NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand that it's just a theory, and that it would be basicly pointless because as soon as the cat(and/or subatomic particle, electron in this case) was measured, the probability wave forms would collapse, but hasn't an eccentric rich guy ever gotten curious?

What the fuck is it?

I don't think you have to be rich to afford a cardboard box, a gun, and a cat.

What the fuck is it?
oops.
It's a theoretical experiment.
At a quantum level all events are governed by probablities. The amazing thing is that they don't even become actual events until they're measured. Schrodinger made up an experiment that would make this true in a level higher then subatomic.
Let's say there's a cat in a box. Inside the box theres a lump of radioactive material and a vial of gas. It's made so that there's a 50/50 chance of an atom decaying and emitting an electron and that if an electron was emitted the cat would be gassed. Since the electron only exists or doesn't exist once it's been measured, the cat only is gassed or isn't gassed once it's been measured.

It's safe to say that the radioactive material will decay at some point or another, so there is not really much use in the experiment.

Aw! I couldn't do that to my poor kitty! Heck, that's a veru inhumane thing to do to any kitty! Couldn't it be done on republicans?

I forgot to say that it has to be done within a certain time limit and that there's a geiger counter and a hammer involved. i don't know why Schrodinger had to be so thorough.

I understand that it's just a theory, and that it would be basicly pointless because as soon as the cat(and/or subatomic particle, electron in this case) was measured, the probability wave forms would collapse, but hasn't an eccentric rich guy ever gotten curious?
No, its a theoretical experiment designed to prove that the laws of quantom theroy are absurd. Then it was realised that the example wasn't so absurd after all.

ironic?

Wouldn't the cat being dead be a rather large indication that the electron exists?

But you can't know until it's measured in some way.

But you can't know until it's measured in some way.
Oh yes, the box is closed right?

The whole point of the experiment is that you can't do it, that's why they call it a "thought experiment." It would be interesting to perform the experiment as a being outside the universe and unbound by its quatum laws, but not being such a being the experiment loses meaning.

The concept is great though... The only semantically accurate way to describe the state of the cat is to say that it is 50% dead and 50% alive because those are the probabilities that the state vector will collapse in that way. That was the initial difficult scientists experienced when they started thinking about quantum mechanics, the semantics just didn't work. You couldn't say, "The cat is alive and dead at the same time" and get people to believe you. Eventually the decision that probabilities were more accurate was made and since then even the most absurd dual existences can and do occur. Such black and white things as alive and dead lose meaning and become statements of maybe and probably in the preobserved universe. Of course that isn't a meaningful statement because there isn't anything in the universe that isn't being observed by something. The interconnectedness of the universe prevents Schrodinger's principle from applying in an immediately meaningful way.

Aw, I was hoping this was the one with buttered toast.

The whole point of the experiment is that you can't do it, that's why they call it a "thought experiment." It would be interesting to perform the experiment as a being outside the universe and unbound by its quatum laws, but not being such a being the experiment loses meaning.
That's where the "eccentric rich guy" comes in.

Umm, I hate to tell you, but sometimes physicists and people who study quantem mechanics depart from reality. Like, totally.

First, the cat will die from radiation poisening if it's that radioactive. Next, if something only exists once measured, then the sun does not exist as we've got no tape measurer, nor the planets, the earth itself, all asteroids and basically...everything.

Oi vey, you guys need to come into reality.

-Fury

That's where the "eccentric rich guy" comes in.

Eccentric rich people can exist outside the universe and observe it without collapsing the state vector? Man... I've gotta go make me some money!

Umm, I hate to tell you, but sometimes physicists and people who study quantem mechanics depart from reality. Like, totally.

First, the cat will die from radiation poisening if it's that radioactive. Next, if something only exists once measured, then the sun does not exist as we've got no tape measurer, nor the planets, the earth itself, all asteroids and basically...everything.

Oi vey, you guys need to come into reality.

-Fury
Measured is a relative term, and it only works on a quantum level. Technichally on every level but once it gets higher then subatomic the effort of all those probabilities becomes very difficult to distinguish from the normal, day to day, physical laws.

Eccentric rich people can exist outside the universe and observe it without collapsing the state vector? Man... I've gotta go make me some money!
I meant they'd be eccentric enough to actually try it even though all he'd/she'd end up with is a dead/alive cat, a box, and some radioactive material.

Umm, I hate to tell you, but sometimes physicists and people who study quantem mechanics depart from reality. Like, totally.

First, the cat will die from radiation poisening if it's that radioactive. Next, if something only exists once measured, then the sun does not exist as we've got no tape measurer, nor the planets, the earth itself, all asteroids and basically...everything.

Oi vey, you guys need to come into reality.

-Fury

First, the whole point of the radioactive substance is that, after a given period of time there is exactly a 50% chance that it will have killed the cat and a 50% chance that the cat will remanin alive, thus one cannot say definitively whether it is one or the other.

