Schrödinger's Cat

[kwhilborn]

Hi,

(IF YOU ARE READING THIS IN RESPONSE TO THE PHYSICS THREAD LINK - Please understand this is in response to science fiction ideas as to how to link to another reality.. It was not meant as serious talk.)

I also write sci-fi. I can recall one "daydream" type thing where my character said," becoming invisible is easy you just need to adjust your phase".

He then when on about a few ingredients for a device that included some batteries from the local market.

That would be a "science fiction" type answer, and you could make the phase shift your other reality, but there is no currently scientific method.

-Some quantum physicists have theorized that we all exist as probability waves, especially when we are alone or in smaller groups. Our reality does not become concrete (particle) until we have psychically agreed as a group to match our group expectations.

-This would mean we could also be altering our past, and only the present is real if it is particle. (see double-slit experiment on youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

-This quantum theory would explain why life can have such coincidences. For example; You could be talking about shark attacks at work in the afternoon, and when you go home that night you end up seeing "shark attacks" prevalent in the evenings television line-up. A hospital show with a shark victim, and a 60 minute episode on shark attacks, etc.
Some wilder interpretations of Quantum mechanics make people think our past can be affected as well as our future.

The quantum thought experiment that is commonly associated with similar theories is the "schrodingers cat experiment"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
So if you can grasp it.. The cat exists as a probability wave as both alive and dead until the act of viewing from our particle self makes the decision final (kind of).. The past of the cat remains in flux until it is observed.. OMG quantum mechanics are fun.

-Quantum world can get pretty interesting, and the currently most accepted interpretation of the double slit experiment is "The coppenhagen interpretation". That is a messed up view. It's scary!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

If you can grasp what they are saying here; it's that measurement is required to collapse wavefunction. This means that if no consciousness is in your bedroom/bathroom/kitchen to see it (measure it), then it ceases to exist.

Very matrix movie type stuff, but that is what the quantum mechanics are saying anyways.

If you are looking for scientific answers then maybe you could farm a "probable reality" and then snap back into normal reality somehow. Perhaps easiest done by isolation from others, as you would have the greatest amount of probable realities.

Anyways.. food for thought.. good luck with your story.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator note: Split from this thread

 

[Dywyddyr]

The quantum thought experiment that is commonly associated with similar theories is the "schrodingers cat experiment"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
So if you can grasp it.. The cat exists as a probability wave as both alive and dead until the act of viewing from our particle self makes the decision final (kind of).

Wow! Somebody missed the point of Schrödinger's illustration. His point was EXACTLY that the cat doesn't become a "probability wave": it remains a cat throughout.

 

[kwhilborn]

Attn Dywyddr:
You are not paying me to teach you so i suggest you read a book, or ask someone who knows.

Schrodingers cat experiment would not look absurd unless it was viewed from this angle. his cat does remain a cat throughout, but only in probability waves. It in fact; can be doing a myriad of completely different things if it is alive from sleeping to cleaning itself, the probabilities are endless.

However the cat does not "die" at the appointed time if that is its fate. It exists as both a "dead cat" OR (notice the "OR") It also remains a live cat.

Let's pretend the cat had a 50/50 chance of dying yesterday at 5 p.m. But nobody is scheduled to check on the cat until Tomorrow. This means that the cat (according to schrodinger) exists as both alive and dead. This experiment is not for idiots, and if you want to take the schrodingers cat experiment into a physics thread I'd be happy to post your idiotic comments.

So yes, the cat(s) exist as both alive and dead for today, and when it is checked upon tomorrow it must then "decide" whether it is living or dead. When I say decide; I am not speaking of the cats conscious decision. It is more of a universal mystery how that is decided.

Many people do not understand this experiment as they are too dumb.

Let me explain it as an expansion of the double slit experiment upon which it is based.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Okay now watch that above video so you can understand the "basics" of the double slit experiment.

The Coppenhagen interpretation (most widely accepted) of the double slit experiment basically states that matter does not exist unless it is observed. Again if you are too slow to grasp this I'd happily bring this into a more advanced forum for you to get laughed at.

The Schrodinger cat thought experiment is based on Bohrs views as well, as Einstein and Bohr were at odds over many things about quantum physics, but Bohr is the more accepted authority at the moment. meaning his theories are more accepted in the quantum world.

Here is a quote about their debates.

The debate between Bohr and Einstein over the interpretation of quantum theory began in 1927 at the fifth Solvay Conference of physicists and ended at Einstein’s death in 1955. The most active phase of the debate ran from 1927 to 1936 when Bohr replied to the EPR paper written by Einstein and two colleagues. The debate took the form of various thought experiments invented by Einstein in which it would be theoretically possible to measure complementary properties such as the position and momentum of a particle or its energy at a certain point in time. If these measurements were possible it would show that Bohr’s idea of complementarity and Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle were wrong and that the quantum theory proposed by Bohr, called the Copenhagen Interpretation, was wrong. Before addressing Einstein’s attack on Bohr’s theory, it is necessary to examine the theory to see what Einstein was objecting to.

Or how about the famous exchange

Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."[19] and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?"[20] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".

Bohr believes and teaches that "the moon does not exist unless it is observed".

Now I am not telling you what Is correct, but I can tell you that Coppenhagenists believe matter exists only as probability waves until it is observed.

So Dywyddr,

If you would like to disagree further about what the Schrodinger Cat Thought Experiment meant then I will be happy to move this topic to the correct physics forum.

It may seem eerie or spooky or impossible to many, but quantum mechanics are not for the squeamish, or stupid.

If your refrigerator is closed then a Coppenhaganist (A person with views alligned with the most widely accepted interpretation of the double slit experiment) will tell you that the refridgerators contents (like schrodingers cat) ceases to exist in reality. The contents of your fridge will remain only as a wavefunction.

Since Shrodingers Cat is alive and a determining event takes place the cat exists as many probable wavefunctions (probability waves). This will remain true until the wavefunction is collapsed through observation (measurement).

Again. I am not arguing for the Coppenhagen Interpretation.

I am simply calling Mr Dywydd an idiot for thinking I am the one who misinterpreted the thought experiment.

I will most gladly bring this experiment into a physics debate if you are still unclear on what this thought experiment represents. Apologizing to me would also seem appropriate, however I feel this is above your troll type personality from what i have seen of your "enlightening contributions".

I have not expressed any opinion on who is correct Bohr and Schrodinger, or Einstein. But I do understand the Schrodinger Cat Thought Experiment as well as anyone.

I'd be really interested in hearing Dywydd version of The Schrodinger Cat Experiment and what he thinks it means. I am always up for a laugh.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Attn Dywyddr:
You are not paying me to teach you so i suggest you read a book, or ask someone who knows.

I have read a book. Schroedinger's. And you aren't the person to tell me.

Schrodingers cat does remain a cat throughout, but only in probability waves.]

Yeah?

So Dywyddr,
If you would like to disagree further about what the Schrodinger Cat Thought Experiment meant then I will be happy to move this topic to the correct physics forum.

I don't think there is a "correct physics forum" for people who don't understand physics.

It may seem eerie or spooky or impossible to many, but quantum mechanics are not for the squeamish, or stupid.

Yet here you are, making claims.

Again. I am not arguing for the Coppenhagen Interpretation.

Yes you are.

I am simply calling Mr Dywydd an idiot for thinking I am the one who misinterpreted the thought experiment.

Oops.

I will most gladly bring this experiment into a physics debate if you are still unclear on what this thought experiment represents. Apologizing to me would also seem appropriate, however I feel this is above your troll type personality from what i have seen of your "enlightening contributions".

Apologise? Because I show you're incorrect (and pompously overblown)? Troll? "Enlightening contributions"?

But I do understand the Schrodinger Cat Thought Experiment as well as anyone.

Obviously not.

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.

Wiki.

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.

(My emphasis).

That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality.

Both from: http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5

I'd be really interested in hearing Dywydd version of The Schrodinger Cat Experiment and what he thinks it means. I am always up for a laugh.

Still laughing?
Or planning on getting an education?

 

[kwhilborn]

Okay Dywyddyr,
First of all I needed to explain the Coppenhagen interpretation for you to understand. Obviously I failed.

Yet you said I was arguing "for it". I said it was the most widely accepted and that Schrodingers cat was based on it.

okay you just copied and pasted some stuff from wikipedia or wherever in response, and that is supposed to make me believe you grasp it?

