Schrodinger's Cat

[reorourke]

I had forgotten about Schrödinger's cat til I recently came across a couple references to it on some Facebook posts. I then thought "yeah, I've heard about this before, but where?" Thanks for posting this video, for this is where I believe I've heard about it the first time and was what I was trying to remember! Gonna favorite this video - thanks!

[cepacol06]

somewhere in a physic laboratory, nerds are jizzing all over a cat in a box.

[lumiere2020]

There's no paradox, no matter which cat is in your hand, it will ALWAYS eat the damn sardine! The real question is : what's the name of ''Schrodinger's cat''?

[Amzezk]

Meriadoc brandybuck i should've known.

[MegaClardy]

nothing's as toxic as bad TV

[GreenDay290z]

Imagine you have a cat, a teeny tiny cat that fits in the palm of your hand

You also have a poisonous sardine

Once we close your palm there are 2 possible scenarios

Either the cat eats the sardine and dies, or the cat doesn't eat the sardine and lives

Quantum physics says until we open your hand to descover the cats fate, both eventualities occur at the same time

for us, the cat is both living and deceased

but how can that be?

that's the miracle of quantum mechanics, the observer gets to decide.

[goozbaghali]

I like how they try to make Schrodinger's Cat cool and sexy. hahahahha WTF

[antred11]

I've always been amused that so called "scientists" could talk about this Schrodinger's Cat bullshit with a straight face.

[AKAMustang]

@antred11 He said double slit, hehe

[serasviktoria]

@antred11

good for you.

simple minds are often more satisfied with the world. :)

[AKAMustang]

Also "a poisonous cyadine" doesn't make grammatical sense, whereas "a poisonous sardine" does.

[AKAMustang]

...the experiment. At any rate the Schrodinger's Cat experiment is already a simplification of quantum principles. This just takes it a step further and adds a simplification of radioactice decay.

So I wouldn't call it nonsense.

[AKAMustang]

Well I heard it as "a poisonous sardine" (as in a poisoned fish, and sardines are small enough to fit into a closed palm), which makes more sense with regards to eating it or not, as well as simplification for the purpose of not everyone will understand radioactive decay principles.

I agree that it is not necessarily a 50/50 chance of the cat eating the fish, e.g. is that cat hungry or not?

But without observation an outsider wouldn't know one way or the other, which is kind of the purpose of...

[psi43]

@AKAMustang well the actual theory is based on an instable atom that no one knows when it will break. that makes the actual theory a lot more convenient to explain, seeing as there isn't a 50/50 chance either, but rather not a chance of both things being true or false.

[AKAMustang]

@psi43 Not sure how what you are saying differs to what I posted =D~

[Alexrose12345678910]

This is so wrong on so many levels.

A. He called cyanide "cyadine".

Oh dear.

B. It should be dependent on a 50% chance decay of a particle, not "whether the cat eats it or not".

I stopped watching the series after I saw this nonsense.