schrodinger's cat

[Guest HydroTemplar]

the hypothetical schrodinger's cat experiment illustrates a well-respected theory of quantum physics. the experiment is there is a radioactive element, a geiger counter connected to a hammer, which is poised to smash a vial of deadly poison gas, and a cat in a soundproof, opaque box. if the element emits radiation, the geiger counter picks it up and releases the hammer to smash the vial, hence killing the cat. if it does not emit radiation, the cat lives. now, is the cat dead or alive? until an observer opens the box and sees whether the cat is dead or alive, the cat is in a state of being both dead and alive to the observer. this is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics. let's take it a step further. once the observer observes the state of the cat, take the group waiting in the next room. to them, the cat is Still in the state of dead and alive. this illustrates the difference between the universe of different people. say someone were playing a virtual reality game. to that person, everything feels real, so as far as their observations go, that world is real. to someone else looking upon the person playing the game, the person is just wearing a goofy hat that covers their head and a bunch of wires. we can take this concept of observer realities to the degree that if an observer sees, feels, etc a diety, that diety is real. and since reality is relative to one's personal observations, there is no saying that someone is wrong, for from their observative reality, the diety is quite real. the observer makes it real.

 

here is an article that goes more in depth in the concept of observers creating reality...

http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-02/features/featuniverse/

[Antihero]

Except the idea that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time is absurd. Either you know the cat is alive or dead, or you don't.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I never understood the Schrodinger's Cat thing. A chemist told me, "it's counterintuitive but it's what the math tells us." I.e. the probability of each outcome being the same, both are true. I still don't see why it isn't a confusion of language. Can't we say either:

-- the probability of the cat's being alive is less than 1, and the probability of the cat's being dead is less than 1

or

-- the cat is alive or dead at time t (and the observer does not know which is true)

 

To me it sounds as though part of the trick is the use of the phrase "is in a state of being." If we say the cat "is in a state of being both dead and alive to the observer," we're asserting something about the cat as well as about the observer. I don't think adding the qualifier "to the observer" removes the violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction in the earlier part of the statement. So why not just talk about the mathematical probability of each outcome and leave it at that, without adding unknowable assertions about the cat's state of being at a given time?

 

CT, Mr. Spooky and Han, where are you?

[MrSpooky]

I don't think Shroedinger's cat is supposed to be a description of an actual macroscopic event. It's very much just an analogy for how particles behave at the quantum level, where a particle can exist between two discrete states until it is observed, whereby it collapses into one.

 

EDIT: I don't think physicists were ever any good when it comes to analogies.

 

 

 

Important tangeant:

 

I generally see quantum physics being thrown at me to "disprove" the Law of Noncontradiction, but I have to remind everyone that the Law of Noncontradiction is about how an element behaves within A SPECIFIC CONTEXT. That is, when you're talking about color, you look at a range of hue and saturation to judge what color it is exactly... "loudness" and "tone" are irrelevant to color.

 

On the same token, the Quantum level behaves on a set of very different principles from the macroscopic.

[Ouroboros]

Except the idea that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time is absurd.  Either you know the cat is alive or dead, or you don't.

You don't if you can't check.

 

If you find a black box on the beach, and you can't open it, but you think there is something in it. Can you know what's in the box, or can't you, without opening it?

[Ouroboros]

(Another thing that's interesting with the Cat in the Box, is that if you open the box, you risk of getting more radiation into it, and might cause the death of the cat, even if he was alive before you opened it. Just my little note.)

 

The uncertainty exist for the position, direction and speed of a particle, and physicists represent it with a waveform formula rather than a fixed little marble in space somewhere. You can't know position and speed at the same time, because the reading technique will get one but destroy the other property.

[Ouroboros]

I never understood the Schrodinger's Cat thing.

I know. It was a problem for me too, and still is, but mostly because (I think) in how it is presented. The SC is just an allegory to explain that we don't know certain outcomes before we can take a look. And it also explains that if we make an experiment or do a calculation we have to take into account the uncertainty of certain things.

 

It's similar, but not the same, to how the a+bX+cX^2=0 formula is resolved. You'll get two answers and both are correct. So if X is important in a larger set of formulas, you have to take into account that X has two values, and not one.

[Ouroboros]

Reality stinks.

 

We can't really know if someone else has a mind that understands reality at all. I only know what I think I know, and only I know what I percieve as reality. But I can't even be sure if the people around me are "just like me", in the sense that they have a "soul" or awareness of any kind. They could be "zoombies" or "robots", and I wouldn't know better.

[Antihero]

You don't if you can't check.