If you cannot admit that in Shrodinger/Bohr opinion.
"the cat existed only as a probable wavefunction, and did not exist as a real cat until it was observed" then you do not understand this experiment.

This experiment was based on Bohrs theories, and it is with that frame of mind you must try to understand it.

Einstein would argue that Schrodingers Cat Experiment is false. I am not saying it is true or false. I am saying that if you cannot admit the above statement you are a true idiot and we should take this to the physics forum. I hope you do some reading before you accept that challenge.

actually maybe visit this thread so you will understand that you are an idiot first
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=98672&highlight=schrodinger

 

[Dywyddyr]

Okay Dywyddyr,
First of all I needed to explain the Coppenhagen interpretation for you to understand. Obviously I failed.

I already knew the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Yet you said I was arguing "for it".

Because you were.

okay you just copied and pasted some stuff from wikipedia or wherever in response, and that is supposed to make me believe you grasp it?

Hmm, I like that. "Wikipedia or wherever". Totally ignoring that fact that the "wherever" happens to be Schrödinger himself. And he quite clearly states that the cat is a waveform for the Copenhagen Interpretation. His gedankenexperiment was intended to highlight the absurdity of that version.
I see you're dishonest as well as misinformed.

If you cannot admit that in Shrodinger/Bohr opinion.
"the cat existed only as a probable wavefunction, and did not exist as a real cat until it was observed" then you do not understand this experiment.

Then evidently I'm not alone, since Schrödinger himself did not admit this.

Einstein would argue that Schrodingers Cat Experiment is false. I am not saying it is true or false. I am saying that if you cannot admit the above statement you are a true idiot and we should take this to the physics forum. I hope you do some reading before you accept that challenge.

Still stupid I see.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Hmm, so much for integrity...
No acknowledgement of your error, a vain attempt to find support for your erroneous view in this thread, an aborted attempt at starting a new thread in the Physics forum to whine (presumably) and... you log out.
Funny, isn't it, how you expected an apology from me but avoid giving one when shown you're wrong.

 

[kwhilborn]

This is my original statement referring to Schrodingers Cat,

The quantum thought experiment that is commonly associated with similar theories is the "schrodingers cat experiment"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat
So if you can grasp it.. The cat exists as a probability wave as both alive and dead until the act of viewing from our particle self makes the decision final (kind of).. The past of the cat remains in flux until it is observed.. OMG quantum mechanics are fun.

I made no inaccuracy in this statement (or any) Dywyddyr, yet this is the statement that you attacked.

The experiment is described as such by thousands of physicists, and even Scrodinger himself. Scrodingers motivation for the thought experiment is not even relevant to the experiment. He can be trying to show how absurd the Coppenhagen interpretation is, or he could just be giving the Thought experiment for his own thinking. There are many scientists who believe that the cat was only a possibility wave. The experiment shows them as such, even if to show it is implausible.

We were talking about a science fiction method to get into another reality. It is not like we were discussing hard core science.

Now; I know there is nothing wrong with the way I have described the experiment. I do think you are a moron for attacking it, and makes me believe you do not know anything about it and are quickly trying to educate yourself on the subject.

You claim to have read a book by Schrodinger? OMG.. As if ...

 

[kwhilborn]

Okay Dywyddyyr,

I believe I have refuted your points very well.

There is no possible way this thought experiment could be considered absurd, if it met the parameters we would expect.

If the cat had a 50% chance of dying and it either lived or died then this would not be a thought experiment at all. It is meant to demonstrate how absurdly one must think to accept Bohrs ideas.

You have been wrong since the start, and there has been nothing wrong with the way I have described the experiments.

Furthermore; you continue to keep this thread going on this argument when a new thread on the topic was started yesterday.

Lastly... (meaning my last post on this thread in regards to this.)

As you pointed out I have misspelled Copenhagen throughout by giving it a double P, I can also comment on spelling.

Although you may go back and edit all of your posts to correct the spelling, you have continuously misspelled the name of the experimenter.

There is no E in Schrodinger.

It is Schrodingers Cat ... Not Schroedingers cat. You have claimed to have read the mans books but cannot even correctly spell his name. If you are reading this now, it is likely Dwyyddrryd has altered his spellings through the edit feature.

