/sci/ - Science & Math

[Tautoulogic No.2242127]

Pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation (which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver) is most likely.
Because that`s where modern QM is based on.

They prefere to ignore the subject of what causes a particle in it`s wave to become a solid particle.
This because they want to be taken seriously be as much people as possible and don`t want thier findings to be abused by new-age scam and people who`ll not understand it and blow things up.

Schrödinger's cat though experiment is just a though experiment so we can visualize how different interpretations of QM work.
>The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies(or suggests) 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.

So as long as there`s no interaction with a particle that never did interact with an intellegent observer, the cat would technically still be in a closed system.

Although a lot of interactions take place, The cat would still be in superposition as long as it`s not obseved (by an intelligen being) AND doesn`t interact with a particle that deterministicly traces back to an intelligent observer.

Note the last requirement is impossible to accomplish in practice, but not in theorie. That`s where a lot of people here go wrong.

Anyway thanks for listening.

[Anonymous No.2242151]

I don't think the Copenhagen interpretation says anything about intelligent observers, more along the line of macroscopical (i.e. classical) systems.

[Tautoulogic No.2242178]

[Anonymous No.2242196]

>Pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation (which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver) is most likely

[citation needed]

[Josef !!nUf2NflSAyw No.2242201]

>`
That is not an apostrophe, but it still is the most correct part of your post. (And also the one that is the least retarded. Remarkable.)

[Anonymous No.2242222]

So at the quantum level we can't measure shit, therefore shit can't be determined? That doesn't mean shit doesn't have a state, or does it? Shit is faster then speed of light then? fuckeyeah.tiff

[Anonymous No.2242234]

>>2242127
>which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver

Yeah, no.

All the Copenhagen interpretation does is reject Counterfactual definiteness to maintain Local Realism. But since the interpretation doesn't effect the math and just creates a way of imagining the world outside of possible experience its all metaphysical nonsense anyway.

[Anonymous No.2242245]

>>2242234
This is the truth.

[Anonymous No.2242269]

>>2242245
>>2242234

samefag

[Anonymous No.2242288]

Killing cats in boxes is really not very cool, sorry but I can't stand by it even if it's scientific

[Anonymous No.2242613]

bump

[Anonymous No.2242619]

The Copenhagen interpretation is only slightly less ridiculous than the many-worlds interpretation.

[Anonymous No.2242623]

>(which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver)
the "observer" in quantum mechanics is always an object that is not part of the object's wavefunction which is being discussed
It, almost always, is some microscopic particle, who usually don't display any kind of intelligence

[Anonymous No.2242641]

fail in first sentence. Copenhagen interpretation doesn't assume an intelligent observer, infact it only says that all existing information about the system is contained in the wavefunction.

Concerning cats and the like, decoherence prevents them from being in superposition.

[Anonymous No.2242674]

[Anonymous No.2242699]

>>2242623
look more closely to the implementations of the cat paradox (with copenhagen theorie) more closely.
I know it sounds rediculous but that`s what you get when you look more closely at what prominent sceintists actually say.

>Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?

If an external particle in its wave form that never has been in contact with an intelligent observer passes trough the box, it would technically just be part the closed system. Although lost of interactions take place no superposition would collapse.

[Tautoulogic No.2242704]

>>2242623
look more closely to the implementations of the cat paradox (with copenhagen theorie) more closely.
I know it sounds rediculous but that`s what you get when you look more closely at what prominent sceintists actually say.

>Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?

If an external particle in its wave form that never has been in contact with an intelligent observer passes trough the box, it would technically just be part the closed system. Although lost of interactions take place no superposition would collapse.

[Tautoulogic No.2242726]

>>2242641
>Copenhagen interpretation doesn't assume an intelligent observer

niggerwut

[Tautoulogic No.2242761]

bump

[Anonymous No.2242791]

>>2242288
this

Just stick with rats and mice.

[Anonymous No.2242794]

[Anonymous No.2242816]

>Pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation.

maybe 40 years ago that would have been true

[Anonymous No.2242926]

>>2242816

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

[Anonymous No.2242949]

Whitehead throws away this fallacy; in his system the two modes of analyzing an actual occasion cover the wave/particle bases (and there isn't any duality, dipshits) but I always seem to go far over /sci/'s collective head by taking it to the process philosophy level.

[Anonymous No.2243236]

>>2242926

Hey retard, usually good to check the citation from wikipedia.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709032v1

>A (highly unscientific) poll taken at the 1997 UMBC quantum mechanics workshop gave the once all-dominant Copenhagen interpretation less than half of the votes.

>less than half of the votes

how is that even close to
>Pretty much all

asshat

[Anonymous No.2243267]

>>2243236

Nicely done. I love it when people go to the trouble of checking the facts.