 

If you find a black box on the beach, and you can't open it, but you think there is something in it. Can you know what's in the box, or can't you, without opening it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The cats state of being (alive, or dead) is not contingent upon my knowledge, or anyone elses. The cat is never alive and dead. Life goes on (or doesn't) whether we know about it or not, and whether it is locked in a sound-proof opaque box with a vial of poison, or not. Like Mr. Spooky said, it is just a poor analogy for a part of quantum theory.

[Amethyst]

You cannot be both alive and dead (unless the cat is undead, which isn't possible in real life). Just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it's both. It is logically either one or the other.

 

As for knowing what's in the box, couldn't you just put it through an X-Ray machine (like the kind they have at airports)?

[Ouroboros]

You cannot be both alive and dead (unless the cat is undead, which isn't possible in real life).  Just because you cannot see it, doesn't mean it's both.  It is logically either one or the other.

We know that, but we can't know which one it is. And quantum mechanics unfortunately show examples of dual or multiple states simultaneous. And particles behave as unique objects and as waveforms at the same time, and depending on how you perform an experiment, you'll get the result either as a particle or as a waveform. Matter and energy is affected by the experiment itself.

 

As for knowing what's in the box, couldn't you just put it through an X-Ray machine (like the kind they have at airports)?

Then you have made an observation, and you know at that moment if the cat is dead or alive. But if the cat is dead, do you know when it happened?

 

The problem with observing particles is that you can't "read" the position and momentum of a it at the same time, since you're working on such a small scale, that the energy from your reading will affect the outcome.

 

If you use a photon to check on a particle, the photon will increase the energy of the particle. You may get where the particle were, but will loose where it's going.

[Ouroboros]

The cats state of being (alive, or dead) is not contingent upon my knowledge, or anyone elses.  The cat is never alive and dead.  Life goes on (or doesn't) whether we know about it or not, and whether it is locked in a sound-proof opaque box with a vial of poison, or not.  Like Mr. Spooky said, it is just a poor analogy for a part of quantum theory.

The analogy was not intended to explain a problem with a particular cat experiment, but the problem of us not knowing unless we "check" the system.

 

Until we have checked the system we have to admit both posibilities in any kind of calculation we do.

 

Say that we know the cats age, and we have a formula to update the cats age.

A = t0+tn

 

This formula only works if the cat is still alive. So somehow you have to build in the contingency that the cat might be dead.

 

A=t0+td : cat dead

A=t0+tn : cat alive

 

Actually I don't think the analogy is bad, it's usually the explanation that is bad.

 

At a certain point of time we don't know, and until we check, we have to include both posibilities in our process of reasoning. That's all that it is about.

[Ouroboros]

I think this expressed it better than I could:

Basically what Schrodinger is saying is that because of the way the experiment is set up, the cat has a 50% chance of being alive, and a 50% chance of being dead. It is just as likely that the cat is alive as that it is dead, so Schrodinger said that until the box is opened, the cat is both alive and dead. This is obviously false, the cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. This problem is meant to illustrate a theory of quantum mechanics called "indeterminacy." Indeterminacy says that there can be more than one correct answer to a problem which physically can only have one answer. Schrodinger came up with this illustration to demonstrate that there was a problem with this theory of quantum mechanics.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kid...t.html&edu=high

[♦ ficino ♦]

I had suspected that what seems problematic about the Schroedinger's Cat analogy is not a question of the behavior of subatomic particles as much as it is a question of how we talk about their behavior. Han, your quotation makes me think this is true.

 

Aristotle long ago said "they neglect the 'pros ti' and thus judge badly," where 'pros ti' in Greek means 'in relation to what.' Can we say that the propositions 'light is particulate' and 'light is a wave' do not together violate any classical laws of thought, because when we consider their sets of relations, we can admit that 'particulate' is not equivalent to 'non-wave'? Or something like that?

 

As to the relevance of this question to ex-christianity, I agree with Spooky that we can't say: "Oh gee, now that we live in a quantum world, I guess the law of non-contradiction is out the window. Therefore Calvinism is true."

[Ouroboros]

I had suspected that what seems problematic about the Schroedinger's Cat analogy is not a question of the behavior of subatomic particles as much as it is a question of how we talk about their behavior.  Han, your quotation makes me think this is true.

Very true. Recently I read about a new way of looking at mass, they call it the "jiggling vacuum". Probably I need to read the article before I can say anything about what they really mean, but it truly sounds funky.

 

Another thing I read, was about particles that if you manage to break loose a quark from a particle, immediately new quarks will appear and complete that single quark into a complete new particle. I'm not sure, but to me it sounds like new matter can come into existence from vacuum energy.

 

Aristotle long ago said "they neglect the 'pros ti' and thus judge badly," where 'pros ti' in Greek means 'in relation to what.'  Can we say that the propositions 'light is particulate' and 'light is a wave' do not together violate any classical laws of thought, because when we consider their sets of relations, we can admit that 'particulate' is not equivalent to 'non-wave'?  Or something like that?