The idea is not that things do not exist before being measured, it's that they do not exist before being observed, which is a word that gets people very confused. Observed doesn't mean seen, or sensed in the conventional sense, when it is used on physics. When Schrodinger's cat is in the box it is being observed by the molecules in the box and in the air in the box which collapses the state vector and makes the fate of the cat a certainty even though the scientist does not yet know it. Of course, each person carries around his own state vector model of the unvierse. The box knows all along that the cat died in seconds, but the scientist doesn't know until he opens the box. Once he opens the box his state vector model collapses, bot another scientist outside the room still doesn't know the status of the cat, so his state vector model remains uncollapsed. When the first scientists informs the second of the outcome of the experiment, the state vector model of the second collapses, and he can go on to collapse other people's state vector models by telling them the results. It is important to understand that on an atomic level the state vector never exists uncollapsed because everything in the universe is being observed by everything else in the universe through the interaction of the natural forces.

Aw, I was hoping this was the one with buttered toast.

You mean tieing buttered toast to the back of a cat and watching as it spins because the cat must land on its feet but the toast must land butter side down?

Wouldn't the cat know if it was alive?

You mean tieing buttered toast to the back of a cat and watching as it spins because the cat must land on its feet but the toast must land butter side down?


Exactly.

You can't build bridges to Hawaii with dead, radioactive cats. We need to think in more practical terms, here.

First, the cat will die from radiation poisening if it's that radioactive.


Nope. The radioactive sample used is either so small a mass or has such a long half-life that given the duration of the experiment there is only a 50% of single atom decomposing.

Oi vey, you guys need to come into reality.

I think you need to do a bit more research before attacking others.

You mean tieing buttered toast to the back of a cat and watching as it spins because the cat must land on its feet but the toast must land butter side down?
That isn't the practical application however, as the cat can never hit the ground because of the two laws coming into conflict, so it hovers off the ground by a few inches. Think of the possiblities. We would strap cats with buttered toast onto the bottoms of our cars and have instant hover cars.

Exactly.

You can't build bridges to Hawaii with dead, radioactive cats. We need to think in more practical terms, here.

Yeah, they're what power UFO's, that's the humming sound. And they cover the outside with white shirts and spray tomato sauce out of cannons for propulsion.

Aw! I couldn't do that to my poor kitty! Heck, that's a veru inhumane thing to do to any kitty! Couldn't it be done on republicans?

Lmfao

That isn't the practical application however, as the cat can never hit the ground because of the two laws coming into conflict, so it hovers off the ground by a few inches. Think of the possiblities. We would strap cats with buttered toast onto the bottoms of our cars and have instant hover cars.

The cat/toast combine needs to be able to spin freely, how could you strap it to the bottom of your car without preventing the spin?

The cat/toast combine needs to be able to spin freely, how could you strap it to the bottom of your car without preventing the spin?
A 3/4 guard. Place the combo cat/toast in a sealed container with only the bottom open, then attach the container to a car. Then take the car and drop it to get the cat/toast spinning and you have your hover car.

A 3/4 guard. Place the combo cat/toast in a sealed container with only the bottom open, then attach the container to a car. Then take the car and drop it to get the cat/toast spinning and you have your hover car.

You know... that might just work.

*runs to the store for some bread and butter*

You mean tieing buttered toast to the back of a cat and watching as it spins because the cat must land on its feet but the toast must land butter side down?

Ah, but for the cat to land squarely on its feet it has to be alive: we could find that a lot of sudden and inexplicable feline heart attacks occur during the descent. Result: butter side down.

A 3/4 guard. Place the combo cat/toast in a sealed container with only the bottom open, then attach the container to a car. Then take the car and drop it to get the cat/toast spinning and you have your hover car.

Would the strength of the impossibilities of a cat landing on its back and buttered toast landing butter up be sufficient enough to stop the mass of the dropped car from simply crushing the theoretically hover contraption? What if the spin takes a bit of time to really get going?

Would the strength of the impossibilities of a cat landing on its back and buttered toast landing butter up be sufficient enough to stop the mass of the dropped car from simply crushing the theoretically hover contraption? What if the spin takes a bit of time to really get going?
More then one cat/toast drive combo.

Ah, but for the cat to land squarely on its feet it has to be alive: we could find that a lot of sudden and inexplicable feline heart attacks occur during the descent. Result: butter side down.

Not just during the descent. Imagine you've spent your entire life as a normal inhabitant of the Earth, then all of a sudden someone comes and ties something to your back, drops you, and you start spinning rapidly without obvious cause. I don't know about you, but that'd freak me out pretty bad.

This thread is full of geniuses. How long until you get bought out by the government for your innovative butteredtoast/cat hover car schematics?