Sorry if this discussion took away from your thread, Dwyyddryd is famous for trolling threads and bringing them off topic.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I believe I have refuted your points very well.

Then you believe incorrectly.

There is no possible way this thought experiment could be considered absurd, if it met the parameters we would expect.

Yet that is EXACTLY what Schrödinger said it was.

You have been wrong since the start, and there has been nothing wrong with the way I have described the experiments.

Still wrong.

Although you may go back and edit all of your posts to correct the spelling, you have continuously misspelled the name of the experimenter.
There is no E in Schrodinger.

Doubly wrong.

It is Schrodingers Cat ... Not Schroedingers cat. You have claimed to have read the mans books but cannot even correctly spell his name. If you are reading this now, it is likely Dwyyddrryd has altered his spellings through the edit feature.

Also wrong. The man's name is Schrödinger. The o-umlaut translates, in English to oe. Please get an education. (And I note you missed out the apostrophe - Schrodinger's Cat.

Sorry if this discussion took away from your thread, Dwyyddryd is famous for trolling threads and bringing them off topic.

And Kwhilborn is famous for being a crank.

 

[kwhilborn]

So Dwyddrydo,

Do you feel comfortable stating these after condemning me for saying the same thing in the post you jumped all over.

His point (schrodinger) was EXACTLY that the cat doesn't become a "probability wave": it remains a cat throughout.

and

And he (Schrodinger) quite clearly states that the cat is a waveform for the Copenhagen Interpretation. His gedankenexperiment was intended to highlight the absurdity of that version.

I am sorry did the "cat remain a waveform for the Copenhagen Interpretation".. Is this not what I said in the thread you attacked me for?

I believe I said in an almost offhand remark that,

The cat exists as a probability wave as both alive and dead until the act of viewing from our particle self makes the decision final (kind of).. The past of the cat remains in flux until it is observed.. OMG quantum mechanics are fun.

I then mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation, and had previously mentioned the double slit experiment. Dwyddyr was in such a hurry to Troll a forum he did not even look to see if the science was correct or not, and he/she refuses to apologize for the rudeness.

Your Quotes are exactly what I have been saying. According to Bohrs version of the Copenhagen Interpretation (and there seems to be controversy around the copenhagen Interpretation and why I mentioned Bohr) the cat remains as a wavefunction until it observed. It then would collapse into a particle and would "choose" to become alive or dead at the moment of observation.

There are 2 views as to how this experiment would actualize, and I have been pretty good at maintaining a Bohr view. I have also repeatedly mentioned Schrodinger set this up as an argument for the copenhagen interpretation, or to show the absurdity of it.

Dwyddrydr owes me an apology for saying I got it wrong. I understand this experiment as well as anybody, and I can explain it flawlessly. Stupid Troll

 

[Dywyddyr]

Do you feel comfortable stating these after condemning me for saying the same thing in the post you jumped all over.

So you somehow equate "the cat doesn't become a waveform" with "the cat does become a waveform"?
Explain please.

Your Quotes are exactly what I have been saying.

Wrong.

According to Bohrs version of the Copenhagen Interpretation (and there seems to be controversy around the copenhagen Interpretation and why I mentioned Bohr) the cat remains as a wavefunction until it observed. It then would collapse into a particle and would "choose" to become alive or dead at the moment of observation.

Let me reiterate my position, and Schroedinger's;

the cat doesn't become a "probability wave": it remains a cat throughout.

There are 2 views as to how this experiment would actualize, and I have been pretty good at maintaining a Bohr view. I have also repeatedly mentioned Schrodinger set this up as an argument for the copenhagen interpretation, or to show the absurdity of it.

Dwyddrydr owes me an apology for saying I got it wrong. I understand this experiment as well as anybody, and I can explain it flawlessly. Stupid Troll

Yet you maintain, persistently, that the cat becomes a wave form.
And your claim that "Schrodinger (please note the mis-spelling) set this up as an argument for the copenhagen interpretation, or to show the absurdity of it" seems somewhat contradictory.
Did he use the argument FOR the Copenhagen Interpretation or to show it was absurd (i.e. AGAINST it)?

 

[kwhilborn]

Okay Dwyddyrdo, this is you. Doh!

So you somehow equate "the cat doesn't become a waveform" with "the cat does become a waveform"?
Explain please.

and this is also you..

