NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the deal. Yesterday, a classmate of mine walks into my writing class wearing a shirt that says, "Shrodinger's cat is dead" on one side and that it is not on the other. Mistaking it for something else, I laughed and commented. He said that most people didn't get it, and I laughed again. Then it hit me I was one of those people. So after class I sauntered over to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat) and got this (among other things):

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

Whoa. What does it mean? As near as I can figure out, the whole idea is that there is a 50% chance the cat is alive. Why does this need such a complex setup just to say there's a 50%? I must have missed something.

The cat's the observer.

Here's the deal. Yesterday, a classmate of mine walks into my writing class wearing a shirt that says, "Shrodinger's cat is dead" on one side and that it is not on the other. Mistaking it for something else, I laughed and commented. He said that most people didn't get it, and I laughed again. Then it hit me I was one of those people. So after class I sauntered over to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat) and got this (among other things):



Whoa. What does it mean? As near as I can figure out, the whole idea is that there is a 50% chance the cat is alive. Why does this need such a complex setup just to say there's a 50%? I must have missed something.

Because until you observe it, the cat is both alive and dead.

Whoa. What does it mean? As near as I can figure out, the whole idea is that there is a 50% chance the cat is alive. Why does this need such a complex setup just to say there's a 50%? I must have missed something.

That's...not exactly what it means. It means literally what the shirt says. The cat is dead, AND alive, same time.

What it means, basically, is this. According to general quantum theory, subatomic particles don't exist in a singular state, but rather those particles exist in every possible state, simultaniously, until observed. the thought experiment postulated that if you locked a cat in a box, and made it so it lived or died based on a state of a particle, if you did not observe the cat, since the particle could exist in both states simultaniously, and the cat depended on the particle, the cat would exist also in both states, simultaniously...both living, and dead, at the same time.

So as long as the outcome was not observed (IE you didn't look in the box) the particle state was not defined, and since the particle existed in both states, the cat existed in both states.

The cat's the observer.

Actually technically the geiger counter...or whatever device you use to determine the state of the particle which reacts to kill the cat, is the observer.

Because until you observe it, the cat is both alive and dead.

Not really. The cat is either dead or it isn't.

Not really. The cat is either dead or it isn't.

but the quantum state of the particle has not been defined, therefore it both has decayed, and has not decayed (quantum particles are wierd like that). And since if it decays the cat dies, and if it does not decay the cat lives, and since it's done both, the cat is both alive or dead.

What is needed to understand about quantum mechanics is the idea that a particle can be two things at once simultaniously, until observed in one state or another.

but the quantum state of the particle has not been defined, therefore it both has decayed, and has not decayed (quantum particles are wierd like that). And since if it decays the cat dies, and if it does not decay the cat lives, and since it's done both, the cat is both alive or dead.

What is needed to understand about quantum mechanics is the idea that a particle can be two things at once simultaniously, until observed in one state or another.

No. What is needed is a grasp of thermodynamics.

What happens if after the hour a mechanism ejects the poison capsule from the box and no-one ever opens it? Does the cat just stay as an uncollapsed psi funtion forever? Could we open the box in a thousand years and collapse the cat into either a living being or a fresh corpse. It's a silly thought experiment. But then that was the point.

You were correct in saying that the counter is the observer however.

It's a silly thought experiment. But then that was the point.


Well it just goes to show that quantum principles don't apply in a macroscopic ruleset.

Or if you want to give a "simple" answer, it is just easy to say that a psi function can not go "unobserved", something will always interfer with it forcing it to collapse into a single state.

Or if you want to give a "simple" answer, it is just easy to say that a psi function can not go "unobserved", something will always interfer with it forcing it to collapse into a single state.

Obviously. I've never really understood all the fuss about it.

Though it is instructive how people get so bent out of shape about it.

While Wikipedia may bore and confuse, Cecil Adams of the Straight Dope enlightens. Behold!

SCHROEDINGER'S CAT
An Epic Poem

Dear Cecil:

Cecil, you're my final hope of finding out the true Straight Dope
For I have been reading of Schroedinger's cat, but none of my cats are at all like that.
This unusual animal (so it is said) is simultaneously live and dead!
What I don't understand is just why he can't be one or other, unquestionably.
My future now hangs in between eigenstates. In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.
If you understand, Cecil, then show me the way, and rescue my psyche from quantum decay.
But if this queer thing has perplexed even you, then I will and won't see you in Schroedinger's zoo.
--Randy F., Chicago

Dear Randy:

Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)

Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.

Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!

No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.

E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--

Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom

Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.

The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.

Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough @#&!

We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--

Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'

The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'

So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--
In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.

Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."

--CECIL ADAMS

:D :D :D

the cat does not exist, or rather it does but only in the way you want it to. as in a cat or thousands of sub particals

Ah, I see. So it is both alive and dead at the same time, and we have no way of telling which without observing the experiment. However, this will force one outcome or the other, not both.

And that poem rocks Wiki's socks.

Ah, I see. So it is both alive and dead at the same time, and we have no way of telling which without observing the experiment. However, this will force one outcome or the other, not both.

And that poem rocks Wiki's socks.

Someone should put that poem into the wiki article.

Ah, I see. So it is both alive and dead at the same time, and we have no way of telling which without observing the experiment. However, this will force one outcome or the other, not both.

That is the basis for the thought experiment, so yeah, you have a general understanding.

The reason this thought experiment fails however is because it uses "observes" when it really should say "disturbs". Lemme explain. We can observe a whole lot of things without disturbing them, my cat, a box, a tree, but when you get down to the REAAAALY small, it's not so easy. You can't "see" a quantum particle because it is smaller than light itself, but you can get a general sense of it by obeserving how it interracts with other particles...bouncing electrons off it and some such.

Because quantum particles are so small, you can not observe them without in some way disturbing them....imagine by example you can not see the building, all you are able to do is drop a bomb on it and see the rubble that gets left over.

So the idea is that a psi function left all alone by its lonesome would exist in all states at once, but whenever we try to observe it, we disturb it, and it's the disruption that forces it to collapse into a single function. Sort of a modification of the tree in the woods...if there's a psi function in the woods and nobody is around to observe it, does it have a state?

The problem is then that so many people use "observe" when they really should use "disturb". Yes, observing will disturb, but plenty of things can disturb without causing any observation. Random electromagnetic fields, stray particles, hell perhaps even gravity. All of this will disturb an uncollapsed psi function, forcing it into a singular state.

So from a mental exercise, since the particle exists in all states, the cat, whose state depends on the state of the particle, also exists in all possible states.

The exercise fails however when one realizes that the particle in question does not exist in isolation, and will be disturbed in such a way to collapse into a singular state, and thus the cat will either be dead, or alive.

Feed the kitty, the kitty must eat.

WTF? That's why I hate some people who contribute to wikipedia. They need to actually use moderate English, as not all of us major in all fields of science.

Use simple English wikipedia. It's the best out there when it comes to science articles (because uber-geeks don't go there to contribute).

What it means, basically, is this. According to general quantum theory, subatomic particles don't exist in a singular state, but rather those particles exist in every possible state, simultaniously, until observed. the thought experiment postulated that if you locked a cat in a box, and made it so it lived or died based on a state of a particle, if you did not observe the cat, since the particle could exist in both states simultaniously, and the cat depended on the particle, the cat would exist also in both states, simultaniously...both living, and dead, at the same time.

That explains it much better than that wikipedia article (no sarcasm). Thanks.

Someone should put that poem into the wiki article.

You can't or else it'll be removed for "vandalism" (probably).

As I understand it, the radioactive-zombie cat killed God.

Is that right?

"To understand something means to derive it from quantum mechanics,
which nobody understands."


Mrs. Schroedinger to Mr. Schroedinger: What the hell did you do to the cat?
It looks half dead!


The Two Cat Experiment

A panel with two slits is set up in front of a measuring device--a cat
scanner.

When numerous cats are fired at the panel, the scanner measures the
expected interference pattern. But, when a single cat is fired through a
single slit, the cat doesn't know if it's alive or dead.


If Schroedinger's Cat walks into a forest, and no one is around to observe it, is he really in the forest?


