The question the Schrödinger's cat experiment poses is at which scale quantum mechanical effects stop... would be awesome with a vid on this topic O.o
QM itself contains the solution to all its "problems".
To resolve @TheHippieLip 's question about whose consciousness causes what to collapse, just analyze the entire situation quantum mechanically, including observers. If you do, QM implies that "observation" just means the observer becomes entangled with the subject system. QM implies you cant observe superpositions because through observation you become part of the superposition. No paradox, no spooky role for consciousness in physics.
@N0striI That's the point of it. Schrodinger wanted to use this as an example to say exactly what you are saying. However, he was wrong. Because on a quantum scale (Extremely small) Things CAN be in two states at once.
Can this be used with anything? Like if ur kid or parents leave the house for school or work.. but don't arrive back home at their usual time without any indication.. would this be a moment of quantum suicide of sorts since at that moment you have no idea of their being? Wouldn't this apply all the time in life?
@Caprican28 The reason superposition does not apply in everyday life is because everything is being observed. Even if you are not being observed by anyone else, you are still interacting with your environment (ie. the wind still blows on you.) A subatomic particle (and now larger objects) can be isolated so that they don't interact with the environment around them. Then it is possible to put these particles into a state of superposition that otherwise does not exist.
@DSilsbury Perhaps a better sentence would have been: "The reason superposition does not apply in the macro-world is because everything is being observed constantly."
The way Einstein proposed the theory it involved dynamite, which still works for the cat. Either the cat sees the dynamite explode, or it does not see the dynamite explode. Just like we either see that cat dead, or we see that cat alive.
@TheHippieLip The cat does have a point of view, but is different to the cats, so the cat could be dead or alive to the human . I'm starting to think that every possibility is possible, so that the cat is dead and alive, and in another universe it's turned into a dog.
lol the philoshophical problem of science (L. scio, scire) for science revolves around what conscious humans perceives. The cat is also in the play, as you point out. But who says other things aren't? Should only conscious beings concerned? How about conscious beings in the 4th dimension? Science says "Occam's Razor" The more you learn about science and philosophy, the less it becomes truth but more of a belief.
@TheHippieLip That is incorrect. The cat's consciousness determines just as much as a human's. However, one cannot be conscious of himself, therefore in this scenario, the cat's consciousness does not matter because he cannot be conscious of himself, so we need to be conscious of it, collapsing the wave-function and determining its fate. The question is, who is conscious of us?
@TheHippieLip That's the whole point the cat knows if its alive or dead (obviously) its just the human perspective that we are interested in. It's like saying the atom knows whats going on but we don't so we have to make the assumption that it's both alive and dead.
Another question is: how could the cat know whether Schrödinger was dead or alive or dead and alive? Additionally: how could a fictional cat (since: thought "experiment" (misuse of ex per in mens)) probably know whether it was really dead or alive or dead and alive or if it was only dead or alive or dead and alive only fictionally? How could it decide whether it was really fictional or only fictionally fictional?
well there has to be a link between the quantum mechanics and the physical mechanics... so there cant be a super position.. as nature dictates something happens...i think we need to discover what makes nature choose what happens and it will be more clear
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is the problem. Mathematicians would never accept the equivalent of a wave function within the field of mathematics. How can the foundations of a physical science be based on a structure that has no physical meaning? We know entanglement which is based on wave functions has no upper limit so scale is not as important as it is presented in this video. Moreover, large scale wave functions exist and can be isolated.
@BinaryStars100 ...for the same reason Euclid used the first definition "A point is that which has no part.". every general theory (means: it's representative for all the specific theories) ha "no meaning", is abstract. Even Plato ...
@motionapplied All geometries are a study of space Euclidian and Non-Euclidian. They all capture the form of space but never its substance. Substance is meaning. To call an object point like implies the object cannot be divided or has infinite density. Modern physics is all about geometry and symmetries based on Dr. Noether's work. Mechanics determines symmetries and without it you only have form with no substance. My work is posted on youtube and is a quantum-mechanical unification.
@BinaryStars100 so you type one doesn't zoom into a geometrical object so that one begins to see a confusing pattern, then molecules, then atoms, and so on - since this would be meaning. one wouldn't use the geometrical object to create something bigger but one would keep oneself busy by investigating the object itself...
@motionapplied Mathematics is a strong tool for modeling physical systems. If you say assume the earth is a sphere and you describe it mathematically as a sphere then you'll have some problems. The geometry of the Earth is not spherical because the mechanics of Centripetal force flattens it at the poles. (i.e Geometric Symmetries are controlled by mechanics). Mechanics explains why a symmetry exist and why it is broken.
@BinaryStars100 could you take an example which can be proven directly by anyone who reads your text? i do not have the tools to observe the earth from a distance where
@motionapplied Example: A star's mass is generally determined by how fast objects move around them or the object's frequecy. I prove that space vibrates to synchronize gravitational and electromagnetic fields. The vibrating space is wave function with statistical form and quantum strucures. Vibration amplitudes are Dark Matter. It makes binary star frequencies move faster than expected. I solved the 60 year old DI Herculius problem and other binary stars systems. M-Theorist fear the paper.
@BinaryStars100 where's your synthetic a posteriori proof for your assumption that binary star frequencies (do not move faster but) are higher than assumed by whom exactly? in an ironic tone i must type that it's very "convincing" that you tell by yourself that someone "fears" the assumptions you brought to (digital and analog) paper. you obviously do not even understand the difference between right opinion and knowledge.
@motionapplied My eight year research went through an extensive peer-review process by those who have experience with the topic. My research has also been reviewed by those with competing theories (M-Theory and others). My research was also presented at a physics conference. Most articles on the ArXiv have not been reviewed as mine. During a review, I was told, I would not get published unless I reference String Theory. I call that fear because it come from the competition. The End.
@BinaryStars100 let's face it: your work - like the work from the ones of whom you assume that they fear your work - completely negligible. not accessible for most of the humans - and as useful as art is...a waste of time.
@BinaryStars100 ...one can have the right opinion - but one mustn't be able to understand why one gave the right opinion. i can guess that right now at my place the sun is shining - and if i look and the sun really shines - i had the right opinion. neither can i explain why i decided this way, why i checked it - nor why the sun shines - nor why i can see that the sun shines. it would be knowledge if i could. of course only partial knowledge - since everything else...
