NationStates Jolt Archive

Well it looks like this forum has hit a slump, the same old topics, nothing to stimulate the brain. So I'm gonna give jolt a replay of the first thread I ever started in the NS general forum. I'm giving away free cookies to anyone who can tell me about Schrodinger's Cat.

Mmmmm yummy cookies, my own personal recipe, a variation of the traditional chocolate chip with almonds and milk chocolate chips, I call them California chip cookies.

it's the cat in the box - only you don't know if it's there or not until you look...and the act of looking fixes where the cat is...erm...i believe poison was involved...er...you can probably tell that i've heard about it but don't really have the foggiest :D

i never was very good at physics...

but thanks for bringing up something refreshingly different!!!

I know Schrodinger's Cat i just dont know if its alive or dead


na seriously [nutshell]
schrodringer thought if you put a car in a box
blah blah
we dont know if its alive or dead
blah blah
outside observation
blah blah
both alive and dead
blah blah
parallel universes [\nutshell]
or something to that effect

the other piece of info i have re: Schroedinger's cat is that there's a nation who has it as their national animal somewhere - i've seen it on my travels...

can i have a cookie now please? I tried really really hard

*smiles sweetly at The Lost Planet*

Well, according to http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html this theory basically states that anything unkown can be (at least) two variables at once. In the cat example the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, as we do not know if it is indeed dead or alive. We can only know this by opening the box.

By the way, I must thank you for posting this! I've heard of a similar version of this theory and it's bugged me for years (seriously, like the past 4 or 5 years I couldn't forget it!) The version I heard was far more theoretical, and I'm not sure the following description is even accurate to what I remember. The one I remember sure was a lot different...can't really remember exactly how it went. I'm gonna hit the old google for a minute to see if I can find that version.

it's the cat in the box - only you don't know if it's there or not until you look...and the act of looking fixes where the cat is...erm...i believe poison was involved...er...you can probably tell that i've heard about it but don't really have the foggiest :D

i never was very good at physics...

but thanks for bringing up something refreshingly different!!!Well at least you found the right reference, yes it's physics and you have the senario right with the cat in the box. Have a cookie for at least trying.

Schrodinger's cat is an illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition. It serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.

Well, according to http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html this theory basically states that anything unkown can be (at least) two variables at once. In the cat example the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, as we do not know if it is indeed dead or alive. We can only know this by opening the box.

By the way, I must thank you for posting this! I've heard of a similar version of this theory and it's bugged me for years (seriously, like the past 4 or 5 years I couldn't forget it!) The version I heard was far more theoretical, and I'm not sure the following description is even accurate to what I remember. The one I remember sure was a lot different...can't really remember exactly how it went. I'm gonna hit the old google for a minute to see if I can find that version. Google is cheating, come on people this is the basis of the parallel universe theory and about a hundred different science fiction stories.

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html This is more similar to the version I remember. Except it was based on the idea that an electron can exist in 2 states simultaneously rather than just an atom. However, that detail may just memory corruption. *shrug*

Schrodinger's cat is an illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition. It serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.elaborate for the class, tell us how it illustrates this.

oooooooooo! cookies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANKS!!!!

*sits down on the box containing...or not...the cat, and snoffles the cookie in double quick time*

*wiping the crumbs from her face she says...*

heheheh! Schroedinger's cookies ;)

Google is cheating, come on people this is the basis of the parallel universe theory and about a hundred different science fiction stories.

Heh, don't forget that your audience is (especially in general forum) less likely to know about physics and parallel universes than various political facts. Heck, I read Scientific American and they had an interesting cover article about parallel universes just a few months ago, and I still didn't know what the cat experiment was all about.

Schrodinger's cat is an illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition. It serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.

*reads this and looks scared at the words "quantum theory"*

*runs to The Lost Planet for protection and hides behind him*

i'm a biochemist/psychologist not a physicist - and i know that sugar is very good for shock...and shock is very bad for the psyche...i think you should definitely give me another cookie!!!

the other piece of info i have re: Schroedinger's cat is that there's a nation who has it as their national animal somewhere - i've seen it on my travels...

can i have a cookie now please? I tried really really hard

*smiles sweetly at The Lost Planet*Schroedinger's cat is also the name of the region I founded and inhabit but that answer is not the one I'm looking for. It has to do with a quirk in quantum equations that give you two possible answers to a problem, one positive, one negative.

Put a live cat in a box with a radioactive source, geiger counter, a hammar and a sealed vial of poison.

When the source decays takes place the gieger counter trigger a device to make the hammer fall and break the vial. Which kills the cat

iirc, The problem is that quantum theory will predict that the source has a 50% chance to decay every hour.

Therefore, after an hour there is an equal probability that hte cat is either dead or alive.

