/sci/ - Science & Math

I wish he'd have never used that example so morons would have one less thing to misinterpret.

can somebody explain shrodinger's theory to me in simple words

i dont understand and my brain hurts

>>2222432
*if you flip a coin and dont look at it, is it heads and tails?*

or if a tree fall in a whatever

straight from wiki:Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, usually described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The thought experiment presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. In the course of developing this experiment, he coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).

fuck my hed hurts titts or gtfo

u said u wanted titts...ur move

i can fap to that

bump

Try to understand that the idea of "Schrodinger's Cat" is just an extrapalation of what is understood (in the Copenhangen Interpretation) to happen on the microscopic level. It could never be applied to something as big as a cat.

>>2222430

People like you are mostly the one`s who don`t understand the theory(which is, according to a lot of prominent sceintists most likely to be reality).

Wiki
>the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses.
>Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?
>The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

That`s what the Copenhagen interpretation says and thats what is considered the most likely interpretation of QM by prominent sceintists all over the world.
It seems, there is some consciousness or immaterial element of an observer(human being/ other being) involved.
So stop being a pathatic fuck and accept the fact that some thing seem miraculous.

Reference to Wheeler's delayed choice experiment being successfully preformed...
>they claim that this experiment definitively rules out all interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, except the Copenhagen and the Bohm interpretation.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174876

>>2222524
>copenhagen interpretation
>consciousness causes collapse
>accepted by most QM scientists

>>2222507
not in practice of course.
(it is impossible make a box where absolutely no interaction between particles inside and outside the box take place, even the smallest radiation ruins the test.)

And yet, various experiments show the Copenhagen interpretation most likely and on eve of proven.

>>2222524
The "Copenhagen interpretation" is a vague term referring to the philosophical beliefs of a bunch of logical positivists who were involved in the creation of quantum mechanics. It's mostly just an instrumentalist interpretation, which means it doesn't make any ontological claims, e.g. things like

>the cat is simultaneously alive and dead

To put it simply, these people didn't trust anything they couldn't measure, and most of them would have probably refused to answer questions about the status of the cat before observation. Many of them would have rejected such questions as meaningless. That last notion was misguided, but the fact remains that the question can't be answered by science (assuming the theory is correct; a revised theory might include answers to the questions, but would also have to predict different experimental results). Science has limits.

>>2222538
>>2222538
>>2222538

pic related

Femanon here

when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?

I don’t.

When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

>>2222562
Science doesn't prove anything. It disproves theories and replaces them with better ones. Someday quantum mechanics will be replaced by a better theory, and perhaps some of the metaphysical questions will be answered.

If by Copenhagen you mean instrumentalism, then the Copenhagen interpretation IS quantum mechanics. Most of the interpretations (except the objective-collapse ones) are not different theories but different ontologies (statements about what is real and what isn't) for the same theory. By construction, no experiment can distinguish between them. Of course, that doesn't stop the occasional idiot from making sensationalist claims to that effect.

>>2222524
Oh great, its this guy again.

>>2222571

This is largely correct, although I would not agree that no interpretation of QM can be experimentally tested: I spend my time thinking of experiments for CCC.

>>2222744
i think he means wether there is one universe for every event outcome or if it just this one, but with a random outcome for some things cannot be tested. how would we do that?

CCC har little to do with this, as it builds on the same framework but also uses operators as observables and is similar in function

>>2222571

it doesn't make any ontological claims, e.g. things like
>the cat is simultaneously alive and dead

THNX think i understand you.

but wiki (and all popsceince magazines) say:

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

>SUGGESTS that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead.
should sound a lot better

and i see now why it`s called a paradox.

anyway people with the agnost view on this subject are not the people i am addressing.

It`s more those arrogants who still believe in determinism and rule out anything that sounds mysterious. i hate them so fucking much i come to this board everyday (because there are so many of them here) just to harras them and make thier worldview tumble.

>>2222744
Consciousness causes collapse technically falls into the category of objective collapse theories. It's probably one of the hardest to test, though. You'd really need a theory of consciousness first. Then you could try to create interference between two different states of mind. Of course, if you see interference, that wouldn't rule out CCC in general, just CCC plus the theory of consciousness. On the other hand, if you didn't get interference, that would be revolutionary.

>>2222814
of for fucks sake. conscience has nothing to do with this.
it is not the "oberservation" that does anything, it is the interaction we need to do in order to observe.
Otherwise things wouldnt exist without living things nearby. this would make the universes existance before life impossible and so would make the emergence of life also impossible (since it would have no place to do so..)

Please read books, stoners

>>2222833

Sagan was a cannabis user and enthusiast. Was he the uneducated, stupid stoner that stupid programs like D.A.R.E. and other propaganda devices taught underage idiots like you cannabis turns you into?

How about YOU read a book, buddy.

>>2222843
>implying carl sagan sat around and made shit up like the morons in these threads.

GTFO

>>2222846
>mfw people take bait so easily

>>2222833

See, this is the kind of arrogant people i was referring to.
He probebly doesn`t even know what though experiment we are talking about.

so.... Schrodinger's Theory is just basic philosophy?

''I think therefore I am'' etc ?

>>2222843
>implying sagan accomplished anything else with his life after he started using marijuana.

>>2222833
You can deal with this issue by including "no consciousness" as a possible state of consciousness for the purposes of wavefunction collapse. In that case, the universe would be in a superposition of many macroscopically different states not containing consciousness until at some random point, the first conscious observer appears. Now I'm not an advocate of CCC, and you can see in the post you quoted how it's not a well-defined idea by itself, but needs a theory of what constitutes consciousness (and some other technical details). But I'm not going to assume it's wrong without it having been tested. That's not what scientists do. If someone detects consciousness-induced-collapse in an experiment, I will start believing in CCC, and so should you.

That fucking cat was just a thing to illustrate how quantum mechs work (THAT MEANS ATOMS ETC).

It's not actually going to make you imortal

>>2222869
waht thought experiment would that be? surely you know that schodinger made ut the cat part as an illustration of how the theory was "broken", and was well aware that it only works for microscopic events, and that it seems to be correct as far as we are able to check and analyze.

it was not a thought experiment at all

This is definite proof we need that science is evil.

Who would kill a cute cat like that? Fucking evil assholes that's who.

record quisidly, because I'm gonna pretend the captcha is related as to add weight to my statement.

As a nonphysicistfag, this thread left me disappointed. I thought one of you would be able to explain the whole thing.

>>2222970
Copenhagen: You are asking meaningless questions. Stop it.

Consciousness causes collapse: Do cats have consciousness? If so, cat is either dead or alive. Otherwise, cat is in a superposition of dead and alive until somebody looks. Or maybe until the cat farts and causes a hurricane in China. Fuck, I don't know anything.

deBroglie-Bohm: Cat is either dead or alive, as determined by variables that we had no way to measure until after the experiment occurred.

Many-worlds: Cat is both dead and alive, even after somebody looks.

Objective collapse: Cat's deadness or aliveness causes a change in the positions of so many particles (or whatever collapses in my theory) that one of them is bound to have its position collapse, which by entanglement collapses the whole cat into a dead or alive state.

Time-symmetric interpretations: The final state of the universe is selected randomly based on the initial state. While we don't know the cat's status from the initial state of the universe, both the initial and final states influence the present status of the cat. Using both the initial and final states of the universe, we can tell whether the cat was alive or dead.

Reasonable scientist: There are many different ideas about what would happen; ultimately it's a mystery until some person much more clever than I figures out a practical way to test it.