And he (Schrodinger) quite clearly states that the cat is a waveform for the Copenhagen Interpretation. His gedankenexperiment was intended to highlight the absurdity of that version.

Please read your above quote.

then read it again.

then read it again.

then read it again.

then read it again.

notice the part,

clearly states that the cat is a waveform for the Copenhagen Interpretation

A waveform? You mean it is possible to consider the cat a waveform?

Is this what you just said?

Yet all of your posts have been a result of your challenge to me saying

The cat exists as a probability wave as both alive and dead until the act of viewing from our particle self makes the decision final.

so you are arguing that statement is invalid, yet you state that Schrodinger himself CLEARLY STATES THAT THE CAT IS A WAVEFORM FOR THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION.

Please read that again.

please read that again.

please read that again.

please read that again.

It seems too much for you to grasp when i explain it thoroughly, so this time hopefully you will read what you wrote compared to what you challenged me with when I wrote it. Do you understand what you are writing, or do you just copy/paste stuff. Pay attention to what you are copy/pasting and maybe you will learn from this.

It does not matter that it is intended to show the absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation. It matters is that it is meant to show the absurdity that Copenhaganists believe that the cat(s) do live in juxtaposition as both alive and dead. It is pretty deep and hard for some people to understand.

Despite What Schrodinger thinks. The Copenhagen interpretation has a 75% (I read 80%), acceptance rate among quantum physicists.

This means that more than 75% of quantum physicists side with Bohr and believe the moon does not exist unless it is observed.

It also means the majority of Quantum physicists believe that the cat exists only as probability wave after the door has been shut. I further added a dimension to that in my original mention of it by saying

The cat exists as a probability wave as both alive and dead until the act of viewing from our particle self makes the decision final.

Honestly Dwyddywwyddo; ask yourself if you have heard of a thought experiment called "Wigner's friend". Well if you look at what I say in my original quote (the one you originally attacked).

until the act of viewing from our particle self makes the decision final.

If you are intelligent you can see that my reference to viewing from our particle self is a reference to the "Wigners friend" thought experiment, although that is too deep for many to comprehend so I am not giving you much hope at the moment.

I finished the statement by saying our particle self, as if to add the dimension that we ourselves live as probability waves until we collapse into our "particle self" upon observation. I don't even know if you are capable of understanding this Copenhaganist viewpoint.

Now use your noggin, and tell me how this could be a thought experiment if the cat had a 50/50 chance of living and just lived or died.

It either is alive or dead?

Is that what you are saying?

Okay the cat has a 50% chance of living and a 50% chance of dying. then it either lives or dies.

Sorry for repeating but you seem a little slow, so I want to emphasize.

The cat lives or dies.

Well come on.. That's it..

the cat is dead or the cat is alive.

Well that seems pretty normal. How is that a thought experiment at all.

The way you describe the experiment it isn't

The cat has a 50% chance of living or dying / coinflip cat dies.
The cat has a 50% chance of living or dying/ coinflip cat lives.

terribly exciting. Why does he have us open the box at a later time? Why not kill the cat or let it live right in front of us? Why use a box altogether?


Oh wait! this is supposed to be a thought experiment. Schrodinger is trying to show us how absurd it would be to imagine the moon does not exist unless it is observed as is implicated by the copenhagen interpretation.

So for the experiment to be a thought experiment we must consider that Schrodinger was saying that according to Bohr/Copenhaganists the cat must exist only as a wavefunction.

Hold on !!!

Am I talking slow enough! this is pretty complicated but you have been so critical towards me over your own mistakes I want to spell it out for you.

slowly!

Okay let us go back to a common source page Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

Now look at the big picture of a cat in a box to the right side of this wikipedia page. No hurry !! take your time!! It is the picture ... Yes! PICTURE!

Found the picture dwyydrrydo, ill give you a hint it is the only picture on the page.

I hope you found it. Now look at what the caption says.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

Yes! I just quoted from the Wikipedia picture caption above.

Let us examine what it says..

The (first word lets start there)
Copenhagen (city where Bohr comes from )
Interpretation (can mean definition to some)
of (preposition)
Quantum (smallest amount of physical quantity that can exist independently)
Mechanics (people that fix cars or branch of physics concerning behaviour of physical bodies.)

