The Schrodinger's Cat debate

[Dragoon Fighter]

Paradox info

http://quantumphysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/schroedingers_cat_paradox

http://quantumjunction.com/schrocat.htm

http://www.canadaconnects.ca/quantumphysics/10071/

The debate is the usual (to me anyway) about the exact details of the paradox in reference to the cat is it "the cat is..."
Both dead and alive?
Dead if the box was open?
Alive if the box was open?
neither dead or alive?
A really mad cat? (Joking about this part only)

As for me I actually go with the majority view that state that the cat is Both dead and alive at the same time.

Disclaimer: I actually love cats I have four of them and I do not what a lovable kitty to fall victim to such an experiment.

Edit: opps Sorry about the sig. I thought it was turned off.

 

[Deleted member]

Schrödinger's Cat being a thought experiment I can't see this becoming an interesting debate.

That said, unlike quantum particles, the cat actually is a "large" object, so in my opinion it needs to be either dead or alive. Although you cannot say it is either with certainty, the cat has to be in either state because it follows the laws of macro sized objects.

there also is there difference that the cat is either alive or dead, which at times can be ambiguous states, and with quantum particles, they either exist or not (or go to the left or right slit in a piece of paper), which is a lot simpler distinction, unlike life/death.

EDIT: whoops, didn't see this was in proving grounds.

 

[blazedaces]

Schrödinger's Cat being a thought experiment I can't see this becoming an interesting debate.

That said, unlike quantum particles, the cat actually is a "large" object, so in my opinion it needs to be either dead or alive. Although you cannot say it is either with certainty, the cat has to be in either state because it follows the laws of macro sized objects.

there also is there difference that the cat is either alive or dead, which at times can be ambiguous states, and with quantum particles, they either exist or not (or go to the left or right slit in a piece of paper), which is a lot simpler distinction, unlike life/death.

EDIT: whoops, didn't see this was in proving grounds.

You misunderstood the situation. In the scenario the life of the cat is determined by the emission of a particle randomly... so it's not being governed by the rules of "macro" objects, but rather by the rules governing "micro" objects.

Also, the "being alive and dead at the same time" statement is sort of a misrepresentation. The fact is it's neither until we open the box to check (according to the quantum mechanics-loyal philosophers/scientists).

-blazed

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

You misunderstood the situation. In the scenario the life of the cat is determined by the emission of a particle randomly... so it's not being governed by the rules of "macro" objects, but rather by the rules governing "micro" objects.

Also, the "being alive and dead at the same time" statement is sort of a misrepresentation. The fact is it's neither until we open the box to check (according to the quantum mechanics-loyal philosophers/scientists).

-blazed

Scene you can measure the situation two ways what would be the more important measurement, In your point of view?

 

[blazedaces]

Scene you can measure the situation two ways what would be the more important measurement, In your point of view?

Could you re-ask this question? I didn't quite understand it.

Also, as a tip, please try to type your posts in word first. That way it can point out spelling errors for you before you post them here. Also, in case for some reason the internet crashes the post is not lost. But really the spelling errors make you look like a worse debater (not saying that's necessarily true).

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

Edit: opps Sorry about the sig. I thought it was turned off.

I wish it was like it is in the DH but alas you must ensure "Show your signature" under "Miscellaneous Options" is unchecked for your sig to not post.

 

[gm jack]

It really isn't an experiment as such. It is just a way to try and explain that at the quantum level, everything must be considered to be doing everything until the actual result is observed.

As such, the cat must be considered both dead and alive (with a decaying particle, it would be a series of shifting probabilities over time, but with neither reaching zero) until one would "open the box" and be able to observe if the particle decayed to kill the cat.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I wish it was like it is in the DH but alas you must ensure "Show your signature" under "Miscellaneous Options" is unchecked for your sig to not post.

Thanks, I will not make the same mistake again (or at least I will try.)

Could you re-ask this question? I didn't quite understand it.

Also, as a tip, please try to type your posts in word first. That way it can point out spelling errors for you before you post them here. Also, in case for some reason the internet crashes the post is not lost. But really the spelling errors make you look like a worse debater (not saying that's necessarily true).

-blazed

Sorry for not being clear. I was asking if two measurements conflicted (as they do here) which should be considered more important (micro or macro).

Edit: I understand there both important I am just asking your point of view."

 

[blazedaces]

Sorry for not being clear. I was asking if two measurements conflicted (as they do here) which should be considered more important (micro or macro).

Edit: I understand there both important I am just asking your point of view."

Oh, I think I understand what you're asking. But quantum mechanics (the rules used to govern extremely small particles) and Einsteinian Physics (like Newtonian physics, the rules governing large bodies) are rules that those bodies tend to follow.

They are not methods of measurement. Imagine them more as philosophies, a way of interpreting what the results tell us. The results though, do not change.