This thread is full of geniuses. How long until you get bought out by the government for your innovative butteredtoast/cat hover car schematics?

*Runs to the patent office, cackling all the way*

Wouldn't the cat know if it was alive?


Wigner's friend is a thought experiment proposed by the physicist Eugene Wigner; it is an extension of the Schrödinger's cat experiment designed as a point of departure for discussing the mind-body problem as viewed by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction is said to take place when a quantum system is measured. Essentially, the Wigner's friend experiment asks the question: at what stage does a "measurement" take place? It posits a friend of Wigner who performs the Schrödinger's cat experiment while Wigner is out of the room. Only when Wigner comes into the room does he himself know the result of the experiment: until this point, was the state of the system a superposition of "dead cat/sad friend" and "alive cat/happy friend," or was it determined at some previous point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

More then one cat/toast drive combo.

But that doesn't solve the question of spin timing. If it takes a few seconds for the drive to begin spinning, all the drives would be crushed.

Also, what if the drives spin in opposite directions? Could this possibly cause more complications than foreseen?

And how would one keep the cat alive, even assuming the shock of the fall, the spin, the toast, or the car over it do not kill it? Unless, of course, the spin is a rather slow spin. Then one would simply have to refuel every once in a while by feeding the cat. Making sure that there is the required amount of butter on the toast, however, might be trickier.

Wouldn't the cat know if it was alive?

Wigner's friend is a thought experiment proposed by the physicist Eugene Wigner; it is an extension of the Schrödinger's cat experiment designed as a point of departure for discussing the mind-body problem as viewed by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction is said to take place when a quantum system is measured. Essentially, the Wigner's friend experiment asks the question: at what stage does a "measurement" take place? It posits a friend of Wigner who performs the Schrödinger's cat experiment while Wigner is out of the room. Only when Wigner comes into the room does he himself know the result of the experiment: until this point, was the state of the system a superposition of "dead cat/sad friend" and "alive cat/happy friend," or was it determined at some previous point?

Like I mentioned before, there exists not only a single state vector for any given event, but a state vector for every observer and each does not collapse until the individual observer is made aware of the outcome of a given probability.

But that doesn't solve the question of spin timing. If it takes a few seconds for the drive to begin spinning, all the drives would be crushed.

Also, what if the drives spin in opposite directions? Could this possibly cause more complications than foreseen?

And how would one keep the cat alive, even assuming the shock of the fall, the spin, the toast, or the car over it do not kill it? Unless, of course, the spin is a rather slow spin. Then one would simply have to refuel every once in a while by feeding the cat. Making sure that there is the required amount of butter on the toast, however, might be trickier.
Well, just drop the thing off of a higher cliff then.

Only one way to find out, and I plan to make these cat/toast drives hotswapable, already spinning and available in 12 packs at your local walmart.

But that doesn't solve the question of spin timing. If it takes a few seconds for the drive to begin spinning, all the drives would be crushed.

Also, what if the drives spin in opposite directions? Could this possibly cause more complications than foreseen?

And how would one keep the cat alive, even assuming the shock of the fall, the spin, the toast, or the car over it do not kill it? Unless, of course, the spin is a rather slow spin. Then one would simply have to refuel every once in a while by feeding the cat. Making sure that there is the required amount of butter on the toast, however, might be trickier.

Start them spinning then place them under the car once they've warmed up.

I figure feeding the cat is the biggest hurdle to jump, the toast will tend to keep the butter since it doesn't evaporate very rapidly you can keep the same toast for a long time, though you'd have to take your car in for periodic rebuttering, people have to take their cars in for tune-ups nowadays anyway. You could feed the cat intovenusly, or through a tube that could stay attatched even while the cat is spinning.

Like I mentioned before, there exists not only a single state vector for any given event, but a state vector for every observer and each does not collapse until the individual observer is made aware of the outcome of a given probability.

Yes, but it may not have been immediately obvious to Brezhnev that his question had been answered already prior to him posting it.

Well, just drop the thing off of a higher cliff then.

Only one way to find out, and I plan to make these cat/toast drives hotswapable, already spinning and available in 12 packs at your local walmart.

But what if the spin does not start until one part of the drive actually comes within a certain distance of hitting the ground?

And we haven't even touched on the idea of one effect dominating the other. What if a cat has more power than a piece of buttered toast?

Yes, but it may not have been immediately obvious to Brezhnev that his question had been answered already prior to him poisting it.

I like repeating myself, it helps solidify my ideas in my head, so it's all good. :)

But what if the spin does not start until one part of the drive actually comes within a certain distance of hitting the ground?

And we haven't even touched on the idea of one effect dominating the other. What if a cat has more power than a piece of buttered toast?