*reads this and looks scared at the words "quantum theory"*

*runs to The Lost Planet for protection and hides behind him*

i'm a biochemist/psychologist not a physicist - and i know that sugar is very good for shock...and shock is very bad for the psyche...i think you should definitely give me another cookie!!!

they are sugarless cookies

:( :( :( :( :(

mebbe i should present you with a box with the answer you are looking for in it...or not ;)

Well if no one remembers to feed the cat he's dead regardless of whether or not you open the box.

My friend Buster Schrodinger has several cats. Which one are you interested in? I will capture the frisky feline and bring it to you for a cookie, but first I must know what kind of cookie would it be? Some of his cats are worth more than one cookie, especially the killer kitty.

Well if no one remembers to feed the cat he's dead regardless of whether or not you open the box.

Don't forget that it needs air holes in that box! Some water would probably be a good idea too...

Heh, don't forget that your audience is (especially in general forum) less likely to know about physics and parallel universes than various political facts. Heck, I read Scientific American and they had an interesting cover article about parallel universes just a few months ago, and I still didn't know what the cat experiment was all about.Oh come on it's not that dificult, I'm doing this from memory on stuff I learned over twenty years ago and I'm on my third beer. Carl Schroedinger, the name ring a bell with anyone? He was a contemporary of Einstein's. He had a problem with the little quirk I mentioned in quantum equations and created this little scenario to illustate it. It had an effect on the scientific community he didn't plan on.

they are sugarless cookies

Nah...i don't believe that.

The Lost Planet seems to have a scientific background. Therefore i would bet he wouldn't dream of eating sugarless cookies...all the scientific types i know go for the real thing :D

Now, back to this pesky cat. How does observation come into this?
Because observation affects the answer does it not?

And how is this all affected by that guy (whose name i don't remember) who is working on a theory that there are no such thing as...er...was it photons?

The Cat part is simple. The cat is placed in the box with a small amount of some isotope (I forget which), a quantity of deadly poison and a triggering mechanism that will fire upon the isotope releasing some particle or other (once again I forget what, doesn't really matter) and release the poison thus killing the cat. For the experiment to work properly you have to open the box when the isotope has had exactly a 50% change to release a particle and kill the cat. The point is that until it has been observed the cat hangs in a limbo between life and death, and the theory goes that it is our observation of the cat, upon opening the box that crystallises this uncertainty and defines the cat as either dead or alive.

Where it gets more interesting if that this is a thought experiment. Schrödinger did not go around putting cats in boxes. However some American scientists did, I believe, only to discover, upon opening the box, that the cat was no where to be found. From this springs the myth, if myth it be, that cats, or maybe only certain 'Schrödinger’s' cats can walk through walls. AFAIK the most famous literary example o this is in Heinlein's The Cat Who Walked Through Walls. As A cat owner of many years standing I can confirm that in fact all cats have this ability, but most far prefer to get humans to do the work for them, as is only right and proper.

Now for the tricky part, how are you going to give me cookies through the 'net? ;)

Wasn't it that if you had a radioactive element that may (or may not) disintergrate after a time period (say an hour). Now if you hooked it up to a machine which, if it registered the decay would release poison into the box. If it didn't, no poison would be released. There is a cat in the box too.

After an hour, the element has either decayed or not decayed. The cat is therefore dead or alive. And you will never know till it is opened.Ooooh we're on the right track, have a cookie. Actually Schroedinger presented a problem with a cat in an opaque box with a lethal device triggered by the decaying radioactive trigger you mentioned. The twist came when he asked for a mathmatical decision on whether tha cat was alive or dead (had the trigger been activated or not). Remember you can't see the cat, you have to decide by performing a quantum equation.

knowing what i do of isotopes and cats i suspect that even if you didn't open the box you would eventually know it was dead by the smell...

*sits back with satisfied smile on face - can do equations now

biochem + psychology = physics*

sorry Lost Planet...i'm being frivolous...please notice me and give me another cookie

The Cat part is simple. The cat is placed in the box with a small amount of some isotope (I forget which), a quantity of deadly poison and a triggering mechanism that will fire upon the isotope releasing some particle or other (once again I forget what, doesn't really matter) and release the poison thus killing the cat. For the experiment to work properly you have to open the box when the isotope has had exactly a 50% change to release a particle and kill the cat. The point is that until it has been observed the cat hangs in a limbo between life and death, and the theory goes that it is our observation of the cat, upon opening the box that crystallises this uncertainty and defines the cat as either dead or alive.

Where it gets more interesting if that this is a thought experiment. Schrödinger did not go around putting cats in boxes. However some American scientists did, I believe, only to discover, upon opening the box, that the cat was no where to be found. From this springs the myth, if myth it be, that cats, or maybe only certain 'Schrödinger’s' cats can walk through walls. AFAIK the most famous literary example o this is in Heinlein's The Cat Who Walked Through Walls. As A cat owner of many years standing I can confirm that in fact all cats have this ability, but most far prefer to get humans to do the work for them, as is only right and proper.

