery!  I wonder what else works in mysterious ways.