/sci/ - Science & Math

Kurisu please ...

>>15636876
I was worried about wildberger being in poor form, no idea how things will play out with Kurisu and Hawking as blue

>i'd be happy to get disproven
>gets disproven
>ACSHUALLY
i hate schizos

>>15194420
No, psychology is a meme

>>15178076
>concatenating
CS pleb spotted

What's there to debate? Its at best its a bunch of heuristics.

>>15085924
>Acceleration means exponential.

sure are a lot of brainlets in this thread. here's all you need to understand about physics to make sense of schrodinger's cat:
1) in physics, superposition is the principle that independent sources of an effect can be analyzed independently.
2) quantum mechanics can be thought of via probabilities.
for an example of 1), consider a dipole with a + charge and a - charge, and you're tasked with finding the electric field everywhere. well, that's trivial. [math]E_{tot} = E_+ + E_-[/math]. Superposition here means we simply add the effects of source charge + and source charge -. ezpz.

all schrodinger's cat says is that the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead. basically this is just |cat> = a|dead> + b|alive>. what this means is that the cat is EITHER alive or dead, with some probability weights of a and b. only a legitimate retard interprets superposition as something existing due to BOTH states.

let us return to the electric charges, and think about what superposition meant. at every point in space, what is the correct understanding of superposition?
>1) at point P, the net electric field is the sum of E+ and E-
>2) at point P, the net electric field is BOTH e+ and E-
>3) at point P, the net electric field is ONLY from E+
>4) at point P, the net electric field is ONLY from E-
>5) all of the above
>6) none of the above
if we apply the retarded interpretation of shcrodinger's cat to these electric charges, you'd be led to believe that 5) is correct, which is clearly not true. formally, only 1) is correct. if you stretch your understanding of logic (and of physics), you might be able to argue 2) is correct, but that's not strictly accurate.

in summary, the only correct way to understand the superposition of probabilities of the cat being alive or dead is that... well, the cat's existence is a sum of probabilities of it being either alive or dead. which is just vacuously true.

>>14611831
>tfw finish undergrad with a 2.6 and spent most of the last four years on IRAD
We're all gonna make it.

>>14585923

>the verification of this is in a paper by Bagger and Witten