Now for the tricky part, how are you going to give me cookies through the 'net? ;)It's a virtual cookie, the recipe, however, is real.

but that's the problem with equations - presumably using mathematical equations one version said the cat was ok the other said it wasn't...only common sense and a bit of scientific knowledge tells me that cat in box + isotope + poison = death

surely it must mean that while the maths can't be wrong, reality is heavily skewed (sp?) in one direction?

elaborate for the class, tell us how it illustrates this.

That in quantum meachanics, superposition occurs when a particle which cannot be directly observed and may be in multiple states, as seen in interference patterns where particles are known to be in several locations simultaneously.

In the cat example the cat itself can't be seen and can be either dead or alive. When observed, it is in a known state and no longer in superposition.

surely it must mean that while the maths can't be wrong, reality is heavily skewed (sp?) in one direction?

and would this hold true for quantum theory too?

Nah...i don't believe that.

The Lost Planet seems to have a scientific background. Therefore i would bet he wouldn't dream of eating sugarless cookies...all the scientific types i know go for the real thing :D

Now, back to this pesky cat. How does observation come into this?
Because observation affects the answer does it not?

And how is this all affected by that guy (whose name i don't remember) who is working on a theory that there are no such thing as...er...was it photons?The cookies have sugar, brown sugar to be specific and unbleached flour. (I told you it was a real recipe)

If you do the math on the cat problem you get two answers due to that quirk in quantum mechanics I mentioned. So basically the cat is both alive and dead mathmatically, thats the problem Schoedinger had with quantum mechanics. Others elaborated on this and thus was born what has come to be known the uncertainty theory. While Schoedinger was attempting to disprove quantum theory, other have taken his work and used it as a basis for proving the existance of alternate universes. Since mathmatically the cat is both alive and dead, it's theorized that two different universes exist, one with a dead cat, one with a live cat. We don't know which we're in until we open the box.

It's a virtual cookie, the recipe, however, is real.
Then virtually thank you.

but the two possible outcomes which can exist equally, mathematically speaking, in reality do not

this is the problem i have with all this stuff - it may be possible to theoretically prove the existence of other universes but it doesn't mean that they actually exist, does it?

but the two possible outcomes which can exist equally, mathematically speaking, in reality do not

this is the problem i have with all this stuff - it may be possible to theoretically prove the existence of other universes but it doesn't mean that they actually exist, does it?

You may have killed billions with that single thought.

but the two possible outcomes which can exist equally, mathematically speaking, in reality do not

this is the problem i have with all this stuff - it may be possible to theoretically prove the existence of other universes but it doesn't mean that they actually exist, does it?Or does it? How would we know? We only know the universe we're actually in, we can't see the universe next door that the math tells us exists. Why do you think this stuff has inspired so many science fiction writers?

Myself, I don't like the idea of parallel universes - the 'multiverse' theory would mean there are literally an inifinte number of me's out there, and I don't like that thought. True, it's subjective, but it's a starting point.

In Quantum Theory, every particle can be described as a wave function, using Schrödinger's Wave Equation. It's a hideously complex piece of physics, using complex number, Hamiltonian co-ordinates and all other things normal people just don't want to hear about. However, the point is this equation is completely deterministic - if we have all the details, we can use this formula to predict the wavefunction of the particle at any other point.

Life gets complicated, then. The wavefunction does not state the location of the particle, or it's momentum. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows we can't know both exactly. The amplitude of the wavefunction squared will give the probability of the particle being in that location, and at that speed. This introduces the uncertainty of Quantum Theory. Some believe this uncertainty will eventually disappear as we develop QT, with such ideas as 'Hidden Variables'.

And now the poor, defenceless cat. As said, we know the wavefunction of the isotope. But we don't know the actual physical state, and that is only revealed to us when we open the box, and cause the superposition of the possible states to collapse to the one. A Huingarian physicist suggested that it was our consciousness that caused this collapse - myself, I am inclined to believe Roger Penrose's idea, that the collapse occurs at some arbitrary limit eg. when the influence of the particle on its surroundings increases beyond a certain point. When we open the box, this limit is reached, the superposition collapses, and the cat is either dead or alive.

If you do the math on the cat problem you get two answers due to that quirk in quantum mechanics I mentioned. So basically the cat is both alive and dead mathmatically, thats the problem Schoedinger had with quantum mechanics. Others elaborated on this and thus was born what has come to be known the uncertainty theory. While Schoedinger was attempting to disprove quantum theory, other have taken his work and used it as a basis for proving the existance of alternate universes. Since mathmatically the cat is both alive and dead, it's theorized that two different universes exist, one with a dead cat, one with a live cat. We don't know which we're in until we open the box.

This is a classic fitting the reality to the map error. (And in addition, the map is read wrong.) Even though the mathematics aren't decisive that doesn't mean reality is divided into several dimensions. That real educated physicists can believe in such stupidity is quite astonishing.