Particles behave as unique objects and waves at the same time. That just what they do. So one thought is that particles are just a manifestation of wave energy, or vacuum energy like I said above.

 

As to the relevance of this question to ex-christianity, I agree with Spooky that we can't say:  "Oh gee, now that we live in a quantum world, I guess the law of non-contradiction is out the window.  Therefore Calvinism is true."

Right.

[woodsmoke]

I think this expressed it better than I could:

Basically what Schrodinger is saying is that because of the way the experiment is set up, the cat has a 50% chance of being alive, and a 50% chance of being dead. It is just as likely that the cat is alive as that it is dead, so Schrodinger said that until the box is opened, the cat is both alive and dead. This is obviously false, the cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. This problem is meant to illustrate a theory of quantum mechanics called "indeterminacy." Indeterminacy says that there can be more than one correct answer to a problem which physically can only have one answer. Schrodinger came up with this illustration to demonstrate that there was a problem with this theory of quantum mechanics.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kid...t.html&edu=high

 

Thanks Han, beat me to it. I actually got my description of this problem through the Schroedinger's Cat trilogy of novels. I didn't understand a fraction of it at the time, but I think it was a large expoundment and speculation on quantum physics guided by a "story" set in an alternate universe. I felt the book's description was much easier to grasp for the layman, however I lost wordperfect when I reinstalled Windows a few weeks ago and haven't been able to get ahold of a new copy, so I can't post it here. :/

 

As that quote says, Schroedinger's cat was basically his way of showing something's not quite right with quantum physics in its present state.

 

Of course, it pretty well goes without saying to take anything I state on this subject with a few hundred tons of salt. I've done a very small amount of reading and dabbilng, but I don't begin to pretend that I have even the slightest clue what the hell I'm talking about. This stuff blows my mind.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks Han, beat me to it. I actually got my description of this problem through the Schroedinger's Cat trilogy of novels. I didn't understand a fraction of it at the time, but I think it was a large expoundment and speculation on quantum physics guided by a "story" set in an alternate universe. I felt the book's description was much easier to grasp for the layman, however I lost wordperfect when I reinstalled Windows a few weeks ago and haven't been able to get ahold of a new copy, so I can't post it here. :/

Was it good? I've been thinking about reading it, but there's too many other books I'm working on at the moment. But if you recommend it, it will get higher up on my list.

 

As that quote says, Schroedinger's cat was basically his way of showing something's not quite right with quantum physics in its present state.

Well, I don't think it was meant to say something wasn't quite right with the quantum physicis, but rather that we have a problem understanding it. Quantum Physics is so much like Evolution in the sense that we know it's there, but we don't understand all the components of it, and also we have some misconceptions of it too. They don't know for sure what matter is or what gravity is. The basic components of our world, and we're still not quite sure...

 

Of course, it pretty well goes without saying to take anything I state on this subject with a few hundred tons of salt. I've done a very small amount of reading and dabbilng, but I don't begin to pretend that I have even the slightest clue what the hell I'm talking about. This stuff blows my mind.

Hehe! I'm a super-dabbler too. Love the subject. Read all the time. And still things seem a bit confusing and contradictory at times.

 

(and a side note, I never like the Schrodinger's Cat either... I thought it was cruel!)

[woodsmoke]

Was it good? I've been thinking about reading it, but there's too many other books I'm working on at the moment. But if you recommend it, it will get higher up on my list.

 

It was several years ago that I read it and I really can't remember all that much, but it certainly was interesting. One of these days I'd like to read it again and see if I understand it any better, but I wouldn't be surprised if my comprehension was much the same as the first time through.

 

Well, I don't think it was meant to say something wasn't quite right with the quantum physicis, but rather that we have a problem understanding it. Quantum Physics is so much like Evolution in the sense that we know it's there, but we don't understand all the components of it, and also we have some misconceptions of it too. They don't know for sure what matter is or what gravity is. The basic components of our world, and we're still not quite sure...

 

Right, that's what I was trying to get at. Unfortunately, my fingers fell a little short of accurate conveyance of my thoughts, it seems.

 

Hehe! I'm a super-dabbler too. Love the subject. Read all the time. And still things seem a bit confusing and contradictory at times.

 

(and a side note, I never like the Schrodinger's Cat either... I thought it was cruel!)

 

Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that folks who have devoted their lives to the study of quantum physics don't really understand it all that much greater than we do. Wouldn't say as much to any of them in person, of course. They still easily know enough to run circles around me.