SCHRODINGER'S CAT BOX

A fun project is the Schrodinger's Cat Box. You need a mild source of
radioactivity (I use scrapings from old "luminous" watches I get at flea
markets). I make a box out of plywood except that two sides are small
celled Nomex honeycomb (<.125") cut to three inch thickness. One honeycomb
side is covered with onion skin paper and the other is left open. A strong
light is positioned outside the open celled honeycomb wall and is directed
into the box. The radioactive scrapings are smeared across the light lens
with a bit of glue. Inside the box I put the sensor to a Geiger counter
(borrow one from your local high school). The counter is connected to a
fast relay which, when closed by an alpha particle from the scrapings,
lights the light. Now, a small, live animal (cat) is placed into the box.
One stands behind the onion skin paper side of the box and plugs in the
Geiger Counter. With no light the alpha particles are few and are not
sufficient to turn on the light. The light is switched the first time with
a switch which is in parallel with the relay. Instantly you can see the
shadow of the animal on the onion skin paper. Then, as the cat moves, the
light and rush of alpha particles turn the light on and off, strobe like,
and you can see that sometimes the animal is not there, or some part of him
is gone! It's quantum uncertainty can be measured. It proves that there
are two states for the animal (and everything else) -- existence and
non-existence. No harm comes to the animal, by the way.


Disregarding the metaphysical aspects of Schrodinger's cats, (Letters,
April 28) I must protest at the use of (possibly live) animals for
experiments such as these. I urge readers to boycott whatever product
this research is leading to.

Roger Bisby, Reigate, Surrey.

[Note - originally appeared in RHF during second quarter of 1990 - ed]


There is nothing wrong with the Schroedinger's Cat experiment! You aren't
actually killing the cat until you measure it... When the Humane Society
comes up and looks into your box, you can rest assured that the cat's death
is their fault...



(1) She had to get to the farm, or did she?

(2) Since the wording of the question implies the absence of an observer
(else the fowl's motivation might easily be deduced), it is evident that
the chicken simultaneously did _and_ did not cross the road. In the face of
this, any speculation as to the bird's purpose must be viewed as mere
sophistry -- and as such is beyond the bounds of this discussion.

(3) Chicken? Chicken!? Where's my cat?

(4) Until the actual act or non-act of crossing the road was observed,
the act remained a cloud of probabilities.

That is the basis for the thought experiment, so yeah, you have a general understanding.

The reason this thought experiment fails however is because it uses "observes" when it really should say "disturbs". Lemme explain. We can observe a whole lot of things without disturbing them, my cat, a box, a tree, but when you get down to the REAAAALY small, it's not so easy. You can't "see" a quantum particle because it is smaller than light itself, but you can get a general sense of it by obeserving how it interracts with other particles...bouncing electrons off it and some such.

Because quantum particles are so small, you can not observe them without in some way disturbing them....imagine by example you can not see the building, all you are able to do is drop a bomb on it and see the rubble that gets left over.

So the idea is that a psi function left all alone by its lonesome would exist in all states at once, but whenever we try to observe it, we disturb it, and it's the disruption that forces it to collapse into a single function. Sort of a modification of the tree in the woods...if there's a psi function in the woods and nobody is around to observe it, does it have a state?

The problem is then that so many people use "observe" when they really should use "disturb". Yes, observing will disturb, but plenty of things can disturb without causing any observation. Random electromagnetic fields, stray particles, hell perhaps even gravity. All of this will disturb an uncollapsed psi function, forcing it into a singular state.

So from a mental exercise, since the particle exists in all states, the cat, whose state depends on the state of the particle, also exists in all possible states.

The exercise fails however when one realizes that the particle in question does not exist in isolation, and will be disturbed in such a way to collapse into a singular state, and thus the cat will either be dead, or alive.


Excellent post! I give it a 9.78 out of a possible 10. Highest score I have ever awarded. Also the only score I have ever awarded but still.

snip
No, observe is the correct word, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation. This is why the Bohr-Heisenberg (Copenhagen Interpretation) has been criticised, because the idea of measurement, or observation, is ill-defined. In fact, it really isn't defined at all. It is not obvious why a classical concept, the observation, should act on a quantum system.

The answer to the whole debate over quantum is nicely summarised by Paul Dirac, "Shut up and calculate." Quantum mechanics is 'instrumentalist': the researchers who are in the best position to intrepret it, the theoreticians, are the ones who say it has no physical meaning, only usefulness in calculating observables.

Anyone who thinks of it more seriously than that, such as Einstein, tend to come up with alternative views of the universe, such as the Many-Worlds Interpretation.