Mathematically, based on quantum theory, there are two possible outcomes. But only one of them is real, it just can't be determined until investigated.

OK, it's almost 4 am where I am, I've got a few beers in me and I'm sure a few of the denizens of this forum will be pondering this for awhile, so I guess my work here is done. One last piece of buisiness before I go, here's the recipe for the cookies.

1 1/2 cubes of margarine
1/4 cup of shortning
1 1/2 cups of brown sugar
2 eggs
1 1/2 tspn vanilla
cream above together

shift together
2 1/4 cups unbleached flour
1 tspn baking soda
1/2 tspn baking baking powder
1/2 tspn salt

mix with creamed ingrediants

add one 12 ounce package of milk chocolate chips
and 1 cup chopped almonds

bake at 350 until golden brown

There you have the Lost Planets secret recipe for his famous California chip cookies. At least in this universe, in another I use more shortning ;)

Or does it? How would we know? We only know the universe we're actually in, we can't see the universe next door that the math tells us exists. Why do you think this stuff has inspired so many science fiction writers?

Sure...i'm with ya all the way especially when it comes to sci fi stories.

However, i was just comparing everyday life with mathematical outcomes. Yes you are right. We don't know if parallel universes exist as we can only see this one.

But, falling back on the good ole scientific instrument Occam's Razor (free bottle of beer to anyone who can tell me about that ;)) then all things considered it seems to me that the existence of parallel universes is as likely as Schroedinger's cat being alive :)

just the fact that we are here in this universe observing what there is to observe presumably influences what we see...

This is a classic fitting the reality to the map error. (And in addition, the map is read wrong.) Even though the mathematics aren't decisive that doesn't mean reality is divided into several dimensions. That real educated physicists can believe in such stupidity is quite astonishing.

Mathematically, based on quantum theory, there are two possible outcomes. But only one of them is real, it just can't be determined until investigated.Aww, you just have to have a little imagination and be open to the possibilities. What if both outcomes are real, only one of them is real in a different universe?

Hamiltonian co-ordinates and all other things normal people just don't want to hear about

hmmphh! please don't assume i'm normal ;)

Mathematically, based on quantum theory, there are two possible outcomes. But only one of them is real, it just can't be determined until investigated.

That was exactly my point made earlier...reality is not mathematics although it can be described by mathematics.

Just because something can be described doesn't mean it is so.

What if both outcomes are real, only one of them is real in a different universe?

Apply Occam's Razor! *looks sternly at The Lost Planet*

Apply Occam's Razor! *looks sternly at The Lost Planet*Oh come on, where's the fun in not making more assumptions than necessary. Besides these are not really assumptions, they're possibilities. I'd take you up on the free beer but I have to pee badly enough already, maybe some other time.

Aww, you just have to have a little imagination and be open to the possibilities. What if both outcomes are real, only one of them is real in a different universe?
Well, that's the problem of the other univers isn't it? Only what's real in this universe matters here.

More importantly, what's real in this universe is real even before you observe it! In this universe the cat is either dead or alive before it's observed. It doesn't in any case await confirmation to be true.

Also quatum mechanics is telling the state of something stasticially. For high numbers of particles, which is the common situation, it can say with high probability the outcome. But for single particles it tells nothing with certanity, you have instead a probability distribution for the different states the particle may be in.

That does not mean that all the different states are true, what we mean is that we don't know what's true yet, but we know the probabilty of the different truths.

Of course, for all we know, there may be infinite amounts of paralell universes. But the probabilty distribution of the state of a particle is not an indication of this.

Occam's Razor is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Either that or it was something Occam used to trim his beard

And parallel universes may actually have an influence on our universe! Stephen Hawking suggests an experiment to determine this, using gravity. For reasons he didn't explain, he says gravity and not the other fundamental forces will be able to 'leak' from one universe to another, and influence the matter in that universe. Experiments are being conducted to that effect, and I think we're investigating down to the nano-metre scale at the moment. This leakage could be an explanation for the so-called 'Dark Matter' in the universe

Occam's Razor is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Either that or it was something Occam used to trim his beard

heheheh! your free virtual bottle of beer is on its way :)

One to you too TLP...you can save it for later.

Yeah, i like the idea of all sorts of possiblities (it's why i like reading sci fi) but then the logical side of me exerts itself and demands that reality be taken into consideration ;)

oh! and thanks for the receipe for the chocolate chip cookies

And parallel universes may actually have an influence on our universe! Stephen Hawking suggests an experiment to determine this, using gravity. For reasons he didn't explain, he says gravity and not the other fundamental forces will be able to 'leak' from one universe to another, and influence the matter in that universe. Experiments are being conducted to that effect, and I think we're investigating down to the nano-metre scale at the moment. This leakage could be an explanation for the so-called 'Dark Matter' in the universe
There are several theories of parallel universes. The brane theory linked to string theory is another one. But Schrodingers Cat is no indication of parallelism. Believing that is just a missinterpretation of a statistical measure.