They're both absolutes, neither can overpower the other. "A cat always lands on its feet" and "Buttered bread always lands butter side down." Therefor neither can land at all, unless they find a crevass into which they can fall thereby touching both the cat's feet and the butter to the walls.

They're both absolutes, neither can overpower the other. "A cat always lands on its feet" and "Buttered bread always lands butter side down." Therefor neither can land at all, unless they find a crevass into which they can fall thereby touching both the cat's feet and the butter to the walls.

Potholes will suck in that case.

However, who is to say that those statements are completely true? Has every cat landing been monitored by someone or something that could verify a foot first landing? I don't think anyone paid attention to the first feline moon landing's orientation.

Umm, I hate to tell you, but sometimes physicists and people who study quantem mechanics depart from reality. Like, totally.

First, the cat will die from radiation poisening if it's that radioactive. Next, if something only exists once measured, then the sun does not exist as we've got no tape measurer, nor the planets, the earth itself, all asteroids and basically...everything.

Oi vey, you guys need to come into reality.

-FuryThats the whole point of the experiment, normal modes of thought can't be applied to quantem problems, and thinking in terms of quantem problems becomes absurd when applied to real life.

Potholes will suck in that case.

However, who is to say that those statements are completely true? Has every cat landing been monitored by someone or something that could verify a foot first landing? I don't think anyone paid attention to the first feline moon landing's orientation.

Whether the statements are demonstrably true is not the point here. The idea isn't to use real cats, but to use idealized cats who follow the absolute nature of the statement about them, and the same goes for the buttered bread. Though it may be possible to force a "normal" cat to land on its back, or a piece of buttered bread to land butter up, our idealized cats and bread ignore this fact and land as we wish them literally every time.

But what if the spin does not start until one part of the drive actually comes within a certain distance of hitting the ground?

And we haven't even touched on the idea of one effect dominating the other. What if a cat has more power than a piece of buttered toast?
Many more drives then.

Whether the statements are demonstrably true is not the point here. The idea isn't to use real cats, but to use idealized cats who follow the absolute nature of the statement about them, and the same goes for the buttered bread. Though it may be possible to force a "normal" cat to land on its back, or a piece of buttered bread to land butter up, our idealized cats and bread ignore this fact and land as we wish them literally every time.

=O Where can I get these idealized objects?! I don't have a car to make hover, but I'd think it was pretty cool to try to attach catoast drives to my shoes.

Thats the whole point of the experiment, normal modes of thought can't be applied to quantem problems, and thinking in terms of quantem problems becomes absurd when applied to real life.

It's not as bad as you think. If you express everything in terms of probabilities everything is actually quite simple, though it does create some issues that most people would have a hard time dealing with like "there's a 99.999999999999% chance that what I'm seeing is there, or that the sun will rise, or any of a number of other things we take for granted. Essentially all that thinking in terms of quantum mechanics does is remove absolutes from our speech. An interesting example of this is EPrime or English Prime which is exactly the same as normal English, but without the "is of existence." That is to say, nothing is considered absolute in EP and therefor nothing can be said to exist without any conditions. Sentences like "I am here" change to "I appear to be here." The probabilities are such that thinking in terms of absolutes hasn't gotten us into much trouble in general, but when we're talking about the scale of the universe on a quantum level and when we're trying to form equations to map the movement of the universe, it is important that we be as accurate as possible.

=O Where can I get these idealized objects?! I don't have a car to make hover, but I'd think it was pretty cool to try to attach catoast drives to my shoes.

Sadly they exist only in our minds.

Aw! I couldn't do that to my poor kitty! Heck, that's a veru inhumane thing to do to any kitty! Couldn't it be done on republicans?


lol :p

Sadly they exist only in our minds.


So did flight, moon landings, and space elevators. Idealized cats will have to become reality at some point.

So did flight, moon landings, and space elevators. Idealized cats will have to become reality at some point.

When we can shapre the fabric of the universe, change its laws, and all before dinner, then maybe, but until then we're going to have to work only with cats who's probability of landing on their feet is high, but not perfect.

:D I just had this vision of some other jolt forum user wandering into this thread by chance. :p



As the person who first introduced the topic of Schoedingers Cat to this forum many months ago, I'd like to stand up and take a bow for perpetuating the peception that NS Players are too wierd for words. :cool:

:D I just had this vision of some other jolt forum user wandering into this thread by chance. :p



As the person who first introduced the topic of Schoedingers Cat to this forum many months ago, I'd like to stand up and take a bow for perpetuating the peception that NS Players are too wierd for words. :cool:

READ SCHRODINGER'S CAT!!!

Don't tell me this thread is going to just die... this was the first worthwhile thread I've seen in so long!

READ SCHRODINGER'S CAT!!!Been there, done that. Read the whole trilogy and many other works by RAW.


Just click on my nation and check the region.

Been there, done that. Read the whole trilogy and many other works by RAW.


Just click on my nation and check the region.

So I guess you liked it then, huh?

So I guess you liked it then, huh?Funny thing is, I first heard about his book in a liberal weekly newspaper, the same one that would lead me to this site about 20 years later.

READ SCHRODINGER'S CAT!!!
Good book.

Funny thing is, I first heard about his book in a liberal weekly newspaper, the same one that would lead me to this site about 20 years later.

I picked the book off the shelf of a bookstore because the cover looked interesting, read the back and bought it immediately. I can honestly say that reading it changed my life and the way I look at the world, plus it was a ton of fun to read.

problem #1 what's to stop the cat from dying and the hover car from crashing?

simple the answer is staring us in the face, encase the cat/toast combo in a sealed box - we can't know if they cat is alive/dead unless we open the box (and collapse a vector state or whatever) thus I guess it's at least half alive...

which for a cat, is effectively 4 and 1/2 lives! plenty enough to have it land on it's feet. Simply dont open the box and the hover drive should continue to work forever...

prob #2 weight of car overcomes logical necessity of cat landing on feet Vs buttered toast

dont make a hover car. After encasing cat/toast drive in sealed box attach the box to drive shaft and use it to drive an axel/wheels in a fairly normal car thanks to the spin. (disengaging the handbreak causes the box to 'drop')

problem #1 what's to stop the cat from dying and the hover car from crashing?

simple the answer is staring us in the face, encase the cat/toast combo in a sealed box - we can't know if they cat is alive/dead unless we open the box (and collapse a vector state or whatever) thus I guess it's at least half alive...

which for a cat, is effectively 4 and 1/2 lives! plenty enough to have it land on it's feet. Simply dont open the box and the hover drive should continue to work forever...

prob #2 weight of car overcomes logical necessity of cat landing on feet Vs buttered toast

dont make a hover car. After encasing cat/toast drive in sealed box attach the box to drive shaft and use it to drive an axel/wheels in a fairly normal car thanks to the spin. (disengaging the handbreak causes the box to 'drop')

The idea of using the spin of the cat/toast to power a drive shaft is solid, but the box would observe the cat so it could die even if we didn't know it. Also, given great enough time and given no means of survival we can be meaninfully sure that the cat will be dead after a certain of time, so that plan doesn't work.

I picked the book off the shelf of a bookstore because the cover looked interesting, read the back and bought it immediately. I can honestly say that reading it changed my life and the way I look at the world, plus it was a ton of fun to read.Just out of curiosity which cover was it, I've seen a couple on the various editions over the years. And I know what you mean by fun to read, I sought out more of his work as soon as I finished it the first time. I love books that get you thinking down different paths.

Just out of curiosity which cover was it, I've seen a couple on the various editions over the years. And I know what you mean by fun to read, I sought out more of his work as soon as I finished it the first time. I love books that get you thinking down different paths.

The one with the checkerboard pattern and the cat with stars and stuff on it with it's pawn on a globe. I don't have the book in front of me because I leant to to a friend, but I'm pretty sure that's how it went.

The one with the checkerboard pattern and the cat with stars and stuff on it with it's pawn on a globe. I don't have the book in front of me because I leant to to a friend, but I'm pretty sure that's how it went.Wow, that's even a new one for me, I think the original had a cat with a womans face and then a later edition had a woman with a cats head (IIRC, heck it might have been the reverse). Every time I talk with you OE, I'm amazed at how much we have in common. Didn't you once say that you were in Yolo county?

The idea of using the spin of the cat/toast to power a drive shaft is solid, but the box would observe the cat so it could die even if we didn't know it. Also, given great enough time and given no means of survival we can be meaninfully sure that the cat will be dead after a certain of time, so that plan doesn't work.

Ahh, it is like the riddle of the rhino and the elephant.

The rhino was unstopable, no force on earth could stop him once he charged (assuming he doesn't decide to stop)
The elephant was immovable, nothing could budge him once he decided he would stay where he was.

One day the rhino got drunk, and charged the elephant.


What happens? simple: they both died.

the lesson: don't drink drive, it tastes like soap.

"In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin are good reads as well. I'm fairly sure the Kittens experiment was in space and had the same radioactive stuff. It was something about the radiactive stuff had decayed, and the direction of the radiation determined which one of the two kittens was killed (but the direction wasnt measured, only that it had taken place), and the kittens were then shot off in opposite directions into space. This leaves both kittens in a dead/alive state until someone/thing came across one of them and took a look. This observations collapses the probability function of both kittens at the same time despite the huge distance between them.
I'm sure I've left something out/got somthing slightly wrong, but its along the right track...