 

I'd never really thought of the cruelty to the cat. I suppose I always thought the nature of the problem presented was his way of getting revenge. "Kill me and I'll fuck up everything you know about quantum physics, you bastards!"

[Ouroboros]

Right, that's what I was trying to get at. Unfortunately, my fingers fell a little short of accurate conveyance of my thoughts, it seems.

Happens to me too... It must be the keyboards fault...

 

Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that folks who have devoted their lives to the study of quantum physics don't really understand it all that much greater than we do.

That could be very true! It for sure seems to be that way when you read all the competing theories.

 

Wouldn't say as much to any of them in person, of course. They still easily know enough to run circles around me.

Very true. Sometimes not sure if they run for real, or if it is just an illusion...

 

I'd never really thought of the cruelty to the cat. I suppose I always thought the nature of the problem presented was his way of getting revenge. "Kill me and I'll fuck up everything you know about quantum physics, you bastards!"

I wonder if Schrodinger ever put in the cats 9 lives into the calculation?

 

Maybe the true answer was: the cat is most likely alive, since it has 8 more lives to spare if it died.

[Guest HydroTemplar]

ok, perhaps schrodinger's cat wasn't the best example... but my point is that the observer defines reality... light being measured as photons acts like particles and light being measured as waves acts like waves... it is not until it is observed that the light is determined to be a particle or a wave... i think that is a better way to get across what i'm saying... or is it... i don't know... as (was it mr spooky) said, not really good at the analogies thing... but my point is there... somewhere : P

[Ouroboros]

ok, perhaps schrodinger's cat wasn't the best example... but my point is that the observer defines reality... light being measured as photons acts like particles and light being measured as waves acts like waves... it is not until it is observed that the light is determined to be a particle or a wave... i think that is a better way to get across what i'm saying... or is it... i don't know... as (was it mr spooky) said, not really good at the analogies thing... but my point is there... somewhere : P

It's all good. No analogy is ever perfect anyway.

 

You question is asked by many philosophers also. I'm not extremely good in remember who said what etc, but the jury is still out on if reality does exist or not.

 

Maybe we just live in a "hologram", and what we see, feel, touch and hear are just imagined. We wouldn't know. How do I know that you know that or not?

 

What we perceive as consciousness and awareness might also be an illusion.

 

To relate back to your starting post. A man that believes in a divine entity, and feels that he's certain about it, makes his "god" real to him, that is true. This is something you could call the "individual real".

 

As opposed to a "personal real", is there a "common real", that we all share? Something that exists and can be true to both you and to me at the same time? If it does, would it mean that the belief in a "god" make this "god" existing in this "common real"? That I can not be, since every loony idea and belief would become real to everyone else, and we would have a world similar to the Wonderland.

 

So what I'm trying to say is that there's two different concepts of "real" that you refer to. The personal real is very much real to the person that has a belief or not, but the common real (if such exists) can not be affected just by a mere faith or belief in something.

[♦ ficino ♦]

my point is that the observer defines reality... light being measured as photons acts like particles and light being measured as waves acts like waves... it is not until it is observed that the light is determined to be a particle or a wave...

 

What about this: the unit of measurement chosen by the observer yields a measurement expressed in those units. What differs in the different cases are the methodologies, as one observer abstracts one feature to observe, another abstracts another. The geometer studies a human being's plane surfaces and solid magnitudes, while the medical researcher studies the human's biological processes. If the geometer said the human was composed of minute triangles, and the biologist said s/he was composed of carbon cells, they wouldn't be violating the law of contradiction, because the "in relation to what?" differs. So they're not defining reality differently from each other so much as abstracting different qualities to study.

 

Would this analogy apply to the paradox about light, or location and velocity of subatomic particles? To focus on different methods, abstracting different qualities, might be a way of sidestepping what seems to be the trap of predicating contradictory qualities to the entities themselves.

[spamandham]

The more important question as I see it is, if we attach toast to the back of the cat with the butter facing outward, and drop the two, will they levitate in a state of quantum indeterminacy since the cat must land on its feet and the toast must land buttered side down?

 

(wish I could actually take credit for this one)

[Dark Helmet]

The more important question as I see it is, if we attach toast to the back of the cat with the butter facing outward, and drop the two, will they levitate in a state of quantum indeterminacy since the cat must land on its feet and the toast must land buttered side down?

 

(wish I could actually take credit for this one)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well the 'observation' (ie: hitting the ground!) will only have one result and the toast/cat indeterminacy will have to make a choice.

[woodsmoke]

well the 'observation' (ie: hitting the ground!) will only have one result and the toast/cat indeterminacy will have to make a choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It'll have to do no such thing. That's the whole point of it being an indeterminacy. They're both doomed to hover in that spot for the rest of time unless something comes along to force a result. (i.e. separating the two)