Well, that's the problem of the other univers isn't it? Only what's real in this universe matters here.

More importantly, what's real in this universe is real even before you observe it! In this universe the cat is either dead or alive before it's observed. It doesn't in any case await confirmation to be true.

Also quatum mechanics is telling the state of something stasticially. For high numbers of particles, which is the common situation, it can say with high probability the outcome. But for single particles it tells nothing with certanity, you have instead a probability distribution for the different states the particle may be in.

That does not mean that all the different states are true, what we mean is that we don't know what's true yet, but we know the probabilty of the different truths.

Of course, for all we know, there may be infinite amounts of paralell universes. But the probabilty distribution of the state of a particle is not an indication of this.

Ahhhhhhhhh! I think i've just fallen in love...

*then grins evilly* and we should perhaps remember that adage

lies, damned lies and statistics :)

And parallel universes may actually have an influence on our universe! Stephen Hawking suggests an experiment to determine this, using gravity. For reasons he didn't explain, he says gravity and not the other fundamental forces will be able to 'leak' from one universe to another, and influence the matter in that universe. Experiments are being conducted to that effect, and I think we're investigating down to the nano-metre scale at the moment. This leakage could be an explanation for the so-called 'Dark Matter' in the universe


Perhaps he might be thinking of the Kaluza Klein Theory.

Ahhhhhhhhh! I think i've just fallen in love...

Wow, thank you! :D


lies, damned lies and statistics :)

You know, someone also said that statistics is the only objective truth. It's the way we missinterpret or missrepresent statistics that creates the lies. The problem is not the statistics, it's how we use it.

i have to admit only a nodding acquaintance with stats so i feel a little out of my depth - i can use 'em but have no intuitive grasp of 'em.

*backs off at a great rate, falls into the box that Schroedinger's cat was in and which someone left open, the lid closes and...*

Wow, thank you! :D

you're welcome :)

You know, I always arrive too late for these nifty posts :P

But here it is anyway:

Shrodinger's cat refers to a thought experiment (please note the thought part - ehehe) in which a cat would be placed in a safe. With the cat would be an atom which might or might not decay over time. Should the atom decay, cyanide gas would be released into the safe, killing the cat.

The potential for the experiment lies in the supposition that until the safe has actually been opened, the cat could be in either state (dead or alive - superposition). Only upon performing the action of observing (thus changing the object observed) is the cat either dead or alive. And that's where the parallel universe theory comes in.

Every action and reaction that takes place (even at a subatomic level) theoretically bifurcates the observable plane of space-time, thus allowing all possible realities to exist simultaneously. To bring it up to a much larger scale, if you turn right down a certain street (as opposed to going left), the universe effectively splits into two parts (one in which you go left and one in which you go right). Terry Pratchett illustrates this quite well by using the concept "Trousers of time"

An appropriate (an not as cruel) illustration of the superposition of sub-atomic particles is shown with Richard Feynman's "two slit" experiment.

For this experiment, a beam of light is aimed at a barrier with two vertical slits. The light passes through the slits and the resulting pattern is recorded on a photographic plate. If one slit is covered, the pattern is what would be expected: a single line of light, aligned with whichever slit is open. Intuitively, one would expect that if both slits are open, the pattern of light will reflect that fact: two lines of light, aligned with the slits. In fact, however, what happens is that the photographic plate is entirely separated into multiple lines of lightness and darkness in varying degrees. What is being illustrated by this result is that interference is taking place between the waves/particles going through the slits, in what, seemingly, should be two non-crossing trajectories.

We would expect that if the beam of light particles or photons is slowed enough to ensure that individual photons are hitting the plate, there could be no interference and the pattern of light would be two lines of light, aligned with the slits. In fact, however, the resulting pattern still indicates interference, which means that, somehow, the single particles are interfering with themselves. This seems impossible: we expect that a single photon will go through one slit or the other, and will end up in one of two possible light line areas. But that is not what happens. As Feynman concluded, each photon not only goes through both slits, but simultaneously takes every possible trajectory en route to the target, not just in theory, but in fact.

So There :P :)

More importantly, what's real in this universe is real even before you observe it! In this universe the cat is either dead or alive before it's observed. It doesn't in any case await confirmation to be true.



The potential for the experiment lies in the supposition that until the safe has actually been opened, the cat could be in either state (dead or alive - superposition). Only upon performing the action of observing (thus changing the object observed) is the cat either dead or alive. And that's where the parallel universe theory comes in.


See this was the bit that i never understood. Some people say that the act of observation determines the outcome. Some say the outcome has already been determined and observing merely shows what happened. which is it?

According to my guru...the fount of all knowledge...who has just walked in then both states exist until the measurement takes place.

the act of measuring or observing fixes the present position (we were talking in terms of electrons or photons and not cats) and then that determines all previous states.

er...if it's any help to anyone apparantly the cat is a metaphorical one and not a real one :)

wonder if there were any Schroedinger's kittens?