Because of this, it's really not accurate to say one view is any more important than the other.

This debate is in fact a way of discussing both opposing viewpoints. On one hand we have the quantum mechanical point of view, that the cat is neither (or both alive and dead). On the other hand we have the viewpoint that Einsteinian Physics provides, that it is one or the other, we just don't "know" yet.

See, this entire debate is simply a philosophical question on whether or not reality is dependent on our knowledge of it.

-blazed

 

[gm jack]

Well, at a quantum level it is only "dead and alive" until a result is observed, due to the nature of quantum particles to do every possible option until proven otherwise.

Schroedinger's cat just uses dead and alive as a way to show quite how bizarre quantum mechanics are.

 

[AltF4]

My cat is named Schrödinger. True story! Here he is.

Regrettably, I don't have a picture of him inside of a box. Though I will soon...

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Regrettably, I don't have a picture of him inside of a box. Though I will soon...

However, he won't be both dead and alive, or neither. You will have observed him (taking the photo) and thus his state will collapse into one or the other.

 

[blazedaces]

However, he won't be both dead and alive, or neither. You will have observed him (taking the photo) and thus his state will collapse into one or the other.

First of all, no... observing him BEFORE putting him in the box has NOTHING to do with his current state.

Secondly, he's not going to go around looking for a decaying particle connected to a poison release for his cat...

-blazed

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It has to be either dead or alive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it say that cat would die from poison? Corrrect me if I'm wrong again, but poison doesn't leave you in a dead-and-alive state.

 

[gm jack]

The point is that in quantum mechanics, events are never definite and are only governed by probabilities until the result is observed. As such, you must assume everything possible happens simultaneously until the actual result is observed.

The actual problem is that a particle must be considered as both having as as yet to have decayed until it is observed. The whole poison release mechanism is just to put it into an easier to understand format in a way to explain the random nature of quantum mechanics.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What I don't understand, however, Is that the poison would kill the cat, eliminating a dead and alive fact. (th only logical explenatiomn I could think of this Is if the cats molecules decompose)

 

[GoldShadow]

My cat is named Schrödinger. True story! Here he is.

Regrettably, I don't have a picture of him inside of a box. Though I will soon...

Don't poison your cat, Alt!

 

[gm jack]

What I don't understand, however, Is that the poison would kill the cat, eliminating a dead and alive fact. (th only logical explenatiomn I could think of this Is if the cats molecules decompose)

With quantum, every possibility is simultaneously true until the true result is revealed.

That is all Schrodinger's cat tries to show. Saying something is dead and alive is stupid, which is why they used it. At a quantum level, some really bizarre physics takes place.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

With quantum, every possibility is simultaneously true until the true result is revealed.

That is all Schrodinger's cat tries to show. Saying something is dead and alive is stupid, which is why they used it. At a quantum level, some really bizarre physics takes place.

Bizzare is an understatement. I memorized the periodic table and I don't get this stuff.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Don't poison your cat, Alt!

Please listen to GoldShadow I love kittens please do not harm the kitty. I beg you.

 

[blazedaces]

Bizzare is an understatement. I memorized the periodic table and I don't get this stuff.

Dark Horse... it's less complicated then people make it out to be.

As someone who's taken some philosophy classes I'm telling you, it has very little to do with the science and more to do with simply a philosophical viewpoint (this isn't entirely true, as experiments have been conducted that show quantum mechanics is well, "winning" this debate).

It's simply asking whether or not reality is based on our knowledge of it. Imagine you walk into class, the desk is there when you walk in and sit down. But when you come back tomorrow, before you walk into class, how do you know the desk will be there?

And that begs the question, is the desk really there until you "know" the desk is there?

This is where the quantum mechanical crowd and the einsteinian physics crowd separate. According to Einstein, the desk is either "there" or "not there". According to the quantum mechanical crowd, we don't know, and there's no point in talking about it until we do. Reality, according to them, is quite literally based on whether or not you observe it. Until you "know" for sure, it's not.

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

First of all, no... observing him BEFORE putting him in the box has NOTHING to do with his current state.

Secondly, he's not going to go around looking for a decaying particle connected to a poison release for his cat...

-blazed

I'm talking about taking the photo when Alt's cat is in the box, I'm not that bad.

 

[gm jack]

Bizzare is an understatement. I memorized the periodic table and I don't get this stuff.

Memorisation has nothing to do with understanding. All it takes is to just be accepting that some things behave in a way that is completely different to what we experience day to day. It isn't that day to understand unless you try and rationalise it with larger scale physics, which cannot be done as it stands.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

I guess I am on the Einsteinian side of this. The cat cannot be both alive and dead, just as a given molecule in the air cannot be both O2 and CO2 at the same time, even though we cannot determine it with a naked eye.

If we put a video camera in the box, and had it do a live feed to our computers, would that change whether the cat was dead or alive? Certainly not.