Also, I would like to point out that |<Ψ|[A,B]|Ψ>|² = ih/(2π), which I have finally understood yesterday, and I am damned excited about it.

Also, I would like to point out that |<Ψ|[A,B]|Ψ>|² = ih/(2π), which I have finally understood yesterday, and I am damned excited about it.

Congrats! I think someone deserves $5,000,000,000,000,000 OR 1 (one) cookie. Make your choice?

*snip*

That was hilarious

That was hilarious

Was it now?

Also, I would like to point out that |<Ψ|[A,B]|Ψ>|² = ih/(2π), which I have finally understood yesterday, and I am damned excited about it.

Have you had time to reflect upon it and to try to understand the implications and potential of it yet?

I don't like this joke.

I don't like this joke.

lol, what joke?

I don't like this joke.

You sir are a cat lover! J'accuse

lol, what joke?

*kills self*

*kills self*

Ah, but we cannot see you kill yourself, even if you say you have. Therefore, you are both alive and dead.

Have you had time to reflect upon it and to try to understand the implications and potential of it yet?

he both has and has not.

You sir are a cat lover! J'accuse

I quit life.

Congrats! I think someone deserves $5,000,000,000,000,000 OR 1 (one) cookie. Make your choice?
physics never made anyone any money... i'll go for the cookie

You can't or else it'll be removed for "vandalism" (probably).
Like that ever stopped anyone doing anything on wiki. Just look at what happened to L. Ron Hubbards (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/LRHisacheeseburger.jpg) page.
Trilby63;11840123']As I understand it, the radioactive-zombie cat killed God.

Is that right?
You couldn't be more wrong. For one it's goddess not god. For another if Eris was attakced by a radioactive zombie cat she'd probably pelt it with golden apples. She'd win easily.
Mrs. Schroedinger to Mr. Schroedinger: What the hell did you do to the cat?
It looks half dead!




If Schroedinger's Cat walks into a forest, and no one is around to observe it, is he really in the forest?


SCHRODINGER'S CAT BOX

A fun project is the Schrodinger's Cat Box. You need a mild source of
radioactivity (I use scrapings from old "luminous" watches I get at flea
markets). I make a box out of plywood except that two sides are small
celled Nomex honeycomb (<.125") cut to three inch thickness. One honeycomb
side is covered with onion skin paper and the other is left open. A strong
light is positioned outside the open celled honeycomb wall and is directed
into the box. The radioactive scrapings are smeared across the light lens
with a bit of glue. Inside the box I put the sensor to a Geiger counter
(borrow one from your local high school). The counter is connected to a
fast relay which, when closed by an alpha particle from the scrapings,
lights the light. Now, a small, live animal (cat) is placed into the box.
One stands behind the onion skin paper side of the box and plugs in the
Geiger Counter. With no light the alpha particles are few and are not
sufficient to turn on the light. The light is switched the first time with
a switch which is in parallel with the relay. Instantly you can see the
shadow of the animal on the onion skin paper. Then, as the cat moves, the
light and rush of alpha particles turn the light on and off, strobe like,
and you can see that sometimes the animal is not there, or some part of him
is gone! It's quantum uncertainty can be measured. It proves that there
are two states for the animal (and everything else) -- existence and
non-existence. No harm comes to the animal, by the way.




There is nothing wrong with the Schroedinger's Cat experiment! You aren't
actually killing the cat until you measure it... When the Humane Society
comes up and looks into your box, you can rest assured that the cat's death
is their fault...

LMFAO!

Ah, but we cannot see you kill yourself, even if you say you have. Therefore, you are both alive and dead.
Front of shirt:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/created/schrodingerscat.jpg
Back of shirt:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/created/schrodingerscat2copy.jpg

Have you had time to reflect upon it and to try to understand the implications and potential of it yet?
well, so far the potential is infinite, and somewhat square well-like :p ouch...
anyways, no, i have only gotten as far as the notation at this point...

I quit life.

Too late. You are stuck on this mortal koil with the rest of us. Might as well make the best of it and take cool pics with your new camera as you muddle along with us.

My belief is that Schroedinger's Cat is a solipsist. Which means that, since there IS no one who can observe it, the cat is effectively immortal (well, and dead, of course).

Someone should put that poem into the wiki article.
Surely! At least a link, they won't accept it full.
Now I'll load it into another wiki...