If I get this right, I don't want the cookies. Almonds are poisounous. I am also waaaaaay too lazy to actually read what everyone else has said, so I don't even know if anyone else has got it yet. But I am arrogant enough to display my enormous brain to you all. 'Brain the size of a planet'...

Schroedingers Cat is a logic story used to illustrate the anthropic principles of Quantum Physics. You see, in the quantum world (reality on the smallest detectable scale, sub-sub atomic), reality is not built of solid particles and stable laws. It is instead built on probabilities. The particles are so tiny, that they cease to act like true particles, and instead take on a duality that allows them to act like waves instead. The most well known example of this, is the photon. There are a number of theories and rules that describe how these 'non-solid' particles work and how you can and cannot affect them, but to sum up, it has been determined that observation of the particles (the attempt to determine something about them) changes the particles.

In essence, it's like looking at a cloud, and by looking forcing it to become a puddle of water. (bad analogy, but I am half asleep)

On top of that, no matter how much you look, you can only determine some, but not all, of the particles properties and never with absolute certainty. Because observation of things this small, (smaller than the photons hitting the back of your eye) requires you to interact with them, and the interaction adds an unmeasurable amount of instability to the particle.

Schroedinger proposed, that this uncertainty allowed the manipulation of the human scale (or larger) environment in a similarly uncertain way. In essence, he proposed that if you put a cat in a box, and built a device within that box designed to kill the cat, which hinged on the results of an observation of some quanta, that the uncertainty of those results would cause the cat to remain both alive and dead while within the box. Until you chose to observe the cat, and force some certainty to apply the cat would remain stuck in an uncertain state.

This same principle is one of the fundamentals of the way that quantum computers are capable of processing more than one thing at a time.

See this was the bit that i never understood. Some people say that the act of observation determines the outcome. Some say the outcome has already been determined and observing merely shows what happened. which is it?Well assuming there is nothing incorrect with the way we understand quantum mechanics, you have this troubling little thing with the two distinct and opposite possible answers when you perform the math. The 'observation determines outcome' theory is one way to reconcile this with the reality we know where things are one way or the other, not both. Another, more imaginative way, is to propose that both possibilities exist, each in it's own seperate universe. Using this line of thinking (which I personally prefer) the act of observation just shows us which reality we're in, it does not however make the other less 'real'. Or of course you have those with no imagination who dismiss it all and say only possibility is there you just don't know which it is until you look.

J F C

cats, boxes, radiation CYANIDE!!

why hasn't someone turned this schroedinger guy into PETA?
hasn't he heard of animal rights???

A cat is placed in a box, together with a radioactive aton. If the atom decays, a hammer kills the cat; if the atom doesn't decay, the cat lives. As the atom is considered to be in either state before the observer opens teh box, the cat must thus be considered to be simultaneously dead and alive.

A cat is placed in a box, together with a radioactive aton. If the atom decays, a hammer kills the cat; if the atom doesn't decay, the cat lives. As the atom is considered to be in either state before the observer opens teh box, the cat must thus be considered to be simultaneously dead and alive.

yep...that's as i understand it - and the cat only appears dead OR alive when you open the box and make the observation

ack! this sucks...my brain don't do physics :)

Well, what if I looked in the box afterwards, closed the box again, but didn't tell anyone the result and then committed suicide?

What of the poor cat now?

A cat is placed in a box, together with a radioactive aton. If the atom decays, a hammer kills the cat; if the atom doesn't decay, the cat lives. As the atom is considered to be in either state before the observer opens teh box, the cat must thus be considered to be simultaneously dead and alive.A hammer? :eek: I guess it'd work, but it's a messy variation on the problem I've never heard before. Most people prefer to propose more humane methods for exterminating the cat.

Mathematically, based on quantum theory, there are two possible outcomes. But only one of them is real, it just can't be determined until investigated.

And it's not that only one is right, and you can't determine them until observation: both states exist, and only collapse upon observation. You can actually see that photons and electrons are smeared between possible states in other physics experiments. As I see it, you are denying that "superposition" actually occurs.

Well admittedly I don't know much about this shrodinger guy or his cat but I do know that cat is good, on toasted white with honey mustard. filet it, fry it in a mushroom wine sauce and then put it on the toasted bread, maybe even a nice hard loaf bread. Pimpernuckle would be good

Well admittedly I don't know much about this shrodinger guy or his cat but I do know that cat is good, on toasted white with honey mustard. filet it, fry it in a mushroom wine sauce and then put it on the toasted bread, maybe even a nice hard loaf bread. Pimpernuckle would be good
or a nice hardy kitty pot pie!

"As Feynman concluded, each photon not only goes through both slits, but simultaneously takes every possible trajectory en route to the target, not just in theory, but in fact."

I never saw the readouts of his experiments with beams of lights, just the portions he did with Photons.