"In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin are good reads as well. I'm fairly sure the Kittens experiment was in space and had the same radioactive stuff. It was something about the radiactive stuff had decayed, and the direction of the radiation determined which one of the two kittens was killed (but the direction wasnt measured, only that it had taken place), and the kittens were then shot off in opposite directions into space. This leaves both kittens in a dead/alive state until someone/thing came across one of them and took a look. This observations collapses the probability function of both kittens at the same time despite the huge distance between them.
I'm sure I've left something out/got somthing slightly wrong, but its along the right track...

Oh the whole thing is stupid. your ignorance does not affect the state of the cat! just because you can't tell doesn't mean the cat is between states - it means you don't know.

you should therefore ACT as if the cat is between states, because you don't know. but it is one way or the other. The cat knows, and it's not the universes fault that Schrodinger was a smeghead.

The one with the checkerboard pattern and the cat with stars and stuff on it with it's pawn on a globe. I don't have the book in front of me because I leant to to a friend, but I'm pretty sure that's how it went.
That's the one I've got. Same motif as my copy of The Illuminatus! Trilogy and Masks of the Illuminati. They're probably newer covers.

Surely the fact that there is a cat in the box means that it is already being measured, by the cat.

Ah, here we go:
http://www.thoughtemporium.org/book6.jpg

Oh the whole thing is stupid. your ignorance does not affect the state of the cat! just because you can't tell doesn't mean the cat is between states - it means you don't know.

you should therefore ACT as if the cat is between states, because you don't know. but it is one way or the other. The cat knows, and it's not the universes fault that Schrodinger was a smeghead. :rolleyes: Schroedinger actually proposed the problem to illustrate what he percieved as a major flaw in quantum mechanics. By doing the math you get two answers and by applying this to a situation such as the cat problem it translates into contradictory solutions, ie the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Common sense says the cat can't be both, he was just pointing out that quantum math say's it can. Where you go from that is up to you.

Surely the fact that there is a cat in the box means that it is already being measured, by the cat.

I beleive it's an arrogance and relativity thing.

- If I don't know the cat's state, then the cat has no state.

- If Ed doesn't know the cat's state, then with respect to edd's private universe the cat has no state.

i.e. The rest of you are all just members of my own private universe, and only really exist when you are talking to me. :headbang:

Ah, here we go:
http://www.thoughtemporium.org/book6.jpgAh, the entire trilogy in one volume, when I first read it 'The trick Top Hat' and 'The Homing Pigeons' (I think thats the last one, god it's been a long time) were seperate books.

problem #1 what's to stop the cat from dying and the hover car from crashing?

simple the answer is staring us in the face, encase the cat/toast combo in a sealed box - we can't know if they cat is alive/dead unless we open the box (and collapse a vector state or whatever) thus I guess it's at least half alive...

which for a cat, is effectively 4 and 1/2 lives! plenty enough to have it land on it's feet. Simply dont open the box and the hover drive should continue to work forever...

prob #2 weight of car overcomes logical necessity of cat landing on feet Vs buttered toast

dont make a hover car. After encasing cat/toast drive in sealed box attach the box to drive shaft and use it to drive an axel/wheels in a fairly normal car thanks to the spin. (disengaging the handbreak causes the box to 'drop')

problem 3#

cat eats toast= car crash

i.e. The rest of you are all just members of my own private universe, and only really exist when you are talking to me. :headbang:You should read the book. Then you might not think that statement to be so farfetched ;) .

I understand that it's just a theory, and that it would be basicly pointless because as soon as the cat(and/or subatomic particle, electron in this case) was measured, the probability wave forms would collapse, but hasn't an eccentric rich guy ever gotten curious?

No, because it's impossible.

Poor Schroedinger thought of a way to demonstrate the uselessness of trying to measure this sort of thing and it's been taken generally as a hallmark of theoretical thought.

He was criticising this branch of physics, not helping it.

problem 3#

cat eats toast= car crash

:D we must restrain the cat in such a way as to prevent it eating the toast, but without restricting it's movement at all so it can still land on its feet.

You should read the book. Then you might not think that statement to be so farfetched ;) .

Perhaps I should, but the idea is so crazy... but then it does annoy me when people think the sun is made out of lava so I guess I should read it and become enlightened... But I was having so much fun calling physicists stupid...

Perhaps I should, but the idea is so crazy... but then it does annoy me when people think the sun is made out of lava so I guess I should read it and become enlightened... But I was having so much fun calling physicists stupid...
It's an experience.

surely if we have diealised cats and idealised buttered toast, then couldnt we just say that cars ALWAYS hover. and if we then had idealised cars they would hover

Aw, I was hoping this was the one with buttered toast.
Thats funny. If you dropped a cat there supposed to land on their legs. But toast always is supposed to land upside down. If you attached the toast on a cats back butter side up, and then dropped it, which would it land?
Or would it float? :confused:

Wow, that's even a new one for me, I think the original had a cat with a womans face and then a later edition had a woman with a cats head (IIRC, heck it might have been the reverse). Every time I talk with you OE, I'm amazed at how much we have in common. Didn't you once say that you were in Yolo county?