"the object cannot be divided or has infinite density." ...on the same degree of the scale dimension? or do you mean the density of all yet known degrees of the scale dimension?
symmetries on the scale dimension or symmetries on one degree of the scale dimension? do you use the term "symmetry" in the way the term "contradiction"
@BinaryStars100 ...and Kant knew that statements about the world of sense experience are not the only kind of knowledge (not: right opinion). There's knowledge that goes beyond sense experience. (difference between Plato'n'Kant: Mr. P put his ideas in a "transcendental" realm while Kant put them in the human "mind" - which is a summarization of what's known as neural structure - which also cannot be only known only by sense experience).
@BinaryStars100 our science is not about the things as they really are - it's about the world of phenomena. interesting that you mention mathematics which in addition works with idealized phenomena.
But seriously that would be stupid and irresponsible. Not to mention that having a camera in the box destroys the idea of superposition because the state of the cat is being observed. A free particle must exist in a state of isolation from it's environment to exhibit superposition.
@snarky77005 Yeah, lol, I was joking about actually doing the experiment but I genuinely don't understand how recording it (and watching it later) would effect the particle. Your comment /did/ help, though. So particles can't be observed by a living organism or having something recording what it's doing e_e...?
@FuegoZorro7 Interaction with respect to superposition is any kind of interaction with other matter. It does not have to be a conscious interaction. In other words interaction with another inanimate particle is enough to destroy superposition. An isolated particle or small object can now be isolated and put into states of superposition. Superposition cannot be observed directly but the effects of superposition can be observed. The whole thing is pretty hard to understand.
@twelverknight I find it hard to believe. There are a lot of problems with that. First of all if they travel faster than light then they would theoretically travel backwards in time. secondly if they really do travel faster than light then we could detect things like supernovas and quasars years before we can see them. Maybe it's possible but it seems unlikely.
OK, here's a serious question: If we put a cat in a box, and close the box, isn't the cat already in a super position, because we cannot know if some random quantum event has caused a critical effect that has changed the state of the cat? In such case, it means that anything and everything that we do not, or cannot currently, observe is technically in a super position? And the question is just how the observation causes the wave function to break (if I'm using that terminology correctly).
@antiHUMANDesigns The problem is that the cat is never really in a state of superposition because it cannot truly be isolated from it’s environment. The idea of having a cat in superposition is a joke. However subatomic particles like electrons can be isolated from the environment and exhibit true superposition. Superposition used to be limited to subatomic particles but now scientists are started to put larger objects in a state of superposition.
@snarky77005 Ye, I read about how they are attempting to, and have successfully, put larger objects in a state of super positin, bu tnothing as big as a cat.
But what I'm wondering, in reality, is that since everything is relative (which I assume plays a role in the many-worls interpretation), wouldn't it mean that anything can be in something similar to a super position, even if I'm wrong to call it a super position because it's not a quantum thing?
@antiHUMANDesigns I've heard physicists say that there is no reason in theory that a larger object like a cat could really be put in superposition. The problem is that the larger an object is the harder it is to isolate it. It's so hard it might never be possible in reality.
It's like time travel. It's possible to travel into the future as far as one wants in theory. In practice, It's too hard to achieve.
@antiHUMANDesigns I never liked the many worlds interpretation. Instead I think that there are many possibilities in superposition that collapse into one possibility and the other possibilities fail to exist after that. Superposition is a form of catching matter before it's definite state has been determined. I picture it like wide railroad tracks that collapse to a point eventually. Superposition can exist right before the RR tracks collapse to that point, I tend to think.
@snarky77005 Some poll said 58% of the guys working in physics (which they asked) believe in the many-worlds interpretation. Personally, I also find it weird, but not unfeasible. I find quantum theory stranger by itself anyways. :P
@antiHUMANDesigns Yeah, I find the many worlds interpretation too hard to swallow. Ironically if it is true that means that time travel to the past might be possible. When you come back to your own time you would end up in the universe that matches the alterations you made while in the past. If it is wrong then time travel to the past is likely not possible. Hmm, It makes you wonder.
@antiHUMANDesigns Because if it is possible to change the future by traveling to the past that alternate future would have to exist, one way or the other.
I suppose you could just argue that that future only exists after you created it by traveling back in time rather than saying that by traveling back in time you are effectively jumping from one universe to the other.
It's just a lot of speculation. I'm not sure that these ideas are well understood at this point.
@snarky77005 I'm sorry, I don't get it. How would traveling backwards in time be possible? I understand that anything that can happen will happen at some point, but traveling backwards in time is just simply impossible, wouldn't you agree?
@antiHUMANDesigns I tend to think that traveling back in time is impossible. But if it possible would you agree that would create an alternate future?
@snarky77005 Surely an interesting though. But I wonder if we understand the true concept of an alternative future. I doubt that the movies have got it spot on.
I can't really guess what might happen without thinking about it for a while, but actually traveling back in time could be a pandora's box, really. Even alternate worlds may be tied to each other in some way, which may cause some kind of rippling reaction and disturbances, perhaps. Unexplainable energy outbursts? I dunno.
@antiHUMANDesigns He used the cat as an analogy of a single subatomic particle. The interactions of the other atoms that make up the cat destroy the superposition possibility, hence why we don't smear all over the place when we're in a box.
@aqouby Did he really mean it as an analogy? I understand that you could see it that way, but wasn't the point to raise the question of how absurd the results could be if it was all true? Considering the quantum suicide, and it's implications.
@antiHUMANDesigns Well, maybe he couldn't come up with a way to convey his point too well because of the subject he was trying to explain in laymen terms.
I think Schrodinger explained the uncertainty principle in a bad way, like how "Dr. Quantum" explains quantum mechanics in a bad way... It sounds good if you don't look to far into it, I guess, lol.
Either way, the story fails when put to the test because kitties don't consist of one wave function.
i understand the cat being dead and alive at the same time from our perspective, but i dont understand how it can be like that from the cats perspective..
I don't get it. If the cat is dead, it's dead, If it's alive, it's alive. People seeing it doesn't change it's physical state.... It only changes our knowledge of it's state. Plus, if it's alive, it knows it's alive.