Ugg! I apologize. This may take too long to explain to you in just 3 days so far. Let's just skip to the good parts of that caption.

the cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

..

Are you still looking at the PICTURE. Hint: it is the ONLY picture on the page.

Okay.. so how can a cat exist as both dead and alive simultaneously?

Anybody?

Some people would rephrase that to say "The cat exists as a probable wavefunction".

Maybe you Dwyddyyrryo would like to take a shot at the cat being alive and dead simultaneously?

Let us look at the correct wording again.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

Simultaneously: Means Happening/existing/ or done at the same time. Just in case you do not understand this word Dwyddyrdo.

Now how would you say that sentence compares to what you say/REITERATE

the cat doesn't become a "probability wave": it remains a cat throughout

I would argue that that is a possible conclusion, but not the thought experiment.

Concede that?
Oh Wait... Maybe I can find some more pictures for you..

a heck with it you will have to read..

One of your favourite authors wrote this,

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 that 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.

Yes; this was Schrodinger who wrote this.
Please note the thoughts we are meant to entertain in this experiment are that........

The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it (the box) the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

The living and dead cat he says. As a wavefunction..
OMG! Dwyddyrddyr is wrong...

The thought experiment is meant for us to consider that the cat exists as a wavefunction until the door is open.

I clearly was talking about the experiment this entire time, yet Dwyddyydrdo only enters into this thread cramming a conclusion down our throats, and not even the more popular conclusion according to quantum physicists.

I have explained myself fairly well, and have been more than patient trying to educate dyddyrdo on the ideas involved in this experiment. I almost expected an apology from him a few posts ago, but he/she seems to just like trolling this conversation along.

Dyddrydo,

please read this again,

and again,

and again,

and again. (still won't sink in though)

and thank you for this chuckle dwyddryydo, when you wrote this.

(please note the mis-spelling)

You misspelled "mis-spelling" just to make me laugh.
plus dwyddrydryo has misspelled Schrodinger throughout all of his posts

 

[Dywyddyr]

notice the part,
A waveform? You mean it is possible to consider the cat a waveform?

Perhaps you failed to notice:

And he (Schrodinger) quite clearly states that the cat is a waveform for the Copenhagen Interpretation. His gedankenexperiment was intended to highlight the absurdity of that version.

Perhaps you should learn to read.

so you are arguing that statement is invalid, yet you state that Schrodinger himself CLEARLY STATES THAT THE CAT IS A WAVEFORM FOR THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION.

Correct. So, therefore Schrödinger is stating that the Copenhagen Interpretation is flawed.

It matters is that it is meant to show the absurdity that Copenhaganists believe that the cat(s) do live in juxtaposition as both alive and dead.

Changing your tack?
Um, You (post #17):

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
The quantum thought experiment that is commonly associated with similar theories is the "schrodingers cat experiment"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat
So if you can grasp it.. The cat exists as a probability wave as both alive and dead until the act of viewing from our particle self makes the decision final (kind of).

Not "is believed by one followers of one particular version" but "exists as".

The Copenhagen interpretation has a 75% (I read 80%), acceptance rate among quantum physicists.
This means that more than 75% of quantum physicists side with Bohr and believe the moon does not exist unless it is observed.
It also means the majority of Quantum physicists believe that the cat exists only as probability wave after the door has been shut.

Back this up please.

Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s

And

Steven Weinberg in "Einstein's Mistakes", Physics Today, November 2005, page 31, said:
All this familiar story is true, but it leaves out an irony. Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed

Both from here.

as if to add the dimension that we ourselves live as probability waves until we collapse into our "particle self" upon observation.

:roflmao:
Observation by whom?

Now use your noggin, and tell me how this could be a thought experiment if the cat had a 50/50 chance of living and just lived or died.

It's a thought experiment because it wasn't actually conducted: the experiment ONLY takes place in the mind.

Okay.. so how can a cat exist as both dead and alive simultaneously?

It can't and it doesn't. That was Schroedinger's point.

The thought experiment is meant for us to consider that the cat exists as a wavefunction until the door is open.

You still can't quite grasp it can you. It shows that UNDER THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION (only) - you know, the one you claimed you haven't been arguing for, that that is the INTERPRETATION.