The final conclusion, after a far more intensive study towards what his experiment had, was that it not only takes every possible trajectory throughout the universe to reach its target in the same instant, it is only forced upon one particular trajectory by observation, and if we were to not observe it at any point throughout its path, it would be everywhere and nowhere at once. ;)

And, as a mention, the problem with Schroedinger's cat experiment is the fact that he's attempting to apply Quantum Physics to the Newtonian level of physics. Quantum Theory has proven, time and time again, that sub-atomic particles operate on an entirely different set of rules than anything bigger. So very different, in fact, that it's absolutely mindboggling sometimes what they get for results. :)

Me.

It is often baffling. I suppose the whole point of shrodinger's cat was so that people (who were not quantum physicists) could understand easily. It'd be quite tough to picture the followin:

Shrodinger's Quark
-----------------

There is a quark in a box. We can't see it cos' it's too goddam small. There's another micro-microscopic thing that will kill the quark if another atom decays. Or at least we think it will (we're not sure). Now the quark will both exist or not exist until we look at it (which we can't) so the poor sod's running around like a mad chicken with bronchitis (although we can't see this)

:)

The only thing I remember is that its similar to the question "If you half enough gas to travel one half mile, and then run out, and you can see no gas staition in sight, and your visibility is one half mile....

What is the likely hood that you will find a gas station?

The answer is not as black and white as you might think.
The correct theory is that there IS chance you will find one.
Just becuase you cant SEE one....doesnt mean there ISNT one there.

Probabilities and variables, you see.

The only thing I remember is that its similar to the question "If you half enough gas to travel one half mile, and then run out, and you can see no gas staition in sight, and your visibility is one half mile....

What is the likely hood that you will find a gas station?

The answer is not as black and white as you might think.
The correct theory is that there IS chance you will find one.
Just becuase you cant SEE one....doesnt mean there ISNT one there.

Probabilities and variables, you see.Hey Squatch, How ya doin'.

No the Schoedinger's cat model is more about uncertainty and conflicting states than probabilities and statistics. But have a cookie anyways. They're really good.

Hey Squatch, How ya doin'.

No the Schoedinger's cat model is more about uncertainty and conflicting states than probabilities and statistics. But have a cookie anyways. They're really good.


Hey ya LP! Doin good!

Wasnt even close eh?

Hmm..they say that the memory is the first thing to go....

Good cookie.

All this talk about cats or cat what about Catwomen? and did she use the box,and does it clean itself like the ads show?

All this talk about cats or cat what about Catwomen? and did she use the box,and does it clean itself like the ads show? :D I was wondering when someone was gonna get around to a catbox/litterbox reference, I'm suprised it took this long.

:D I was wondering when someone was gonna get around to a catbox/litterbox reference, I'm suprised it took this long.


Isn't that where you got the cookies?

Isn't that where you got the cookies? :gundge: Hey! You makin' fun of my cookies? I spent a lot of time developing that recipe, and those really are chocolate chips in them.

And it's not that only one is right, and you can't determine them until observation: both states exist, and only collapse upon observation. You can actually see that photons and electrons are smeared between possible states in other physics experiments. As I see it, you are denying that "superposition" actually occurs.
Oh no! I thought we had debunked all the crazy ideas.. :headbang:

Here's three points. For the main point, the only one that is really necessary, jump straight to the third.

First: Even though a particle may be in more than one position (or state, I'll come back to that), a whole cat can't. That would mean that all of the particles making up the cat would be in two positions at the same time. And not only two positions, but two set of strongly correlated positions. That means each set of particles should interact internally (to make up the cat), but the two sets should not interact with each other. So what we have is two paralell realities. Right? Yeah, but superposition exists within in THIS reality. If superposition extended into a paralell reality, we wouldn't observe it. So the existance of superposition does not imply paralell realities.

Second: Someone else mentioned above, the rule of physics are very different on particle level and newtonian levels. What is a position on particle level? Is there a small particle on a spesific position in 3D space? Nope! Therefore it's less confusing to think of it as several states, and not several positions. What's passing through can not be seen as a simple object. And it's possible it even doesn't exists in 3D space. String theorists propose something like eleven dimensions. And this thing we've named a particle, passing through two slits in a double slit experiment, is not passing through as a small marble would pass through a small opening. It's rather interacting with the slits as it passes by and constantly changes state.

Third. You can't determine the state of a particle (string, quark, whatever) until observation. True, but is it the observation by a human consciousness that does the fixing of the state? Or is the interaction with the physical object that is the observer? In the double slit experiment several observers can see the interference pattern on the wall. Is it the obervation of the observers that causes the pattern, or is it the interaction between the particles and the wall? Of course it's the interaction between the particles and the walls! Do you think if you closed your eyes for a second, the interference pattern would suddenly smear, jumping back into the nice pattern the moment you opened your eyes again? Of course not! Well, the particle in the box with the cat will also interact with the device killing the cat. And it is this interaction, just as clearly defined as the interaction of the light particles with the wall, that triggers the device that kills the cat.

i know its a cat by the sound of it...

doi get a cookie? heh

Occam's Razor is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Either that or it was something Occam used to trim his beard
heheheh! your free virtual bottle of beer is on its way

Most presicely (and pedantically), the logical principal generally attributed to William of Occam (also Ockham) that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".
It is also known as the "principle of parsimony".