The cat is not real. This is about something like an electron being in all the possible states at once. Forget the actual cat and think of photons or beryllium ions.
@TheKilcoin i once had a discusion with a friend of mine. he claimed that the cat was both dead and alive, I however are somewhat fond of the idea that if it's not observable it's not really there at all. i said then it would be a zombie cat, and zombies doesn't exist.
@TheKilcoin seems like he should've used the term "fictional character" (more general) - since this first dies when the neural cell mass of humanity vanishes (if it manages to eliminate all pictures, videos and texts before it vanishes).
yes - no, yes -no, 0 - 1.. you see my point? everything eventually comes to 1:1 odds & everything theoretically has a 50% chance of happening, but when it does happen it only exists within it 100% of being itself - it true self! so it is as if those 50% for something not happening never existed. Everything is a coincidence, but at the same time it could not have happened any other way.
To grasp the concept, I relate it to Mrs. Slocombe's pussy. Schrödinger's cat is either alive or dead. Mrs. Slocombe's pussy is her cat Tiddles or her vagina. Opening the box proves if Schrödinger's cat is extant. Opening Mrs. Slocombes's box probably won't settle the matter. So we have to study Mrs. Slocombe's statements for proof.
"It's a wonder I'm here at all, you know. My pussy got soaking wet. I had to dry it out in front of the fire before I left."
Think about this...the cat isnt happy being in a box for an hour, freaks out, bumps the geiger counter, triggers the hammer, releases the cyanide, and dies. No radioactive decay occurs, Schrodinger's confused.
as long as a mother isn't watching a kid is masturbating AND not in front of the computer. When she's watching the kid is either masturbating OR not (at least it
pretends this in an "easy to see through"-manner) as if not).
idiots, if you keep a cat for one hour in a closed metal box, with no ventilation equipment, it would die, having no air left to breathe. this makes the experiment practically invalid, i see no paradox here.
@borsecable You have to assume the cat can live in the box for at least an hour and that the only way the cat can die is by the cyanide being released in order for the experiment to make sense.
if I were a physisist, I would NEVER speak of this gay-ass experiment ever again as its not real science. Hey if tree falls in a forest, and noone were around to hear it, did it make a sound? Of course it did but sound is just a vibration, doesnt mean you heard it. Don't waste our precious brain power with shit like this. You can sit there and ponder your life away with no productive results.
ok yea so I suppose even if the odds were to favor one state or the other, like 1% chance the cat were alive, you'd still have to consider both states until you open the box. Even .000001% Ok now I suppose this analogy applys to everything. For example, anyone not in the same room as you is also both alive and dead at the same time, until you see them next, as were all exposed to at least a tiny chance of death (traffic, plane crash, etc) I suppose all that is possible is also up for grabs
The Schrödinger's cat paradox outlines a situation in which a cat in a box must be considered, for all intents and purposes, simultaneously alive and dead. Schrödinger created this paradox as justification for killing cats.
The part that I don't get is: if observation is the thing that makes reality collapse in one state, then what about the geiger counter? Doesn't that one force the cat to be either dead or alive?
@TheBlackCheeta Yes, the Geiger counter would destroy the state of superposition. The amazing part of this experiment are that there are some situations that would not destroy the state of superposition while a calculation is being made, only after the calculation has occurred. For instance, consider how a quantum computer makes calculations. How does that happen exactly?
The problem is that the experiment calls for an and statement when it needs an or statement. Dead or Alive, it is impossible to be both at the same time.
This is neither difficult to explain or understand, but the video fails to mention the key word "probability," which would clarify the erstwhile conundrum. If I tell you there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, and then I put you in a box for 24 hours where you can not determine whether it rains or not, you probably would not say of the outside world, "it is both raining and not raining". The problem is you only know with 50% certainty whether you should have brought your umbrella.
so interesting!, all of this is only within our reality, and that is where we get lost, we are so limited in belief systems on earth , there are so many other realms,that we can only pretend to understand, Do we know what is dead or alive in another time or dimension...? no, but we think we understand ... There are many dimensions that exist. When physics and science and matter combine, then we will really crack into the possibilites of ' the what is !!:)
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
But surely the cat is either one OR the other - we just don't know which, because the box is shut. Human's aren't god-like... We don't force nature to change just because we look at something? Or have I misunderstood something?
@Nemosisa paraphrase: "Shrodinger came up with his idea to show the ludicrousness of thinking ...that the cat is in two states at the same time, but the problem is that we have done experiments and at this quantum level that's how matter behaves."
So The answer is that cats don't exhibit superposition, but subatomic particles (and sometimes larger objects exhibit superposition) because they can do something that no macroscopic being can do (ie act free of interaction).
@Nemosisa the point is the way the experiment is setup. the cat might die by something that as long as it is not being observed it doesnt determine a single state. It is in all possible states UNTIL it is observed. So if the cat is in the box and we can't see inside did the atom decay and kill the cat or not and the cat is saved? According to the nature of quantum mechanics until we open that box, the cat is in fact both dead and alive. There's no other way to perceive it.
@gjozefi crap, sorry, didn't mean to click the post button... What I meant to say is that I will never understand this experiment(that last comment was part of what I was going to say). I will never understand as to why just 'cause you don't know its both, to me its like saying that since I don't know what card is on top a deck of cards its every card. I understand that it could be anyone of the cards, but I don't understand as since I don't know what card it is, its all of them.
@thenewnoob123 True enough. A bottle that is smashed and not smashed is enough to illustrate the point, but some how Schrodinger's bottle just doesn't have the same ring as Schrodinger's Cat.
@p00rstr941:45 - the box is "cut off completely from the outside, and nobody - not even physicists can see inside". The idea being that there's no link to the environment - no sound, no movement, no connection at all. Which is very difficult to achieve in practice, hence it's only a thought experiment (for now).
"I thought Einstein was clever, that's a stupid idea!"
"Well, maybe he had a strong box."
I LOLed really hard. But this is a very interesting concept. But if the cat was both dead and alive it would be neither dead nor alive. Would that mean the cat was erased from existance?
