/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2481579]

can some explain Schrödinger's cat to me and what it represents in english?

[Anonymous No.2481587]

it represents the superposition of states

[Anonymous No.2481586]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

[Anonγmous No.2481592]

It's possible for something to be two things at the same time until we try to figure out which it is.

[Anonymous No.2481593]

first off: it was a thought experiment invented by schrödinger, who tried to demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.2481594]

Until you observe something, it does not exist in one specific state. When you observe it, you force it to "choose" one state and it seems like it's been that way the entire time.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2481602]

Schrödinger's cat though experiment is just a though experiment so we can visualize how different interpretations of QM work.

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.

[Anonymous No.2481619]

>>2481602
>qm
>intelligent observer

[Anonymous No.2481645]

>>2481579
imho the problem with asking such a question here is that there are many people who think they understand the point of the thought experiment when in fact they don't.
(in fact this is true for many related questions. You can't learn quantum mechanics from school textbooks or wikipedia)

[Anonymous No.2481648]

>>2481602

God DAMN it, Tautologic, SHUT UP. Just shut the fuck up. CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT CAUSE COLLAPSE. THE MOON IS STILL THERE EVEN WHEN NOBODY IS LOOKING AT IT.

QUANTUM MECHANICS DOES NOT INTO MYSTICISM.

YES I MAD.

And most of all, stop misinforming science noobs. It's academically IRRESPONSIBLE. Ya know what? You should just get the fuck off my /sci/, go back to >>>/x/ and never return

[Anonymous No.2481660]

>>2481619
>>2481648

lulz

[Anonymous No.2481664]

>>2481602
Everything in this post is 100% wrong.

[Anonymous No.2481676]

Here you are, on the simple english wikipedia.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/simple/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2481794]

>>2481648
>>2481664

samefag who insists on rejecting facts that seem miraculous, but seem the most likely interpretation according to our best sceintific knowledge.

If you deny that particles in it`s wave form collapse because of conscious you basically put the reliability of our observations(of qm tests) into doubt.

Fallowing that logic you will put the whole field of sceince into doubt, like solipsism does.

I just think you`re sailing a deceptive course here.
The kind of astray i want to warn these science noobs for.

[Anonymous No.2481815]

>>2481794
Everything in this post is 100% wrong.

[Anonymous No.2481823]

>>2481664
Yes, including the existence of the poster.

[Anonymous No.2481832]

>>2481602
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.

[Anonymous No.2481828]

>>2481794
>solipsism

Solipsism explains qm rather nicely.

[Anonymous No.2481849]

>>2481794
In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction represents our knowledge of the system, not the system itself. The fact that it's altered by me observing something doesn't necessarily mean that my observation is altering the system.

There is no evidence that conscious observation triggers a physical collapse process. Consciousness causes collapse is one possible interpretation of what's happening to the system, but only one possible interpretation. And it's an incomplete interpretation is incomplete until someone figures out what exactly causes some things to be conscious and others not. There are many other interpretations of quantum mechanics which assign no special role to conscious observers.

[Anonymous No.2481877]

>>2481794
You are a faggot and wrong

[Anonymous No.2481887]

>>2481849
Was uncolapsed wavefuction obeserved yet? I don't think so... What if every single particle in existence is conscious and self aware?

[Anonymous No.2481908]

>>2481794
The solipsist attitude is correct. That denies every feasible aspect of science.

[Anonymous No.2481910]

>>2481794
You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2481932]

>>2481887
You don't ever observe the wavefunction in CI. You observe physical properties called observables whose probability distributions are predicted using the wavefunction.

It doesn't matter whether anything other than you is conscious in CI. The wavefunction describes the information *you* have about the system. Only your observations collapse it.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2481976]

>>2481849

>the wavefunction represents our knowledge of the system, not the system itself.

To me that sounds like
"wave frequencies of light represents our knowledge of colors, not the colors itself."

So everitime i would refer to the color red you could go like "There is no evidence that`s really red "

I think you are falling back onto solipsism here, this isn`t necessarily a wrong position.

But don`t blame people who`ll rather rely on the most elegant interpretation of it that are suggested with various experiments.
Just like you can`t blame someone for thinking that roses are red.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2481981]

>>2481849

>the wavefunction represents our knowledge of the system, not the system itself.

To me that sounds like
"wave frequencies of light represents our knowledge of colors, not the colors itself."

So everitime i would refer to the color red you could go like "There is no evidence that`s really red etc."

I think you are falling back onto solipsism here, this isn`t necessarily a wrong position.

But don`t blame people who`ll rather rely on the most elegant interpretation of it that are suggested with various experiments.
Just like you can`t blame someone for thinking that roses are red.

[Anonymous No.2481983]

Every time I think of this thought experiment it has me thinking. If a modern day scientist presented a theory in a manner similar to Schrodinger (ie. if X happens, the cat will die), would they be raped up the ass for unnecessary animal cruelty?

[Naggarothian !!0S4L3hs2lkr No.2481989]

>>2481981
>To me that sounds like
>"wave frequencies of light represents our knowledge of colors, not the colors itself."

You know where people as derpy as you belong?

>>>/x/

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2482007]

>>2481989

i know that methaphor wasn`t drawn up in the best way, but i`m sure you get the message.

[Anonymous No.2482041]

>>2482007
That you are a pseudo-intellectual idiot?

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2482053]

>>2481910
no you

[Anonymous No.2482073]

>>2481976
No, it's more like this: I flip two coins, but don't look at it. My knowledge of the coins is represented by a probability distribution. Now if someone tells me that at least one coin is heads, that probability distribution collapses. Does that mean the coin itself was changed by your thoughts? No.

Unlike your redness example, wavefunction collapse has never been observed in real life. It's just an element of the theory.

[Anonymous No.2482094]

>>2481981
No, it's more like this: I flip two coins, but don't look at it. My knowledge of the coins is represented by a probability distribution. Now if someone tells me that at least one coin is heads, that probability distribution collapses. Does that mean the coin itself was changed by your thoughts? No. It's one possible interpretation of what's happening to the coin, but not the only interpretation or even the simplest interpretation.

Unlike your redness example, wavefunctions and collapse have never been observed in real life. They're just an elements of the theory.

[Anonymous No.2482645]

can someone explain what this experiment means and how it's carried out in plain english? i'm not a science major but this looks interesting