By the way, Cats are really remarkable beings. Be sure to check this link:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law_application_for_antigravitatory_cats

Their Schroedinger properties make them real things.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/8/8b/Cat_toast_swirl.gif

Front of shirt:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/created/schrodingerscat.jpg
Back of shirt:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/created/schrodingerscat2copy.jpg

Your shirt makes the baby Buddha cry!

I may need to TG you a url of the hilariousest cat pics evah to cheer you up to merely morbid instead of full blown rigormortistude.

Surely! At least a link, they won't accept it full.
Now I'll load it into another wiki...

By the way, Cats are really remarkable beings. Be sure to check this link:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law_application_for_antigravitatory_cats

Their Schroedinger properties make them real things.

I now somewhat dislike you, as you have linked to a misquoting of Murphy's Law. "Anything that can go wrong, will" is Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives. Murphy's Law is "If there are two or more ways of doing something, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then someone will do it that way".

I expected more from uncyclopedia.

Like that ever stopped anyone doing anything on wiki. Just look at what happened to L. Ron Hubbards (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/LRHisacheeseburger.jpg) page.


LOL, nice find :D

Where'd you get that firefox skin? It owns.

I now somewhat dislike you, as you have linked to a misquoting of Murphy's Law. "Anything that can go wrong, will" is Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives. Murphy's Law is "If there are two or more ways of doing something, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then someone will do it that way".

I expected more from uncyclopedia.
http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-true.html
Murphy's laws origin
The Desert Wings
March 3, 1978

Murphy's Law ("If anything can go wrong, it will") was born at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949 at North Base.

It was named after Capt. Edward A. Murphy, an engineer working on Air Force Project MX981, (a project) designed to see how much sudden deceleration a person can stand in a crash.

One day, after finding that a transducer was wired wrong, he cursed the technician responsible and said, "If there is any way to do it wrong, he'll find it."

The contractor's project manager kept a list of "laws" and added this one, which he called Murphy's Law.

I now somewhat dislike you, as you have linked to a misquoting of Murphy's Law.
Just notice how you have just proved the law once more by doing this! Expect a disaster the worst moment possible now.

"Anything that can go wrong, will" is Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives. Murphy's Law is "If there are two or more ways of doing something, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then someone will do it that way".
I expected more from uncyclopedia.

Well, I didn't really check it before linking - posted as soon as found. Any suggestions on better wording for a fix?

Well, I didn't really check it before linking - find-n-post.

check the post above yours for further hilarity.

http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-true.html

Strange, I've heard the same story supporting the other version. Hmmmm.

Here's the deal. Yesterday, a classmate of mine walks into my writing class wearing a shirt that says, "Shrodinger's cat is dead" on one side and that it is not on the other. Mistaking it for something else, I laughed and commented. He said that most people didn't get it, and I laughed again. Then it hit me I was one of those people. So after class I sauntered over to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat) and got this (among other things):



Whoa. What does it mean? As near as I can figure out, the whole idea is that there is a 50% chance the cat is alive. Why does this need such a complex setup just to say there's a 50%? I must have missed something.

I was about to respond to the title by suggesting that you take Heisenberg's allergy pills, but I'll cruise the rest of the thread to see if anyone explained it before I try.

I was about to respond to the title by suggesting that you take Heisenberg's allergy pills, but I'll cruise the rest of the thread to see if anyone explained it before I try.

Those pills will give you Heisenberg Uncertainty pimples.

That could be a great T-shirt slogan.

"Until you open the box, Schrodinger's Cat is a fuckin' zombie."

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/8/8b/Cat_toast_swirl.gif

It's spinning endlessly! WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO?! :eek:

Not really. The cat is either dead or it isn't.

To sum it up you really don't know unless you open it. So in your perception of reality. The cat could be dead or it could be alive. You don't know!

It's spinning endlessly! WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO?! :eek:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Cat_toast.JPG

You need precision equipment to ensure that Fbt and Fc are exactly coaxial. Otherwise it creates a momentum which spins the cat.

After the cat can float, mount actuators to the toast so it can fly in any direction like a chopper. And a cat is even better, because you don't need the tail toast, as the cat controls her flight by tailerons!

tailerons!

You should be bopped for that pun.

I think I prefer the cat in a hat rather than a box....

Apparently cats in hats are more observant than cats in boxes...