@ArchaicWarlock777 That's the main cause that they name it "super position". Cat doesnt have a "position" value at that state...The state of the cat is another position that can be named "neither dead nor alive" or "Both dead and alive" (they are the same thing)...
There may or may not be a dead cat in that professors 'fro.
steve64h 1 day ago
Bitches like explosives.
hackum1 1 day ago
The question the Schrödinger's cat experiment poses is at which scale quantum mechanical effects stop... would be awesome with a vid on this topic O.o
DigitizedSelf 1 day ago
QM itself contains the solution to all its "problems".
To resolve @TheHippieLip 's question about whose consciousness causes what to collapse, just analyze the entire situation quantum mechanically, including observers. If you do, QM implies that "observation" just means the observer becomes entangled with the subject system. QM implies you cant observe superpositions because through observation you become part of the superposition. No paradox, no spooky role for consciousness in physics.
cloffff 2 days ago
I tried this with my hamster.
R.I.P.
WorldInFlamesAgain 4 days ago
@WorldInFlamesAgain you killed it when you opened the box...
cybSwarley 3 days ago
The professor's cat is very cute. WHY doesn't this video go viral.
akedemo 4 days ago
i still don't get it *bangs head on desk*....
PinkCammy 5 days ago
Comment removed
a46475 6 days ago
Dead and alive, left and right-----imbeciles!
roryscanlon 1 week ago
This was an outstanding brief description of the idea. Thanks very much for posting.
SherryVapors 1 week ago
i don't buy this whatsoever.. just because you don't know if something is dead or alive doesn't mean it's both.. can some genius explain this to me?
N0striI 1 week ago
@N0striI That's the point of it. Schrodinger wanted to use this as an example to say exactly what you are saying. However, he was wrong. Because on a quantum scale (Extremely small) Things CAN be in two states at once.
Duodecillian 1 week ago
HE LOOKS LIKE HEIMERDINGER
mrmurphymil 1 week ago
Teapot = ($&+@?!?!?!?!a/26-&)
eel12333 1 week ago
I own a shirt.
beatfinity 1 week ago
@beatfinity I've got a pair of trousers. Wanna swop.
DSilsbury 1 week ago
muieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
970thebubu 1 week ago
Can this be used with anything? Like if ur kid or parents leave the house for school or work.. but don't arrive back home at their usual time without any indication.. would this be a moment of quantum suicide of sorts since at that moment you have no idea of their being? Wouldn't this apply all the time in life?
Caprican28 2 weeks ago
@Caprican28 The reason superposition does not apply in everyday life is because everything is being observed. Even if you are not being observed by anyone else, you are still interacting with your environment (ie. the wind still blows on you.) A subatomic particle (and now larger objects) can be isolated so that they don't interact with the environment around them. Then it is possible to put these particles into a state of superposition that otherwise does not exist.
snarky77005 1 week ago
@snarky77005 It is in everyday life. But if not observed, not noticed.
DSilsbury 1 week ago
@DSilsbury Perhaps a better sentence would have been: "The reason superposition does not apply in the macro-world is because everything is being observed constantly."
snarky77005 1 week ago
@snarky77005 Yes a better answer I agree but raises the BIG question who is observing everything all of the time?
DSilsbury 1 week ago
This "experiment" is famous only for theoretical considerations that have little to do with the physical reality of the experiment.
realisoph 2 weeks ago
"Here Kitty,Kitty" - Schrodinger
Atrocious305 2 weeks ago
is his hear for real???? REALY????? I couldent tell
HowardTheServant 2 weeks ago
Im not a specialist or anything but,
In order for this whole theory to make sense you have to assume that the only point of view that is in play, is the human's. What about the cat's....
TheHippieLip 2 weeks ago 20
Comment removed
TheRetna1111 2 weeks ago
@TheHippieLip
The way Einstein proposed the theory it involved dynamite, which still works for the cat. Either the cat sees the dynamite explode, or it does not see the dynamite explode. Just like we either see that cat dead, or we see that cat alive.
anthcybo 1 week ago
@TheHippieLip The cat does have a point of view, but is different to the cats, so the cat could be dead or alive to the human . I'm starting to think that every possibility is possible, so that the cat is dead and alive, and in another universe it's turned into a dog.
DSilsbury 1 week ago
@DSilsbury I meant it's different to the humans point of view.
DSilsbury 1 week ago
@TheHippieLip
lol the philoshophical problem of science (L. scio, scire) for science revolves around what conscious humans perceives. The cat is also in the play, as you point out. But who says other things aren't? Should only conscious beings concerned? How about conscious beings in the 4th dimension? Science says "Occam's Razor" The more you learn about science and philosophy, the less it becomes truth but more of a belief.
thelegendxp 1 week ago
@TheHippieLip That is incorrect. The cat's consciousness determines just as much as a human's. However, one cannot be conscious of himself, therefore in this scenario, the cat's consciousness does not matter because he cannot be conscious of himself, so we need to be conscious of it, collapsing the wave-function and determining its fate. The question is, who is conscious of us?
Spart248 6 days ago
@TheHippieLip That's the whole point the cat knows if its alive or dead (obviously) its just the human perspective that we are interested in. It's like saying the atom knows whats going on but we don't so we have to make the assumption that it's both alive and dead.
backhandable 4 days ago
5 out out of six cats can swim
stormagedon666 2 weeks ago
Another question is: how could the cat know whether Schrödinger was dead or alive or dead and alive? Additionally: how could a fictional cat (since: thought "experiment" (misuse of ex per in mens)) probably know whether it was really dead or alive or dead and alive or if it was only dead or alive or dead and alive only fictionally? How could it decide whether it was really fictional or only fictionally fictional?
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
I have FAITH that the cat is alive, yo cannot argue with this.
Ziksterio 2 weeks ago
I only clicked this video over the other one for the hair.
3xAmigosProductions 2 weeks ago
did the cat die?
i mean seriously..
seklay 2 weeks ago
@seklay lol the experiment was never actually performed. it was only a "thought experiment"
RayZon97 2 weeks ago
3:03 you can see a spit sprinkling from his mouth.
massdestruction97 2 weeks ago
well there has to be a link between the quantum mechanics and the physical mechanics... so there cant be a super position.. as nature dictates something happens...i think we need to discover what makes nature choose what happens and it will be more clear
superalexawesome 2 weeks ago
Lol, he's like I imagined a "scientist" as a kid...
pabloenis 2 weeks ago
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is the problem. Mathematicians would never accept the equivalent of a wave function within the field of mathematics. How can the foundations of a physical science be based on a structure that has no physical meaning? We know entanglement which is based on wave functions has no upper limit so scale is not as important as it is presented in this video. Moreover, large scale wave functions exist and can be isolated.
BinaryStars100 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 ...for the same reason Euclid used the first definition "A point is that which has no part.". every general theory (means: it's representative for all the specific theories) ha "no meaning", is abstract. Even Plato ...
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
@motionapplied All geometries are a study of space Euclidian and Non-Euclidian. They all capture the form of space but never its substance. Substance is meaning. To call an object point like implies the object cannot be divided or has infinite density. Modern physics is all about geometry and symmetries based on Dr. Noether's work. Mechanics determines symmetries and without it you only have form with no substance. My work is posted on youtube and is a quantum-mechanical unification.
BinaryStars100 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 so you type one doesn't zoom into a geometrical object so that one begins to see a confusing pattern, then molecules, then atoms, and so on - since this would be meaning. one wouldn't use the geometrical object to create something bigger but one would keep oneself busy by investigating the object itself...
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
@motionapplied Mathematics is a strong tool for modeling physical systems. If you say assume the earth is a sphere and you describe it mathematically as a sphere then you'll have some problems. The geometry of the Earth is not spherical because the mechanics of Centripetal force flattens it at the poles. (i.e Geometric Symmetries are controlled by mechanics). Mechanics explains why a symmetry exist and why it is broken.
BinaryStars100 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 could you take an example which can be proven directly by anyone who reads your text? i do not have the tools to observe the earth from a distance where
it can be seen as a whole "lump".
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
@motionapplied Example: A star's mass is generally determined by how fast objects move around them or the object's frequecy. I prove that space vibrates to synchronize gravitational and electromagnetic fields. The vibrating space is wave function with statistical form and quantum strucures. Vibration amplitudes are Dark Matter. It makes binary star frequencies move faster than expected. I solved the 60 year old DI Herculius problem and other binary stars systems. M-Theorist fear the paper.
BinaryStars100 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 where's your synthetic a posteriori proof for your assumption that binary star frequencies (do not move faster but) are higher than assumed by whom exactly? in an ironic tone i must type that it's very "convincing" that you tell by yourself that someone "fears" the assumptions you brought to (digital and analog) paper. you obviously do not even understand the difference between right opinion and knowledge.
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
@motionapplied My eight year research went through an extensive peer-review process by those who have experience with the topic. My research has also been reviewed by those with competing theories (M-Theory and others). My research was also presented at a physics conference. Most articles on the ArXiv have not been reviewed as mine. During a review, I was told, I would not get published unless I reference String Theory. I call that fear because it come from the competition. The End.
BinaryStars100 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 let's face it: your work - like the work from the ones of whom you assume that they fear your work - completely negligible. not accessible for most of the humans - and as useful as art is...a waste of time.
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 ...one can have the right opinion - but one mustn't be able to understand why one gave the right opinion. i can guess that right now at my place the sun is shining - and if i look and the sun really shines - i had the right opinion. neither can i explain why i decided this way, why i checked it - nor why the sun shines - nor why i can see that the sun shines. it would be knowledge if i could. of course only partial knowledge - since everything else...
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 ...still stays kinda "misty".
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BinaryStars100 ...
"the object cannot be divided or has infinite density." ...on the same degree of the scale dimension? or do you mean the density of all yet known degrees of the scale dimension?
symmetries on the scale dimension or symmetries on one degree of the scale dimension? do you use the term "symmetry" in the way the term "contradiction"
is being used?
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 ...and Kant knew that statements about the world of sense experience are not the only kind of knowledge (not: right opinion). There's knowledge that goes beyond sense experience. (difference between Plato'n'Kant: Mr. P put his ideas in a "transcendental" realm while Kant put them in the human "mind" - which is a summarization of what's known as neural structure - which also cannot be only known only by sense experience).
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
@BinaryStars100 our science is not about the things as they really are - it's about the world of phenomena. interesting that you mention mathematics which in addition works with idealized phenomena.
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
it took me 5 cats before I realised it's just about the randomness of atom desintegration...
xTheGerbilx 3 weeks ago
Big Bang Theory :)
TheAnokian 3 weeks ago
Why don't we do this for real but put a camera in the box to record it?
FuegoZorro7 3 weeks ago
@FuegoZorro7 then you would just see if the cat was dead or alive, thus it wouldn't be in superposition ;)
siemen26 3 weeks ago
@FuegoZorro7 My guess is that you are joking?
But seriously that would be stupid and irresponsible. Not to mention that having a camera in the box destroys the idea of superposition because the state of the cat is being observed. A free particle must exist in a state of isolation from it's environment to exhibit superposition.
snarky77005 2 weeks ago
@snarky77005 Yeah, lol, I was joking about actually doing the experiment but I genuinely don't understand how recording it (and watching it later) would effect the particle. Your comment /did/ help, though. So particles can't be observed by a living organism or having something recording what it's doing e_e...?
FuegoZorro7 2 weeks ago
@FuegoZorro7 Interaction with respect to superposition is any kind of interaction with other matter. It does not have to be a conscious interaction. In other words interaction with another inanimate particle is enough to destroy superposition. An isolated particle or small object can now be isolated and put into states of superposition. Superposition cannot be observed directly but the effects of superposition can be observed. The whole thing is pretty hard to understand.
snarky77005 2 weeks ago
What ur views on neutrinos traveling faster than light (
twelverknight 3 weeks ago
@twelverknight I find it hard to believe. There are a lot of problems with that. First of all if they travel faster than light then they would theoretically travel backwards in time. secondly if they really do travel faster than light then we could detect things like supernovas and quasars years before we can see them. Maybe it's possible but it seems unlikely.
snarky77005 3 weeks ago
After i saw his hair a stopped listening
Fr3shOutThaBox 3 weeks ago
How is the playlist "Spanish Eyes" related to this video...
SSJkiller 3 weeks ago
I guess Einstein ...
*puts on sunglasses*
couldn't think outside the box.
*YEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
SSJkiller 3 weeks ago 48
hooray for martin poliakoff!!!!!
kinkongization 3 weeks ago
this would sound a lot more professional in a german accent
mrcookie2020 4 weeks ago
OK, here's a serious question: If we put a cat in a box, and close the box, isn't the cat already in a super position, because we cannot know if some random quantum event has caused a critical effect that has changed the state of the cat? In such case, it means that anything and everything that we do not, or cannot currently, observe is technically in a super position? And the question is just how the observation causes the wave function to break (if I'm using that terminology correctly).
antiHUMANDesigns 4 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns The problem is that the cat is never really in a state of superposition because it cannot truly be isolated from it’s environment. The idea of having a cat in superposition is a joke. However subatomic particles like electrons can be isolated from the environment and exhibit true superposition. Superposition used to be limited to subatomic particles but now scientists are started to put larger objects in a state of superposition.
snarky77005 4 weeks ago
@snarky77005 Ye, I read about how they are attempting to, and have successfully, put larger objects in a state of super positin, bu tnothing as big as a cat.
But what I'm wondering, in reality, is that since everything is relative (which I assume plays a role in the many-worls interpretation), wouldn't it mean that anything can be in something similar to a super position, even if I'm wrong to call it a super position because it's not a quantum thing?
antiHUMANDesigns 4 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns I've heard physicists say that there is no reason in theory that a larger object like a cat could really be put in superposition. The problem is that the larger an object is the harder it is to isolate it. It's so hard it might never be possible in reality.
It's like time travel. It's possible to travel into the future as far as one wants in theory. In practice, It's too hard to achieve.
snarky77005 3 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns I never liked the many worlds interpretation. Instead I think that there are many possibilities in superposition that collapse into one possibility and the other possibilities fail to exist after that. Superposition is a form of catching matter before it's definite state has been determined. I picture it like wide railroad tracks that collapse to a point eventually. Superposition can exist right before the RR tracks collapse to that point, I tend to think.
snarky77005 3 weeks ago
@snarky77005 Some poll said 58% of the guys working in physics (which they asked) believe in the many-worlds interpretation. Personally, I also find it weird, but not unfeasible. I find quantum theory stranger by itself anyways. :P
antiHUMANDesigns 3 weeks ago
@snarky77005 Ye, it's like I usually say: You look backwards in time, and travel forwards.
antiHUMANDesigns 3 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns Yeah, I find the many worlds interpretation too hard to swallow. Ironically if it is true that means that time travel to the past might be possible. When you come back to your own time you would end up in the universe that matches the alterations you made while in the past. If it is wrong then time travel to the past is likely not possible. Hmm, It makes you wonder.
snarky77005 3 weeks ago
@snarky77005 How would it possibly make time travel backwards possible? 8|
antiHUMANDesigns 3 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns Because if it is possible to change the future by traveling to the past that alternate future would have to exist, one way or the other.
I suppose you could just argue that that future only exists after you created it by traveling back in time rather than saying that by traveling back in time you are effectively jumping from one universe to the other.
It's just a lot of speculation. I'm not sure that these ideas are well understood at this point.
snarky77005 3 weeks ago
@snarky77005 I'm sorry, I don't get it. How would traveling backwards in time be possible? I understand that anything that can happen will happen at some point, but traveling backwards in time is just simply impossible, wouldn't you agree?
antiHUMANDesigns 3 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns I tend to think that traveling back in time is impossible. But if it possible would you agree that would create an alternate future?
snarky77005 3 weeks ago
@snarky77005 Surely an interesting though. But I wonder if we understand the true concept of an alternative future. I doubt that the movies have got it spot on.
I can't really guess what might happen without thinking about it for a while, but actually traveling back in time could be a pandora's box, really. Even alternate worlds may be tied to each other in some way, which may cause some kind of rippling reaction and disturbances, perhaps. Unexplainable energy outbursts? I dunno.
antiHUMANDesigns 3 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns He used the cat as an analogy of a single subatomic particle. The interactions of the other atoms that make up the cat destroy the superposition possibility, hence why we don't smear all over the place when we're in a box.
aqouby 4 weeks ago
@aqouby Did he really mean it as an analogy? I understand that you could see it that way, but wasn't the point to raise the question of how absurd the results could be if it was all true? Considering the quantum suicide, and it's implications.
antiHUMANDesigns 4 weeks ago
@antiHUMANDesigns Well, maybe he couldn't come up with a way to convey his point too well because of the subject he was trying to explain in laymen terms.
I think Schrodinger explained the uncertainty principle in a bad way, like how "Dr. Quantum" explains quantum mechanics in a bad way... It sounds good if you don't look to far into it, I guess, lol.
Either way, the story fails when put to the test because kitties don't consist of one wave function.
aqouby 4 weeks ago
@aqouby That all rings true to me, and I can agree with that.
antiHUMANDesigns 4 weeks ago
Did anyone notice all the people in the video wear glasses? :p
D0nTF4 1 month ago
i understand the cat being dead and alive at the same time from our perspective, but i dont understand how it can be like that from the cats perspective..
scolton4life15 1 month ago
funny i actually needed this guy for an essay, just I forgot the name! until now
Ghost572 1 month ago
DON'T DARE KILL THAT CAT!
PedroGoulart31 1 month ago
I don't get it. If the cat is dead, it's dead, If it's alive, it's alive. People seeing it doesn't change it's physical state.... It only changes our knowledge of it's state. Plus, if it's alive, it knows it's alive.
dev02ify 1 month ago
@dev02ify
The cat is not real. This is about something like an electron being in all the possible states at once. Forget the actual cat and think of photons or beryllium ions.
ArtypNk 1 month ago
@dev02ify its saying that we dont know which it is so to us the cat is both.
tyler41611 1 month ago
i still dun get it
nate9398 1 month ago
So it's like that internet "Which way is this ballerina spinning" thing.
ArtypNk 1 month ago
@ArtypNk no that's totally diffrent. that's an optical illusion
franky1l 1 month ago
If I ever get a pet cat, I have to name it Schrödinger.
Zanragnar 1 month ago
So I guess a human wouldn't know if its alive or dead either:P
lawanbrown16 1 month ago
While being continuously watched, how can the guys hair be in a superposition of states?
gaurix 1 month ago
@5:26 I laughed so hard I woke up my sleeping daughter three rooms away! Awesome
w215philly 1 month ago
suggestion contains other one with same hair..... Mighty Einstein
savinlovesyou 1 month ago
Comment removed
savinlovesyou 1 month ago
Obviously the cat is alive as the poisonous gas would only bring it down to 8 lives.
However, they also failed to take into account zombie cats, who could be both dead and alive.
TheKilcoin 1 month ago 47
@TheKilcoin Correctimus Trollimus
MrTheCSfan 1 month ago
@TheKilcoin i once had a discusion with a friend of mine. he claimed that the cat was both dead and alive, I however are somewhat fond of the idea that if it's not observable it's not really there at all. i said then it would be a zombie cat, and zombies doesn't exist.
bluewisdomtriforce 4 weeks ago
@TheKilcoin Nice, out of the box thinking
therealitybeforeyou 3 weeks ago
@TheKilcoin seems like he should've used the term "fictional character" (more general) - since this first dies when the neural cell mass of humanity vanishes (if it manages to eliminate all pictures, videos and texts before it vanishes).
motionapplied 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes - no, yes -no, 0 - 1.. you see my point? everything eventually comes to 1:1 odds & everything theoretically has a 50% chance of happening, but when it does happen it only exists within it 100% of being itself - it true self! so it is as if those 50% for something not happening never existed. Everything is a coincidence, but at the same time it could not have happened any other way.
rhcpandy 1 month ago
I will do this experiment in Garry's mod!
0GTXR 1 month ago
They should of used Rosie O'Donnel instead of a cat.
mzyzer19 1 month ago
This is one of the dumbest theories i've ever heard. how would some particles taking in light rays (our eyes) make something dead or alive.
trollingnoah 1 month ago
@trollingnoah wow. Oh wow.
YourLocalFinn 1 month ago
@trollingnoah look at quantum physics and the measurment problem. consciouss observation literally changes the way particles behave
josh218 1 month ago
@josh218 but it cant change what had already happened
trollingnoah 1 month ago
To grasp the concept, I relate it to Mrs. Slocombe's pussy. Schrödinger's cat is either alive or dead. Mrs. Slocombe's pussy is her cat Tiddles or her vagina. Opening the box proves if Schrödinger's cat is extant. Opening Mrs. Slocombes's box probably won't settle the matter. So we have to study Mrs. Slocombe's statements for proof.
"It's a wonder I'm here at all, you know. My pussy got soaking wet. I had to dry it out in front of the fire before I left."
I'm not sure we'll ever know.
TheOldBerkeley 1 month ago
@TheOldBerkeley Marry me? lol
YourLocalFinn 1 month ago
So our curiousity does kill the cat
NorthWalesAirsoft 1 month ago
...when we use everyday objects like cats? lol
belladonnasixx 1 month ago 35
Think about this...the cat isnt happy being in a box for an hour, freaks out, bumps the geiger counter, triggers the hammer, releases the cyanide, and dies. No radioactive decay occurs, Schrodinger's confused.
TheLeftoverCrizack 1 month ago
This guy played Bass Guitar for Jimi Hendrix ...right?
seasidejimmy 1 month ago
as long as a mother isn't watching a kid is masturbating AND not in front of the computer. When she's watching the kid is either masturbating OR not (at least it
pretends this in an "easy to see through"-manner) as if not).
motionapplied 1 month ago
"Perhaps he had a strong box." I chuckled.
UmlautBanana 1 month ago
idiots, if you keep a cat for one hour in a closed metal box, with no ventilation equipment, it would die, having no air left to breathe. this makes the experiment practically invalid, i see no paradox here.
borsecable 1 month ago
@borsecable It's just a thought experiment, noone really attempted it.
TheBaldchipmunk 1 month ago
@borsecable You have to assume the cat can live in the box for at least an hour and that the only way the cat can die is by the cyanide being released in order for the experiment to make sense.
gjozefi 1 month ago
I swear the next guy to mention wave function collapse in front of me I'll curb stomp his ass
ricktbdgc 1 month ago
if I were a physisist, I would NEVER speak of this gay-ass experiment ever again as its not real science. Hey if tree falls in a forest, and noone were around to hear it, did it make a sound? Of course it did but sound is just a vibration, doesnt mean you heard it. Don't waste our precious brain power with shit like this. You can sit there and ponder your life away with no productive results.
ricktbdgc 1 month ago
ok yea so I suppose even if the odds were to favor one state or the other, like 1% chance the cat were alive, you'd still have to consider both states until you open the box. Even .000001% Ok now I suppose this analogy applys to everything. For example, anyone not in the same room as you is also both alive and dead at the same time, until you see them next, as were all exposed to at least a tiny chance of death (traffic, plane crash, etc) I suppose all that is possible is also up for grabs
ricktbdgc 1 month ago
The Schrödinger's cat paradox outlines a situation in which a cat in a box must be considered, for all intents and purposes, simultaneously alive and dead. Schrödinger created this paradox as justification for killing cats.
MrKingJay99 1 month ago
Thumbs up for Schrödinger's Cat :)
kunal1993 1 month ago
meow ???
coley429 1 month ago
The part that I don't get is: if observation is the thing that makes reality collapse in one state, then what about the geiger counter? Doesn't that one force the cat to be either dead or alive?