And Schrödinger's Cat (link (http://www.rawilson.com/schrocat.shtml)) is also a fun little book by Robert Anton Wilson.

Can I have a beer and a cookie for bonus info?

Well it looks like this forum has hit a slump, the same old topics, nothing to stimulate the brain. So I'm gonna give jolt a replay of the first thread I ever started in the NS general forum. I'm giving away free cookies to anyone who can tell me about Schrodinger's Cat.

Mmmmm yummy cookies, my own personal recipe, a variation of the traditional chocolate chip with almonds and milk chocolate chips, I call them California chip cookies.

A cat is locked in a box. There are three states it could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious. The only way to check is by opening the box.

(the third state is taken out of a Discworld book where the witch Nanny Ogg's cat was locked in a box. This cat once killed :cool: a werewolf by accident. As Nanny Ogg says: He's just a big softie.)
I don't want any cookies

It's funny how much attention is paid to and the discusions that arise over the explanations that people give trying to explain why the cat is only one way. I mentioned the reason and restrictions Scroedinger placed on his problem and it's interesting to see how any discussion takes the same course of events that happened when Carl first proposed it. (yeah it's me, LP, I just have my boyscout uniform on) He first proposed this problem to illustrate what he percieved as a fallacy in quantum mechanics. The structure was that you couldn't look into the box but had to figure out if the cat was alive or dead strictly by doing the math. You couldn't, the +/- nature of the answer left you with a cat that was dead and alive. He didn't have a solution or alternative, he was just pointing out how when applied to the real world it doesn't work. Almost as soon as he proposed it people were ignoring any possibility that the math was wrong and instead taking the course that this thread has taken both times I started it and argueing what actually fixes the state of the cat or if it is in fact in flux. A perfect example of how you can never predict the outcome of a chain of events you set in motion. I love this problem for the possibilities it exposes and also for the unexpected way it impacted the scientific community.

It's funny how much attention is paid to and the discusions that arise over the explanations that people give trying to explain why the cat is only one way. I mentioned the reason and restrictions Scroedinger placed on his problem and it's interesting to see how any discussion takes the same course of events that happened when Carl first proposed it. (yeah it's me, LP, I just have my boyscout uniform on) He first proposed this problem to illustrate what he percieved as a fallacy in quantum mechanics. The structure was that you couldn't look into the box but had to figure out if the cat was alive or dead strictly by doing the math. You couldn't, the +/- nature of the answer left you with a cat that was dead and alive. He didn't have a solution or alternative, he was just pointing out how when applied to the real world it doesn't work. Almost as soon as he proposed it people were ignoring any possibility that the math was wrong and instead taking the course that this thread has taken both times I started it and argueing what actually fixes the state of the cat or if it is in fact in flux. A perfect example of how you can never predict the outcome of a chain of events you set in motion. I love this problem for the possibilities it exposes and also for the unexpected way it impacted the scientific community.

The fallacy isn't in the 'mechanisms' of the mechanics at the quantum level, it's in attempting to apply that math as though it were real.

It also takes a huge number of assumptions under it's wing in order to bolster that situation.

e.g. The halflife of Chemical 'A' is two seconds.... how long does it take for ONE atom of Chemical 'A' to decay? The assumption in the case of the poor little kitty was that it will happen at a set point - or rather, that the decay will take place AT ALL. That isn't how halflife works, and the smaller the amount of material you discuss, the more inaccurate it gets.

e.g. That the math says that the cat is alive or dead. Since it is a statistical equation, based on probable actions (and, as I've said, taking liberties with some of them) - the very best it can do is suggest there is a 50-50 CHANCE that the cat is dead. That doesn't actually mean the cat is alive or dead - the cat is unaffected by the MATH of probability, only by the OCCURANCE of probability. You can do all the math you like, but, if the atom still hasn't decayed, the cat still isn't dead - regardless of your pretty numbers.

Unless it's been three weeks, and there was only food, water and air for an hour. In which case, the cat would have been hoping that the theory held true - so he'd still have a 50-50 chance of being alive when they opened the box.

Seriously, though. It's an idea, and worthy of thought. But it has no practical application. It's just math for the sake of math. It's not even a theory - it's just an enigma, wrapped in a conundrum, wrapped in a cat, wrapped in a box.

And, to make it more laughable, people try to extend it beyond even the realms of logical science. "So - the cat is alive and dead? Then there must be a world where the egyptians were wiped out by shrimp with nuclear weapons..."