So Funny!! I found a cool item on eBay ...the actual Schrodinger's cat device...Cool Novelty ...Totally getting one...if they don't sell out. The item number is 150759100427
It's just a thought experiment. Relax. Schrodinger only wondered what would happen if someone did it; he never used a cat. The entire point of the thing is that, just like anything in the universe, nothing can be assumed to be true without proof. In the cat scenario, nobody can possibly know that the cat is dead or that the cat is alive until they look. You can't prove that the cat is either one, and it can't be neither, so it's both. all it is is a thought, about existence and uncertainty.
No. No they are not. They are the Royal Society for the PRVENTION of Cruelty to Animals. They wouldn't be very active in stopping animal cruelty by Protecting said activity
Sounds like the RSPCA isn't a big fan of clueless animal rights activists. You should do a little research, otherwise you're only setting yourself up for embarrasment. By the way, did schrodinger ever do this experiment with a cat? It sounds more like a way of explaining a concept, rather than a testable experament.
@SausageKitten Actually performing this experiment wouldn't achieve anything even if he did it. It was supposed to be a critique of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. He was saying that if the copenhagen interpretation was correct, the cat would be both alive and dead until someone observed it.
As a non quantum physicist (i'm only a feeble brained designer ;] )I may have misunderstood it, but is it not just a complicated way of saying that the cat could either be alive or dead? "The cat exists in multiple simultaneous states"? Personally I would disagree, the cat is either dead or not - we don't know because we cant see but we do know that objects cannot be both dead and alive. So to us it could be in one of two states not both. How is it existing in multiple simultaneous states?
@tantorecords that is the point of the experiment. it shows the disparity between physics on a subatomic and general level. The point is, there is no bridge between the two interpretations of physics and the very question you posed is the source of mockery. Bridging the two theories, that is universalizing physics into one form, is the ultimate goal.
@Czeza117 Yes but for me it shows there is no bridge between the interpretations of physics and "real" human perception. I still can't see the value of such a theory nor of such an experiment - it doesn't seem to teach us anything. It's merely amusing for some and confusing for others? No doubt that will be blasphemy of the worst kind for you physicists but shoot me if you must. :p
I'll be answering this with a video called "Schrödinger's Cat - The world's worst metaphor". Just take a look at my channel. (Welcome to another episode of "Girl against science"...)
the eye is also a form of detector. it would be curious to do the experiment with the detector in place, BUT then not have the results available ever. would the wave function still collapse if nothing living processes the information, or does it collapse if the information is stored anywhere? what if you stored the information, but it was impossible to decipher? also, there are more than two possible states for the cat. there is alive, then many stages of dying, then dead. all in superposition.
@zjorichardson read what I wrote below. Both paths must be taken. If we don't observe, then we DO observe in the parallel universe at the same time. If we do observe, then we DON'T observe in a parallel universe, again at the same time. No matter what we do, the cat will either be dead AND alive for hundreds of years
The experiment is very complex, yet scientists didn't make it up. Well they made up the experiment, but we don't control the atoms that we are composed of, so we aren't making this up. By nature, since an Atom has more than 1 path, so must everything composed of atoms (the entire universe) and since everything in the universe has 2 paths, both paths are taken at the same time, only if we see one.
The experiment explains the duality of Atoms. Simply put, an Atom must do BOTH, but in our observation, we can only see 1 of 2. Therefore, if we observe the cat and it's alive, then in ANOTHER universe, a parallel universe, we do NOT observe the cat and he lives. This is how Atoms work. Even tho we measure the Atom and see it as a particle, it is still a wave as well. Even tho we observe the cat and its dead, it's still alive.
irrelevant to the cat thing, but relevant to the 2 slit experiment, there is something called a "delayed choice experiment" that has some interesting results,regarding this issue. it kinda makes this video irrelevant.
Okay. My question is what if we never collapse the wave. Nobody opens the box for hundreds of years. So no matter what happened the cat is dead. What collapses the wave?