Dyddrydo,

One warning. Your persistence in finding it amusing to mis-spell my name (coupled with the instantaneous insults) is becoming tedious. It contravenes forum rules. Do it again and you'll be reported.

You misspelled "mis-spelling"

Wrong.

plus dwyddrydryo has misspelled Schrodinger throughout all of his posts

Another lie.
As previously explained. Strictly speaking YOU have been the one mis-spelling it.

 

[kwhilborn]

LMFAO,
Guess no apology then?

as if to add the dimension that we ourselves live as probability waves until we collapse into our "particle self" upon observation.
”

Obervation by whom?

Wigners friend

I find it hilarious that you do not understand that even without knowledge of wigners friend. It is just an expansion of the experiment, and the idea had occurred to me before I had ever heard of wigners friend. There are some that think if you lived on a remote island for a year your whole life would be possibility waves.

however look up "wigners friend" and you may learn what i was referring to.

You'll have to look that up.. It is funny that you even went so far as to use a smiley to laugh at that, yet you clearly do not understand Wigners friend if you had to ask that. :shrug:

And please note I worked that Wigners friend reference into the original quote you insulted..

So here you are saying

Obervation by whom?

and you even put in smiley faces like you think its funny. Blatant ignorance is not funny.

You really do not grasp these experiments, and need to sit down and educate yourself.

I have heard and reject your argument for misspelling Schrodingers name. Your name is simply hard to remember. You have no vowels and a bunch of similar letters.. You know who you are so I will not attempt to spell it now.. lol

I formally give up. Anyone perusing these threads with a brain will see you are arguing for a conclusion and not the experiment itself. I have argued that the mind experiment is what it was, and even included pictures, yet you still fail.

You fail, and I am done explaining it to you further.

Sad when a grown man/woman cannot admit they are wrong.

 

[Dywyddyr]

LMFAO,
Guess no apology then?

For being right?
Okay: I'm sorry you claim to understand what Schrödinger was illustrating. I'm sorry you persist in your incorrect claim.

Wigners friend
You'll have to look that up.. It is funny that you even went so far as to use a smiley to laugh at that, yet you clearly do not understand Wigners friend if you had to ask that. :shrug:

Oh, another assumption.
And yet again you post a thought a experiment (and its interpretation) as if it were factual.

I have heard and reject your argument for misspelling Schrodingers name.

Well of course you do. Because you're ignorant.

Your name is simply hard to remember.

Also a lie, or at least an evasion:

I'd like to point out that at the bottom of Dwyydryd old post he claimed I misspelled his name (which i do voluntarily)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109891

I formally give up. Anyone perusing these threads with a brain will see you are arguing for a conclusion and not the experiment itself. I have argued that the mind experiment is what it was, and even included pictures, yet you still fail.

And still you fail to see that made an incorrect claim.

You fail, and I am done explaining it to you further.

Good. Now you can use the time to improve your education. Maybe next time you post you won't make false claims.

Sad when a grown man/woman cannot admit they are wrong.

I agree. But with luck and perseverance you'll learn how to.
Although I would have thought that with the number of things you do get wrong you'd have learned by now...

 

[kwhilborn]

Sigh! Anybody who has read my last 2 posts can see that you (Dwddryyd or whatever name is) are just trying to insult for insults sake. I proved my side of things quite well and think I made Dwyddry (however he spells it) realize his/her mistakes. All he/she seems capable of now is flinging poo. Maybe he/she will report me for being unable to remember the correct spelling of that name all the time.. Like I want to look to see how to spell it every five minutes.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Sigh! Anybody who has read my last 2 posts can see that you (Dwddryyd or whatever name is) are just trying to insult for insults sake.

Oops, wrong again.
You've got that part down pat. Now you just need to practice realising it.

I proved my side of things quite well and think I made Dwyddry (however he spells it) realize his/her mistakes.

Wrong.
You have persistently made false claims.

Maybe he/she will report me for being unable to remember the correct spelling of that name all the time.

Such as this one.
You have already admitted you mis-spell my name deliberately. And you appear to be incapable of actually looking at the correct spelling as given at the head of each and every one of my posts.

 

[kwhilborn]

Nope wrong! You will learn some day hopefully!

 

[Dywyddyr]

Still making empty claims...