I did once say I was in Yolo county, and I've found myself thinking basically the same thing about you before...

*looks around for the conspiracy*

If it doesn’t turn girls into catgirls, than I’m not interested.

"In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" and "Schrodinger's Kittens" by John Gribbin are good reads as well. I'm fairly sure the Kittens experiment was in space and had the same radioactive stuff. It was something about the radiactive stuff had decayed, and the direction of the radiation determined which one of the two kittens was killed (but the direction wasnt measured, only that it had taken place), and the kittens were then shot off in opposite directions into space. This leaves both kittens in a dead/alive state until someone/thing came across one of them and took a look. This observations collapses the probability function of both kittens at the same time despite the huge distance between them.
I'm sure I've left something out/got somthing slightly wrong, but its along the right track...


Quantum non-locality, is the theory derived from this thought experiment. Essentially what it says is that Einstein was wrong when he said that nothing could appear to travel faster than the speed of light (sort of). The experiment shows that information can travel faster than light, that is to say, you can get information about something far away instantly. Eventually the theory was refined to say that once any two particles came in contact they would continue to effect each other no matter how far apart they got and was demonstrated by causing two particles to interact then seperating them, spinning one and measuring the effect on both instantly. It was shown that the effect on one had an instantaneous effect on the other, despite their distance. The theory has been further expanded to possibly include temporal non-locality, that is to say that something in the future could cause something in the past or that something in the distant past could cause something in the present. Now to explain to "sort of." Einstein said nothing could appear to travel faster than the speed of light and he might still be right, despite the findings of the non-locality experiments. The experimenter cheats the laws of physics by being in two places at once during the experiment. The state-vector for each cat, or each particle is collapsed at the same time because the observer observes both at the same time. The state-vector exists only as a model within the head of the observer, so when he observes one cat to be either dead or alive he collapses the model of the state-vector for both cats, leaving the second cat still unobserved. The difference between the model of the state-vector, and the vector itself is a subtle one, but one which must be taken into account when discussing the principles of non-locality.

Oh the whole thing is stupid. your ignorance does not affect the state of the cat! just because you can't tell doesn't mean the cat is between states - it means you don't know.

you should therefore ACT as if the cat is between states, because you don't know. but it is one way or the other. The cat knows, and it's not the universes fault that Schrodinger was a smeghead.

It is important when we are talking about this sort of thing that we all understand that the collapse of the state-vector happens when anything observes the object and what we think of as the collapse is really just something happening in our heads, the collapse of the model of the state-vector we carry around with us. The state-vectors of both cats collapse immediately because each observes the other, but our models stay uncollapsed until we find one cat and observe it.

That's the one I've got. Same motif as my copy of The Illuminatus! Trilogy and Masks of the Illuminati. They're probably newer covers.

I've got Illuminatus! like that too, again, leant to a friend. It might just be me, but RAW's books seem to be the kind that should be leant to as many people as will read them.

:rolleyes: Schroedinger actually proposed the problem to illustrate what he percieved as a major flaw in quantum mechanics. By doing the math you get two answers and by applying this to a situation such as the cat problem it translates into contradictory solutions, ie the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Common sense says the cat can't be both, he was just pointing out that quantum math say's it can. Where you go from that is up to you.

The solution is simple, a change in wording solves the contradiction between the two results. Instead of saying, "the cat is half alive and half dead" I'll say, "there is a 50% chance that the cat is alive and a 50% chance that the cat is dead," thus introducing the element of uncertainty and removing the contradiction.

I beleive it's an arrogance and relativity thing.

- If I don't know the cat's state, then the cat has no state.

- If Ed doesn't know the cat's state, then with respect to edd's private universe the cat has no state.

i.e. The rest of you are all just members of my own private universe, and only really exist when you are talking to me. :headbang:

No no no, seperate your personal model of the universe from the physical universe itself. In your own personal model, everything exists only as you're observing it, though you can assume that the things still exist while you're gone if you like. In the "actual" "physical" universe, everything exists all the time, but you can't know that so it doesn't matter.

No, because it's impossible.

Poor Schroedinger thought of a way to demonstrate the uselessness of trying to measure this sort of thing and it's been taken generally as a hallmark of theoretical thought.

He was criticising this branch of physics, not helping it.

Critisism is the best help possible.

Thats funny. If you dropped a cat there supposed to land on their legs. But toast always is supposed to land upside down. If you attached the toast on a cats back butter side up, and then dropped it, which would it land?
Or would it float? :confused:

Sorry friend, but you're a little behind. :)

what about that book by dr suess were one city butters there toast on the top while the other butters the bottom of the bread?think its called Butterside battle

Well, just drop the thing off of a higher cliff then.