When experiencing or observing a quantum paradigm one must always remember this: 'Observable reality is different from the Quantum reality." Simple, what we see and what happens are two different things, Schrodinger's hypothesis is just that, one can neither disagree or agree on premise wether the cat in the box is alive or dead, ore experiencing both at the same time....tie in the absurdity that is the multiverse theory and you would find that the cat didn't even enter the box in another plane,
@DrGaud : so the observer looking at the box is experiencing the laws of quantum set by the nature of the universe, and inside the box 3 possibilities are occurring, creating 3 to infinity different set of probable results. Regardless of the observer or the instrument used to observe the visible plane, it always would interfere with the quantum particles that inhabit every single atom. so can we observe the quantum relm, without having uncertainty in the results......no, we arent there just yet.
The real decision making takes place when the bioelectrical signals of your body are passed down to your brain from your five physical senses (eyes, ears, tongue, skin, and nose). So no matter how many mechanical detectors or HUMAN observers you keep to look after the poor photon's journey throught the slits, until 'YOU' find out what’s really going on, nothing is decided. That’s it.
What if you keep the photon experiment running (with the detector near the two slits) without looking at the detector’s meter (or monitor or whateva u call it)? The reality for the photon will remain unknown & undecided for you.
Dude, I think you are misinterpreting the moment of human observation in the photon experiment. The detection by the detector (near the slits) is just the 'observation of the detector' not 'observation of a human'. The human observation starts when you look at the indication meter 'OF' the detector. Until then the monitor prompts both particle and wave characteristics for the photon. So there you go. There IS a human observation deciding the photons behavior.
It's not the detector that collapses the wave pattern; it's our knowledge or which way the particle went, or at least, our ability to know. It sounds crazy, but it's observable. If you don't believe me, then read about the Quantum Eraser Experiment, and then the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. They are real experiments (not thought experiments, like Schrodinger's cat), that prove it's not the detectors, but our ability to know. Sounds completely crazy, but there it is. Science.
I believe that the state of the cat is unknown to the observer, but the observer is always oneself, so the fuction collapses TO the orserver only when THE observer observes the result of it.
If the observer is the cat or even better if instead of the cat it was you in the box there is not dual behavior for the observer, but if someone is observing from the outside of the box AND you are still inside, your state is still unkown to tha outside observer. Relativity. Depends on WHO is the observer.
A single particle is not capable to behave like a wave, that Is obvious I hope. One drop of water will not create a wave
'Observing' the experiment has NO effect upon it what so ever.
And shrodingers cat, if anything, is a failed methafore explaining that there are as many universes as there are probable outcomes and all outcomes are true in at least one of them.
I would like someone to present a video of actuall experiment, repeated at least a few times, NOT an animation.
A photon and cat are 2 different situations. The cat is EITHER alive or dead. It is not BOTH alive and dead. The act of opening the box will not determine the outcome, it will merely reveal the outcome to the person opening the box.
If I must explain, here the you can't apply the observer principle to Geiger counter the same way you do for double slit experiment.In double slit experiment, the when the photon gets released, the possibilities are many but because f the counter it becomes one.Here,the counter is used to detect radioactive particle if there is a decay.Note the word "if".So the geiger counter here is used for detecting decay and not whether the cat is dead or not
i like quantum physics but this thing is just bullshit.. i mean common!? Just because the scientist doesnt know if its dead or not doesnt mean its BOTH ! Its like me saying you are alive AND dead.. cause i cant see you.
This really bothered Einstein and other physicists, and you can see why. The revelation of this experiment, however, has to do with our consciousness. Cue the Matrix music.
Not a physicist, but it think it would be more accurate to say - rather than "the cat is both alive and dead" or "the cat is either alive or dead" - "The cat is neither alive nor dead" This in your region of reality until something connects the information in your reality to the information of the reality of the cat, say light particles.
As for the ref light. It's just that it can expel information two mutually exclusive ways so if you see it do something you cannot receive the other information
You don't need a human observer to collapse the wave funtion and render the cat dead or alive,you mearley need a concious observer. The only concious observer I know who cuold follow this experiment would have to be HUMAN. In the double slit experiment the detector placed by the slits is not an observer,but a mechanism we would have to use to observe the particles. Thank you.
The wave function is merely a probability function, it is once we detect where the particle has landed that the function collapses and we know exactly where the particle has landed. If you repeat the experiment than the particles will indeed follow the same probability wave function.
You make an exellent point, and its something that I as a very philosophical person like to ask myself. Why does humans take for granted that we have some sort of "authority" over things and why we always question other authorities.
Excellent video. Highlights a block that affect even the most objective of physicists... the human ego is very powerful. The belief that the collection of molecules that we are comprised of is somehow endowed with a special property is irrational.
Tough because physics is all about observing. Quantum physics highlights the limitation of being inside the system while trying to measure the system.
This has probably been said before, and I might be beating a dead horse now... But Schrodinger created this example to protest the idea that human observation was a determining factor in the photon's behavior. The cat experiment is NOT SUPPOSED to make sense you see, it is instead meant to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum (namely Copenhagen based) interperitation of the superposition of physical states...
@WoahSalmo I don't really see the absurdness though. When you accept that particles can be in superposed states until observed I don't see why a cat being both alive and dead until it's observed is an issue.
I love thinking about what if you were in the box... how would you experience it? Naively, your experience would be largely effected by whether or not you died, which is only determined after the box is opened, not before. How do you experience it in between? A superposition of experiences!
@jamma246 The idea is interesting, but IMHO I believe the premise is false.
State superposition (from my experience) is the product of physicists alluding too many of their observations to frame modeling. There's a definite glitch in our frame of reference, but I'm reluctant to come to the conclusion that there is a respective glitch in the laws of physics.
While the phenomena can be math and frame modeled, no amount of 'physi-hand waving' can trump common sense. You can't be alive AND dead.
@WoahSalmo I disagree with this strongly. We shouldn't let common sense along guide us, or we'd be nowhere. Please explain WHY you can't be alive and dead. I don't see the problem.
As the double slit experiment shows, we really should think of the particle as being in two places at the same time, or we have to adopt even more convoluted notions. Why when this gets applied to something being dead or alive does this become nonsensical?
@jamma246 I meant "common sense alone", sorry. And I stand by this; without these non-intuitive ideas we'd have got nowhere with quantum physics. Time goes slower in the presence of gravity? That goes against common sense but is true. Electrons in a closed box can only have a discrete set of energies? Against intuition but true (to some extent anyway).
People trusting their own intuition alone leads to stagnated science and religion!
@WoahSalmo I think you have the wrong idea. The cat can observe itself too by this logic. The point (I think) is that there is no light in the box.
And yes, you COULD do this experiment. But... how would you know about the result? You may have been in two states of consciousness when in there, alive and dead, but when they open the box and the wave function collapses, it will feel to you as if you were just in a dark box the whole time. There is no inconsistency.
@jamma246 We never directly observe superposition, and neither would the cat. We wouldn't even see its effects in this experiment. The fact is, only if a particle could observe itself would it have any chance of "experiencing" superposition.
@maplebayou1 Yes, I realise that. But it's really cool to think about nonetheless, if only from a philosophical point of view. As I said, you could have a superposition of consciousnesses but when the box is open and the wave function collapses it won't feel like that.
That doesn't mean that you can't see ANY effects of the experiment though. If may be that the results of a superposition lead to different behaviours than two pure states (def alive and def dead) from what you do in the box.
@jamma246 To justify what I mean- consider the double slit experiment. It is best to think of the particle in a superposition of states. And indeed, this leads to different results than considering the case where 50% of the time the particle goes through one slit and 50% definitely the other. In the same way, being definitely alive in the box 50% of the time and definitely dead in the box 50% of the time may lead to different results than being a superposition of the two.
@jamma246 don't you see a problem with it??? the problem is that the cat can only be either dead or alive, so observing an alive cat means that the cat must have been alive prior to observing it!!! superstates only exist on the quantum or atomic scale
@PaladinswordSaurfang I think that you need to justify this statement. If particles can be in a superposition of states I don't see the impossibility of something being both alive and dead on the macro scale. In fact, this seems to be a logical certainty once you accept atomic scale quantum effects.
@jamma246 and i suppose God both exists and doesn't exist until one is proven? And 9 cubed will only equal 729 after you work it out or someone tells you it is? That's just preposterous, and there's no evidence to say a cat is dead and alive at the same time and only chooses whether it's dead or alive when you observe it. If superstates really exist, then the detector itself will break the wave function, not observation of the cat.
@PaladinswordSaurfang There is a difference between almost philosophical statements such as that and statements about the positions of particles.
For example: does God only exist or not exist until proven? How does this question have relevance? Let's say that a God, if it exists, is made of particles(??). The particles of God are still there, it's just not a certainty in the position of them. And any effects in the past the God has had will still have happened.
@PaladinswordSaurfang Also, I don't know what you mean by "the detector itself will break the wave function".
Basically, if you think that this idea is so preposterous, please give a thorough example involving superposition of particles which highlights the absurdity as opposed to just saying "I suppose God both exists and doesn't exist until one is proven".
@jamma246 i mean the detector will either detect the radiation and the cat will die, or it wont and the cat will live... why should the cat be both alive and dead? it's not like the detector both detects and doesn't detect radiation? Why do you think observation has any effect whatsoever on the state of the cat? you're the one that needs to give some evidence because that doesn't make sense. The Schrodinger's cat experiment was made by schrodinger to show how absurd quantum mechanics is.
Tbh, I don't know the fine details of the thought experiment, but I think that it's supposed to be a closed system and that the method of determining whether the cat should die or not should not be the problem, but I do see what you mean now.
All I am trying to say is this: the ideas are NOT absurd, they just seem so intuitively. Physicists of far more intelligence than you or I still argue about this idea.
The cat is dead because it couldn't breathe. Just because we don't know if something is or isn't doesn't mean it is both. It is either or not both in our realm/dimension. The scientists just haven't realized this yet.
The paradoxes of quantum mechanics only occur when you assert that human intervention and consciousness are what constitutes a measurement. I can't remember who, but I believe it was Heisenberg who recommended that the term "measurement" in quantum mechanics be changed to "event." The failure here is in the language, not QM. Measurement suggests some kind of anthropomorphic characteristic and has lead to the disgustingly solipsistic arguments of otherwise brilliant minds, i.e. Wigner.
The act of human "observation," is not a likely candidate for "measurement." This is still an unsolved philosophical (notice, I don't say physical) problem. Most physicists don't care about the problem, because the predictions and calculations of QM are independent of your interpretation. Presumably, in the huge calculation of the wave-fn of this large system, somewhere in the math of large numbers the superposition effects tend away in an appropriate limit. That's a superior assertion.
Please watch RF's lecture at the University of Auckland: "If you don't like it,"
LHC 2012 might get us a little closer to Higgs' Boson. Science becomes religion at some point asking you to believe albeit with evidence. It is not for us mortals to question the intricacies of Nature. That is the way she is. You wish to know WHY? Go to Zeus or Abraham's God or Hindus ParamAtma. Human brains are still evolving. Give another 50k years or more.
that makes no sense its like if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it make noise well of course it does becuase human oservation does not change the outcome it will always make sound so the cat isnt in 2 states it either in 1 or the other
Sorry ran out of space in the last comment - therefore extrapolating this logic, in the thought experiment of Schrodinger's cat, it is not the "perception" of the cat that causes it to be dead or alive, it is the "perceptability". For instance if a camera was in the box, with the cat recording to a VCR, the cat would be in a definitive state due to the presence of the camera NOT dependent on someone watching the tape.
@poiuythalo There is an important difference, though, in that the "paths" here are readily distinguishable even at the point of the Geiger counter, so the introduction of the VCR doesn't really change the experiment in that sense. It could be argued that the VCR is now in superposition along with the cat and the rest. We won't observe any interference effects in any case.
@maplebayou1 I think the Geiger counter is supposed to be part of a "closed system" in the thought experiment - though I am not sure. I accept that the detection of a radioactive particle would normally collapse a wave function but I think the idea is that in this case it isn't supposed to...
@poiuythalo It really depends on your interpretation of QM. In some interpretations, any macroscopic system "collapses" the wave function of a "quantum" system when the two interact. In others, all systems are quantum systems, and a system can be in superposition from one point of view and not from another. In such an interpretation the Geiger counter is in superposition from the point of view of an outside observer but not from the point of view of the cat.
It is not "detection" that most physicists focus on but "detectability" - that is if it is possible to figure out which slit the photon passed through that most people agree is the key ingredient of getting the wave generated "interference pattern" Chiao, Kwiat and Steinberg did an experiment where photons were "marked" when they went through one slit, which caused the interference patten to vanish. When they "Unmarked" the photons going through the 2nd slit, the interference pattern emerged.
looooooooooooooooooool - the responce by RSPCA i hillarious....
by the way, ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, do they protect "cruelty to animals" or animals??? so, to the question of yours. only thing i can say that you wont get an answer to that one anywhere since nature denies us one
I don't know much about Shrödinger's cat - it is big puzzle to me.
But I know that double slit experiment is very sensitive to condition of the slit(s) itself.
I also tied single edge diffraction - sharp razor blade gives me nice diffraction (powerful 532 nm laser). Any damage on the edge of the razor blade is clearly visible and can ruin it.
So, placing "monitor" or detector to one or both slit(s) may change condition - ruining or collapsing wave functions.
the property you're looking for is either the cat is dead or not. Since the geiger counter does not collapse the wavefunction of the cat but rather of the radioactive particle. You would need a detector that directly detects the state of the cat. This could be achieved by letting the geiger counter send his information to a screen, or by simply looking into the box. However it's only us how would consider the cat in a superposition state. For the atoms within the box the cat's state is known.
@Kuramoong There is much more to it than that. You might say there is not one specific thing to know. Multiple "realities" are superposed. Of course, when we make an observation, we see only one reality. But what we see can very much be influenced by the others we don't have direct access to.
The wave function is a function of probability. Without checking the state, you can't say what the state of the cat is. So its a 50/50 chance of it being dead or alive. Once you've checked you know for sure that it's (example) alive. The wave function collapses into a 100% chance of the cat being alive. It is the measurement of the state of the cat that collapses the wave function, not the measurement of the geigerteller since it measures radioactivity and not the state of the cat.
you "it's both before you se it" and "I don't belive in matter" guys, are a bunch of childish people, desperatly trying to look smart. just get into your heads aready that the experiment is meant to show how wierd QM is. not that the cat is both dead and alive. everyone thought of silly things like everything is a dream, and that it's not there when i close my eyes, when they were kids. this is science not very bad philosophy
@joddden Superposition is perfectly good science. The Copenhagen interpretation is the most favored QM interpretation among physicists. Locality in either space or time is dead. QM is far more than "weird." It is revolutionary. That does not mean "quantum mysticism" is justified. It does mean that we have to abandon some very cherished assumptions.
@maplebayou1 ok, but im not sayin QM i weird, I'm just hoping we'll get the string theory working soon. then things will fall into place real good I belive!:D what I am saying is this: The guy who said that matter dont eksist, and that nothing is real is stupid.
and that the experiment is meant to show how odd QM can be, when applied to a practical problem. like this cat
you "it's both before you se it" and "I don't belive in matter" guys, are a bunch of childish people, desperatly trying to look smart. just get into your heads aready that the experiment is meant to show how wierd QM is. not that the cat is both dead and alive. everyone thought of silly things like everything is a dream, and that it's not there when i close my eyes, when they were kids. this is science not very bad philosophy
Schrodinger's cat was not meant to show the absurdity of quantum mechanics itself, but specifically the copenhagen interpretation which was an eccentric combination of science and the epistemological theory of Niels Bohr who was an anti-realist. He believed that no value could exist for any observable unless it was measured, but this is an extreme epistemological opinion not a scientific one.
As for the cat it is a matter of perspective. It is alive as long as I think it is. Another researcher may think it is dead right off the bat, so it is dead as long as he thinks it is. So who is right? Both are depending on the time of each observers observation. It is both dead and alive depending on the time you are making the statement and whether or not it has been proven one way or the other through direct observation, so it is in flux until the box is opened and its state is proven
As for the slit experiment maybe the atomic structure of the detector caused the electrons to react differently. Or it could be that the act of detection itself produces its own disruptions on the atomic, sub-atomic and energy levels that could influence subatomic, atomic and energy reactions.
continued from post 1 If none of these observers were present then neither event existed, because neither event was “named “ for lack of a better word.
Maybe it is a matter of naming the event that makes it decisive. Take the old if a tree falls story. If the tree falls and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound? Yes and NO if you hear it you have just created the situation where there was a sound ,so now it did make a sound. If you do not hear ( no concept of sound) then there was no sound it was a vibration. You have just created a situation where there was a vibration. to you it was not a sound therefore it did not make a sound.
@multiplemugs Measurement in QM is simply a correlation between the states of 2 systems. If the state of the vial inevitably changes with the state of the radioactive material, it measures it. The real weirdness of QM comes in when you realize that this "measurement" doesn't happen at any specific time. The equations have to be reconfigured from the start of the experiment when we change the apparatus. This is why quantum erasers, even delayed choice quantum erasers, are possible.
The only way to answer this problem is to do the experiment itself. In my own opinion, an observer collapses the radiation to particles as it reaches the activator. Now, wouldn't the atoms of activator absorb that energy and emit again as radiation? If this was the case, then the cat would certainly die, else the material of the activator absorbs the amount radiation completely and the experiment would be non-sense.
The only way to answer this problem is to do the experiment itself. In my own opinion, an observer collapses the radiation to particles as it reaches the activator. Now, wouldn't the atoms of activator absorb that energy and emit again as radiation? If this was the case, then the cat would certainly die, else the material of the activator absorbs the amount radiation completely and the experiment would be non-sense.
The only way to answer this problem is to do the experiment itself. In my own opinion, an observer collapses the radiation to particles as it reaches the activator. Now, wouldn't the atoms of activator absorb that energy and emit again as radiation? If this was the case, then the cat would certainly die, else the material of the activator absorbs the amount radiation completely and the experiment would be non-sense.
The only way to answer this problem is to do the experiment itself. In my own opinion, an observer collapses the radiation to particles as it reaches the activator. Now, wouldn't the atoms of activator absorb that energy and emit again as radiation? If this was the case, then the cat would certainly die, else the material of the activator absorbs the amount radiation completely and the experiment would be non-sense.
Einstein criticized this particular view of qm when he suggested, in effect, that by its standard, that the moon wouldn't exist until it was observed -- say, by a mouse.
At one point the strict interpretation was that the measurement taken by an instrument, in itself, was insufficient to collapse the wave function -- that an actual "observer" in the sense of a conscious observer had to see the results. Until they were "observed" in that sense, then no observation had taken place.
(cont'd) (2) But recent experiments (which I'm afraid I can't cite because I read about them some time ago) suggest that the measurement itself, independent of any observation, actually will collapse the wave function, and that no observation, in that sense, is really required. Rather, what seems to collapse the wave function is a sort of progressive cascade of ever-increasing interactions that, at a certain point, become irreversible -- like dominoes tipping over.
Its simple the cat is alive or dead, not both. The fact that its an unknown to the observer is does not make it both.
If you have two people doing the experiment and one checks the cat out and doesnt tell the other person then the person, who has not checked, has the same information as the original experiment.
@theFLCLguy All you have done is add another entangled system to the pot. The second observer can't see if the first observer is in superposition, so we still don't know if the cat is in superposition. We can never directly observe superposition, and we will never observe its effects in this particular experiment. So claiming that it isn't happening amounts to a statement of faith.
@theFLCLguy Correct,the answer is - unknown. I did not claim that it was both. You are the one making a claim, that it is "impossible" that it's both. Superposition is one possible explanation for effects that we see in other experiments. Not this one. There are other possibilities, but if you want to understand the real weirdness of QM, this is not the experiment to start with.
@maplebayou1 Sorry, when discussing this with my friends most said the cat was alive and dead. I did the foolish thing and assumed you thought the same as them.
Human observation is suggested to show the statement that the universe is in multiple states at the same time, and human conciousness just makes up this non existent (otherwise existing in multiple states) reality. Not sure if it comes out from quantum mechanics or pseudoscience using it though. Problem is ,universe, unlike the isolated lab experiments with photons, is a system where particles already interfere whith each other so a detector (like human brain) does nto make it change.
thepoint is not human observation!but in a deeper lever is the expectation that is behide the opservation!you can`t see thinks that you don`t expect to!expectetion is a co-creation!what blinds your eyes is your senses to keep you seperate from the truth that youare the system!you can`t make an experiement without you!be the experiement as a part of it!as you look the experiement!you lose the point!yu are not lookink the experiement but who you!(andyourteexpectetion)react in functionwiththesystem
Observation need not be done with eyes. We observe things through cameras, microphones, various instruments, etc. Even deduction may even be a form of "observation" in a Quantum sense.
The answer to your question is that consciousness is the fabric of the universe. Anywhere we observe or explore with the expectation to find something, is being created by us. We are all one "soul" experiencing itself in a dream we call reality. I think therefore I am. Matter does not exist.
As pointed out, he used this to show the absurdity of quantum physics.
To add to your 'slit experiment' mathematically, it's possible to prove the photon went through slit A, through slit B, through both slits and through neither. All at the same time.
As you pointed out, human observation has nothing to do with it. In fact, it's ridiculous. What does conscious or subconscious knowledge has to do with anything. It's all about interaction between particles. That's what it means to observe.
@tiaxanderson It may or may not be about consciousness, but it is certainly about information. Your statement that it is about "interaction between particles" needs considerable qualification. Direct interaction with a particular particle is not required to influence its behavior. To explain the results of QM experiments we must abandon local mechanisms and our common sense notions of time.
@maplebayou1 I never specified direct interaction. Maybe I wasn't clear.. But all I wanted to point out that this collapse of the waveform function happens when the particle is affected by something other than itself.
@tiaxanderson Fair enough, but it's important to realize that this so-called "collapse" does not take place at any specific time in some experiments. This is why many physicists avoid talking about collapse altogether. A lot of confusion arises from the fact that people think measurement and entanglement are two different things. They are not.
@fairyheli2 It is, but that's not the point of the experiment. The cat in this case is not considered a detector. You could leave the cat out and say that we have a bottle with poison and a bottle which released poison.
there are two cats one dead the other alive when you look in the box the alive cat goes through a secret door wich leads to an invisible conpartment so you think it is dead
Ok I will explain it to you as simple as possible but first I want you to know that I think you are disturbed (not for making this question the way you behave indicates that)
The experiments is not "litteral" the cat doesnt have 2 states. Its the fact that its possoble to a particel being radio active and colapse as well as beeing radio active and dont colapse..
So the change is 50-50 to happens and there is no way ti predict this state.. the only way to predict this happening is by obsverving
@Emeengor ....is by observing if the the paricle colapses or not :) so we dont know if the cat is alife or dead because we cant predict if the radio active matter had a particle colapsing or not..so we have to open the box and see ...
The fotton travels through the "Gravity/energy" of the nucleons that are in the atmosfere thats why it does not behave like a bullet... if you do that in space the photon the photon wont be affected by other energies and travel in a line (though the detector will
could this also be implying that the outcome of the life can possibly be affected by the person who sees the cat ie: guy one sees it dead--- rewind back in time and have guy 2 look at it--- he finds it alive. can i please have an answere
if we didnt question things like our existence or have doubt about things would we be as advanced as we are today or maybe stuck somewhere in the 18th century. its the great minds that have thought outside the box that have sparked many great inventions and ideas.
what would be the outcome if there was just a glass box? then you can watch... Thus it'd still be a 50/50 chance? OR is it that if you open the door, the waves change, and thus activating the release of poison?
@spydude123 If a human observer can see the process than he is entangled with the system. He will either see the cat live or die in the course of the experiment. There is still a 50% chance, but once a particle is emitted, this probability is irrelevant for this observer. It's not about opening the door, it's about whether information about the state of the system in the box is accessible to systems outside.
@alfa999er If the state of an external system, such as a human being, changes as the state of the cat changes, it is entangled with the cat. If the cat dies and the human detects this, the human is now in the "I see dead cat" state. If not, the human is in "I see live cat" state. Therefore the state of the human is perfectly correlated with the state of the cat. If the cat is informationally isolated from the human, the two are not entangled and the cat remains in superposition.
@youngday713 I'm not sure what you mean by "curved 90 degree halls," but as long as the paths are indistinguishable you will see interference. If the potential paths are completely isolated from one another then obviously they are distinguishable.
A person goes into wallmart, 2 minutes later a group of armed men enter the same building. You hear shots. Now.....the person that went in could be shot or not and the same goes for the armed men. The only way to find out for certain is to go in and check. A safer way would be to watch the nine o'clock news. By the way,the cat experiences the same shit inside the box as the person outside, inside he will never know for certain if there is food on the plate or his owner died of a heart attack.
