/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11168977
>Is this a good analogy of Schrodinger's cat?
Depends on your point of view.

>Because those plates are clearly *not* broken.
Schrodinger's cat is a critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation. And once we're talking about quantum interpretations, we aren't really talking about facts, or even theories.
The interpretations are mostly about finding ways to think about physics when we have only limited knowledge about what's going on.
Schrodinger wasn't _really_ saying the cat is both alive and dead, instead he's criticizing Bohr and Heisenberg.
But it's really almost like arguing semantics, since there aren't any "right" or "wrong" answers, just ones that might help _you_ grasp what's going on.

>>9480848
>I have to describe time with retarded descriptions because there's no other way of doing so.
I just asked Google, and it said "7:14".
https://www.google.com/search?q=time
How fucking hard was that?

>>9237433
>>If we ignore all scientific evidence pointing towards the Earth being a lot older than 6000 years, and try to set an upper bound on its age based solely on the age of the oldest trees, which have comparatively short lifespans, it kinda seems like the Earth is only 6000 years old.
>No shit.
Except you'd have to explain how trees are obviously related to all other plants, but somehow spung into unrelated existence just after the world was "created".