Only one way to find out, and I plan to make these cat/toast drives hotswapable, already spinning and available in 12 packs at your local walmart.
but would you be prepared to thow your hover craft off a cliff with you in it and what if there was a gear failure cat licks all the butter off or if you had a dodgy mechanic who used margarine or jam instead of butter would you always have to use the same brand of butter?is this like the tree that falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

what about that book by dr suess were one city butters there toast on the top while the other butters the bottom of the bread?think its called Butterside battle

The Butter Battle Book is a classic... period.

but would you be prepared to thow your hover craft off a cliff with you in it and what if there was a gear failure cat licks all the butter off or if you had a dodgy mechanic who used margarine or jam instead of butter would you always have to use the same brand of butter?is this like the tree that falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Someone earlier suggested that the cat might eat the toast, but I ask you this, can your get your mouth around to your back to each toast or to lick it? Didn't think so. As for the dodgy mechanic, do you trust the mechanics who work on your car? because if you didn't you probably wouldn't drive either. And yes, it would make a sound, a humming or purring sound, like a UFO. In fact, identical to a UFO because that's what they use for propulsion.

*Still not letting this thread die*

I think he proved what needed to be proven, there's no point trying it again. It is a very interesting experiment though - I wish I was around to see it.

oops.
It's a theoretical experiment.
At a quantum level all events are governed by probablities. The amazing thing is that they don't even become actual events until they're measured. Schrodinger made up an experiment that would make this true in a level higher then subatomic.
Let's say there's a cat in a box. Inside the box theres a lump of radioactive material and a vial of gas. It's made so that there's a 50/50 chance of an atom decaying and emitting an electron and that if an electron was emitted the cat would be gassed. Since the electron only exists or doesn't exist once it's been measured, the cat only is gassed or isn't gassed once it's been measured.

You left out an important part: if you open the box the cat will be gassed before you can see it, so you can't know if it would've happened otherwise or not. That's the whole point: the uncertainty principle.

Well, The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics suggests that different editions of us live in many different worlds simultaneously, an unacountable number of them, all of them are real. So, in one world the cat lives, in another it does not.

The wave function representing the cat does not collapse. The cat is both dead and alive.

is this like the tree that falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? what do you mean "and no one is around to hear it " there always it, even if it's only the other trees!

Someone earlier suggested that the cat might eat the toast, but I ask you this, can your get your mouth around to your back to each toast or to lick it?


how do you attach the buttered toast to the cat? if you use string it may well slide around to the underside of the cat. thereby allowing the cat's paws and butter in contact with the ground. plus a cat can lick it's own back, they just can't do the fiddly bit right behind the neck.

if you say GM i'll shoot the cat, the toast and Schrodinger myself!

You left out an important part: if you open the box the cat will be gassed before you can see it, so you can't know if it would've happened otherwise or not. That's the whole point: the uncertainty principle.

That sort of ruins the point of the experiment doesn't it. The only important thing is that it is uncertain while it's in the box, you don't need, and in fact it is undesirable, to maintain the uncertainly after the experiment is over.

oops.
It's a theoretical experiment.
At a quantum level all events are governed by probablities. The amazing thing is that they don't even become actual events until they're measured. Schrodinger made up an experiment that would make this true in a level higher then subatomic.
Let's say there's a cat in a box. Inside the box theres a lump of radioactive material and a vial of gas. It's made so that there's a 50/50 chance of an atom decaying and emitting an electron and that if an electron was emitted the cat would be gassed. Since the electron only exists or doesn't exist once it's been measured, the cat only is gassed or isn't gassed once it's been measured.

personally although interesting, his idea does seem a bit daft. He seems more like he's tried be be a smart git and say "if a tree falls in the woods and there's no-one around does it still make a noise?"

As the electron would be there whether we measured it or not (unless they're a figmant of our imagination).

personally although interesting, his idea does seem a bit daft. He seems more like he's tried be be a smart git and say "if a tree falls in the woods and there's no-one around does it still make a noise?"

As the electron would be there whether we measured it or not (unless they're a figmant of our imagination).

The equations of quantum mechanics seem to suggest that the electron in fact would not exist until observed, but would instead be in a state of pre-existence with %50 probability of occuring one way or another upon observation. Because this is a thought experiment and not an actual experiment we can say that neither the box nor the air inside it observe the electron, so it remains as an uncollapes state vector until we open the box and observe it.

You left out an important part: if you open the box the cat will be gassed before you can see it, so you can't know if it would've happened otherwise or not. That's the whole point: the uncertainty principle.

Heisenbergs "uncertainty principle" is basically that, we cannot measure accurately, at the same time, both the position and the momentum of a moving particle. The more we know about one, the less we know aout the other.

Did you mean this or something else?