Schrödinger's Cat

Jambo

Jambo

Jambo

Soldato
Joined
4 Aug 2004
Posts
5,205
I know this has been discussed a few times but I have to bring it up again.

What is it saying exactly? You do not know whether the cat is dead or alive until it has been observed? And the act of observing may affect the outcome so you never really know.

Is that close?
 
I thought it's both dead and alive at the same time, and it isn't exclusively one of them until you observe it? Or something :s
 
OCdt Stringy said:
I thought it's both dead and alive at the same time, and it isn't exclusively one of them until you observe it? Or something :s
Click to expand...

That's how I understood it. You can only observe it in one state even though in one point in time according to Quantum mechanics it exists as both....
 
OCdt Stringy said:
I thought it's both dead and alive at the same time, and it isn't exclusively one of them until you observe it? Or something :s
Click to expand...
Aye. Both states exist with probabilities summing to unity. The act of observation destroys the wave function, and reduces to a single outcome (which one is random).
 
Jambo said:
Is this backed by anything or is it specualtion?
Click to expand...
Well, in the cat theoretical situation, we assume the poison kills the cat instantly. So we don't know if the trigger that set off the poison was in the same cell as the cat or not. However, if we open the box to see, the poison is instantly released and the cat is instantly dead, so there's no way of knowing if the cat was dead before we opened the box or not.

It is just a mind experiment to try to explain what a paradox is, so it is purely speculation.

edit:
Pudney@work said:
That's how I understood it. You can only observe it in one state even though in one point in time according to Quantum mechanics it exists as both....
Click to expand...
But logic tells us it can't possibly exist as both, thus the paradox (I think).
 
Last edited:
That cat theory is fascinating. But I still don't believe that by observing something, we have an effect on it.

Unless it isn't referring to when we observe birds from a distance or something.
 
Jambo said:
Is this backed by anything or is it specualtion?
Click to expand...

Best example of it is the double slit and quantum eraser experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment

The quantum eraser experiment is especially interesting because it suggests that it's not the measuring that's the problem, but whether the data is used or not... Which has been demonstrated in a further experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
 
iCraig said:
That cat theory is fascinating. But I still don't believe that by observing something, we have an effect on it.

Unless it isn't referring to when we observe birds from a distance or something.
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but it is observed scientific FACT afaik.

edit:
dolph - interesting :) but it is inline with 'nothing goes faster than SoL', when what is actually true - 'No information can be passed at speeds greater than SoL'
:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom