/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6629240]

If you put a person instead of a cat in Schrodinger cat experiment, does the person qualify as being a zombie, since they are bout dead and alive at same time?
Zombie is defined as something dead, that is living.

[Anonymous No.6629251]

>>6629240
I thought Shroedinger's theory was a stab at disproving superposition?

[Anonymous No.6629263]

>>6629240

The funny thing is.

It seems like although we humans have problems solving sums like 1+1-1+1-1+1...

which only can have two solutions, of which then we give the final solution as the average of the two possible solutions, namely 1 and 0.

so that 1+1-1+1-1+1... = 1/2

Funny thing is, if nature were to be given such a question, whether an electron's spin is up or down, it will never say (up+down)/2.

This is the real problem that fucks with scientists today. That nature can make random decisions.

[Anonymous No.6629269]

>>6629263
Your example is wrong, its 1-1+1...
As for electrons, yea, its 3d movement, its not as binary as it would be nice.
Problem is that all problems that are taught are X or Y.
No one teaches 3d equalization's in school, and after that its too late, and the brain stagnates.

[Anonymous No.6629271]

>>6629263

Edit:

It will never say (up+down)/2, but it will always give a result, namely either up or down. It never seems to be confused.


and regarding Schrodinger's stupid thought experiment, nothing is physically half dead and half alive. We live in a reality where an object a mere meter is not infinitely accurate, aka i can never know what the object is doing now infinitely accurately, i can only know what the object was doing some 3.3333*10^-8 seconds ago.

Who is to say the object was not there, or doing some weird quantum stuff during that 3.3333*10^-8 secs while its light/infomation was travelling to me?

[Anonymous No.6629272]

>>6629263
>>>6629240(OP)
>
>The funny thing is.
>
>It seems like although we humans have problems solving sums like 1+1-1+1-1+1...
>
>which only can have two solutions, of which then we give the final solution as the average of the two possible solutions, namely 1 and 0.
>
>so that 1+1-1+1-1+1... = 1/2
>
>Funny thing is, if nature were to be given such a question, whether an electron's spin is up or down, it will never say (up+down)/2.
>
>This is the real problem that fucks with scientists today. That nature can make random decisions.

this whole post.
Man, tell me you're high, 12yo and fan of twilight.

[Anonymous No.6629281]

>>6629271
edit again:

We live in a reality where an object a mere meter AWAY CANNOT BE KNOWN TO infinite accuraCY,


The moment we seal up the cat in a box, and for that cat to become quantum mechanical, one must make UTTERLY SURE that no information leaks from the box, aka no EM waves, NO gravity/ gravity waves(if they exist), no sound waves, basically no infomation that can tell you a cat is inside can escape.

Then that system is quantum mechanical.

Sounds familiar does it? Sounds like a galaxy/some object outside of our light cone? Outside of our observable universe?

That's why schrodinger was wrong. he made the assumption we knew about the state inside before and DURING the experiment took place.

[Anonymous No.6629287]

>>6629272
retard

[Anonymous No.6629305]

>>6629281
The difference between gravity waves from dead or alive ting is negligible, since the effect observed(?unobserved) is not directly dependent on it, and can be summed up to a less than 1% category, as it has no real effect on outcome, unless there is a extreme anomaly.

Also impossible since the ingredients for tings produce some kind of radiation or field, otherwise atoms stop being together.

Does object need protection against tings not observed? Because there could be any number of things we could observe, but don't know about yet.

Quantum science is weird, and hard to observe.

[Anonymous No.6629311]

>>6629287
funny coming from a gibberish poster spreading hilarious sentences like
" we humans have problems solving sums like 1+1-1+1-1+1...
which only can have two solutions, of which then we give the final solution as the
average of the two possible solutions, namely 1 and 0.
so that 1+1-1+1-1+1... = 1/2"

[Anonymous No.6629313]

>>6629281
>That's why schrodinger was wrong. he made the assumption we knew about the state inside before and DURING the experiment took place.
and once again, we have a winner who totally misunderstand what was the point of Schrödinger thought's experiment

Should we, once again, post the original paper to clarify?

[Anonymous No.6629314]

>>6629305

Yes, it is hard to observe because if we do the cat would die and be alive somehow.
I don't understand quantum mechanics. You need to not know about something for it to work? God exists!

[Anonymous No.6629325]

>>6629314
Can you use the same arguments that are used for quantum mechanics, to prove existence of god?
Would be funny as hell lol.