TheBlackCheeta 1 month ago
@TheBlackCheeta Yes, the Geiger counter would destroy the state of superposition. The amazing part of this experiment are that there are some situations that would not destroy the state of superposition while a calculation is being made, only after the calculation has occurred. For instance, consider how a quantum computer makes calculations. How does that happen exactly?
snarky77005 1 month ago
I SAY THAT ACCORDING TO QUANTUM MECHANICS everything that is possible occurs THAT IS THE CAT CAN BE DEAD AND ALIVE
AND ACCORDING TO MY VERSION OF
THEORY OF PARALLEL UNIVERSE
WHENEVER 2 THINGS ARE POSSIBLE THAN BOTH HAPPEN AND SPLIT THE UNIVERSE INTO TWO IN ONEE OF THEM THE FIRST OCCURS IN OTHER THE OTHER OCCURS
SO UNTIL YOU OBSERVE THE CAT THE UNIVERSE IS NOT SPLIT AND BOTH THINGS HAPPEN AS IN DOUBLE SLIT EXPEREMENT UNTIL A DETECTOR IS SET TO DETECT
deep2236 1 month ago
@deep2236 WHICH SLIT ELECTRON GOEST THROUGH IT GOES THROUGH BOTH
SO WHEN YOU SEE IT WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSSES CAUSING THE CAT TO BE EITHER DEAD OR ALIVE
deep2236 1 month ago
The problem is that the experiment calls for an and statement when it needs an or statement. Dead or Alive, it is impossible to be both at the same time.
laxrules017 1 month ago
This is neither difficult to explain or understand, but the video fails to mention the key word "probability," which would clarify the erstwhile conundrum. If I tell you there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, and then I put you in a box for 24 hours where you can not determine whether it rains or not, you probably would not say of the outside world, "it is both raining and not raining". The problem is you only know with 50% certainty whether you should have brought your umbrella.
smartin108 1 month ago
@smartin108 How does a quantum computer make it's calculations?
snarky77005 1 month ago
Unobserved cats turn into singing, dancing frogs, obviously. What is the point of this I do not understand.
eduddiputs 1 month ago
let's play a game - spot the virgin!
only joking people, these people are genuinely my idols!
Freddie94Woods 1 month ago
bioshock sent me
TrulyEpicGaming 1 month ago
so interesting!, all of this is only within our reality, and that is where we get lost, we are so limited in belief systems on earth , there are so many other realms,that we can only pretend to understand, Do we know what is dead or alive in another time or dimension...? no, but we think we understand ... There are many dimensions that exist. When physics and science and matter combine, then we will really crack into the possibilites of ' the what is !!:)
cdbfort 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 1 month ago
Schrodingers cat was a justification for killing cats. >:0
koreanpet 1 month ago
But surely the cat is either one OR the other - we just don't know which, because the box is shut. Human's aren't god-like... We don't force nature to change just because we look at something? Or have I misunderstood something?
Nemosisa 1 month ago
@Nemosisa paraphrase: "Shrodinger came up with his idea to show the ludicrousness of thinking ...that the cat is in two states at the same time, but the problem is that we have done experiments and at this quantum level that's how matter behaves."
So The answer is that cats don't exhibit superposition, but subatomic particles (and sometimes larger objects exhibit superposition) because they can do something that no macroscopic being can do (ie act free of interaction).
squareatheist 1 month ago
@Nemosisa the point is the way the experiment is setup. the cat might die by something that as long as it is not being observed it doesnt determine a single state. It is in all possible states UNTIL it is observed. So if the cat is in the box and we can't see inside did the atom decay and kill the cat or not and the cat is saved? According to the nature of quantum mechanics until we open that box, the cat is in fact both dead and alive. There's no other way to perceive it.
gjozefi 1 month ago
@gjozefi I don't understand as to why the cat is both dead and alive
cutiepie316289 1 month ago
@gjozefi crap, sorry, didn't mean to click the post button... What I meant to say is that I will never understand this experiment(that last comment was part of what I was going to say). I will never understand as to why just 'cause you don't know its both, to me its like saying that since I don't know what card is on top a deck of cards its every card. I understand that it could be anyone of the cards, but I don't understand as since I don't know what card it is, its all of them.
cutiepie316289 1 month ago
Vacuum Equipment
Anguigen 1 month ago
what happened when his mother asked where the cat went?
luke53285 1 month ago
knock knock
who's there
a cat
dead or alive
BOTH BITCH O.o
MyRealDad 1 month ago
@MyRealDad hey .. you gave a example for my idea :D
p00rstr94 1 month ago
wait, why the cat? Isn't a smashed bottle quite enough?
thenewnoob123 1 month ago
@thenewnoob123 True enough. A bottle that is smashed and not smashed is enough to illustrate the point, but some how Schrodinger's bottle just doesn't have the same ring as Schrodinger's Cat.
snarky77005 1 month ago
knock on the box and wait for a noise or a movement... xD
p00rstr94 1 month ago
@p00rstr94 1:45 - the box is "cut off completely from the outside, and nobody - not even physicists can see inside". The idea being that there's no link to the environment - no sound, no movement, no connection at all. Which is very difficult to achieve in practice, hence it's only a thought experiment (for now).
LJHaywood 1 month ago
AWESOME HAIR
lieisacrazygame 2 months ago
@lieisacrazygame
he is a scientist
Glenhu123 1 month ago
Whats the name of this weird white haired scientist?
MenTaLLyMenTaL 2 months ago
"I thought Einstein was clever, that's a stupid idea!"
"Well, maybe he had a strong box."
I LOLed really hard. But this is a very interesting concept. But if the cat was both dead and alive it would be neither dead nor alive. Would that mean the cat was erased from existance?
ArchaicWarlock777 2 months ago
@ArchaicWarlock777 That's the main cause that they name it "super position". Cat doesnt have a "position" value at that state...The state of the cat is another position that can be named "neither dead nor alive" or "Both dead and alive" (they are the same thing)...
ertansaygi 2 months ago
I canot listen to what he says. Hes hair is way to awesome......
Dragelof 2 months ago 67
@Dragelof Mad scientist?☺
CelestialHeretic 1 month ago
@CelestialHeretic /watch?v=t348e24vDyA&feature=related
Dragelof 1 month ago
1. Crinkly forehead guy is in denial.
2. Young exuberant guy is in university.
3. A cat is not a molecule.
truthIsStranger 2 months ago
What about miracle max....? The cat is only HALF dead...
MrNewbie2009 2 months ago
I bet a thought experiment is responsible for each one of those grey hairs!
neopx123 2 months ago
Poor cat... :(
MayaKobuladze 2 months ago
Now THAT is my idea of fucken scientist.
fishybishbash 2 months ago
i like his wig
BCactionfilms 2 months ago
It's kinda like tree in a forest falling without any one hearing right?
0nderandereN 2 months ago
if you let the cat too long in there, it will die because it chokes because it has no oxygen -.-'
janitaatjelovemusic 2 months ago