@morantaing The indeterminacy in the Wal-mart scenario is fundamentally different from that in QM. In the former case, there are 2 distinct outcomes and they do not interact. In QM, the mathematics allows the system to evolve over time by the interaction of "potential" states. What state is ultimately observed will reflect that interaction. This is why we see interference effects and other wave-like phenomena, even though we always observe particles as particles.
Every physicist loves using the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment as a way to show how quantum mechanics works. The funny thing is that Schrodinger proposed his cat as a way to show how ridiculous quantum physics is.
@welcomeblack Thanks for pointing this out, although with one small error. He was trying to illustrate the absurdity of one particular interpretation of QM, not the entire field of quantum mechanics. It's sad that it's been misused, and not just by physicists, but by plenty of interested laymen spreading the anecdote.
@welcomeblack Schrodinger Cat experiment was proposed to show how some statements of quantum physics where ridiculous, not to show how quantum mechanics work
Schroedinger was NOT trying to show how ridiculous quantum mechanics was. He was trying to demonstrate that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was nonsensical. The Schroedinger thought experiment doesn't explain any aspect of quantum mechanics, its just a demonstration of the absurdity of describing macroscopic systems as a linear superposition of states.
I dont see why there would be a dispersion with 2 slits and not with 1. I mean, wave wise it should refract in both setups, therefore the particles should appear dispersed in both of them no?
@Shoyrou I'm not sure what you mean by "dispersion." You will always get some diffraction. You will not, however, get an inference pattern with only one slit. If it is narrow enough, you will get a broad dispersion of hits on the screen, but no interference pattern.
This has been flagged as spam show
So Funny!! I found a cool item on eBay ...the actual Schrodinger's cat device...Cool Novelty ...Totally getting one...if they don't sell out. The item number is 150759100427
for anyone else interested!!
TheSkinny404 3 weeks ago
It's just a thought experiment. Relax. Schrodinger only wondered what would happen if someone did it; he never used a cat. The entire point of the thing is that, just like anything in the universe, nothing can be assumed to be true without proof. In the cat scenario, nobody can possibly know that the cat is dead or that the cat is alive until they look. You can't prove that the cat is either one, and it can't be neither, so it's both. all it is is a thought, about existence and uncertainty.
swanijam 1 month ago
No. No they are not. They are the Royal Society for the PRVENTION of Cruelty to Animals. They wouldn't be very active in stopping animal cruelty by Protecting said activity
RebbelReb 1 month ago
Sounds like the RSPCA isn't a big fan of clueless animal rights activists. You should do a little research, otherwise you're only setting yourself up for embarrasment. By the way, did schrodinger ever do this experiment with a cat? It sounds more like a way of explaining a concept, rather than a testable experament.
SausageKitten 2 months ago in playlist More videos from dprjoneslives
@SausageKitten Actually performing this experiment wouldn't achieve anything even if he did it. It was supposed to be a critique of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. He was saying that if the copenhagen interpretation was correct, the cat would be both alive and dead until someone observed it.
david52875 1 month ago
My right ear enjoyed his narration,
though my brain did not.
.
Shro's cat is easier to understand from a book rather than this video, good attempt though
SushantBhargav 2 months ago
Comment removed
tantorecords 2 months ago
As a non quantum physicist (i'm only a feeble brained designer ;] )I may have misunderstood it, but is it not just a complicated way of saying that the cat could either be alive or dead? "The cat exists in multiple simultaneous states"? Personally I would disagree, the cat is either dead or not - we don't know because we cant see but we do know that objects cannot be both dead and alive. So to us it could be in one of two states not both. How is it existing in multiple simultaneous states?
tantorecords 2 months ago
@tantorecords that is the point of the experiment. it shows the disparity between physics on a subatomic and general level. The point is, there is no bridge between the two interpretations of physics and the very question you posed is the source of mockery. Bridging the two theories, that is universalizing physics into one form, is the ultimate goal.
Czeza117 2 months ago
@Czeza117 Yes but for me it shows there is no bridge between the interpretations of physics and "real" human perception. I still can't see the value of such a theory nor of such an experiment - it doesn't seem to teach us anything. It's merely amusing for some and confusing for others? No doubt that will be blasphemy of the worst kind for you physicists but shoot me if you must. :p
tantorecords 2 months ago
I'll be answering this with a video called "Schrödinger's Cat - The world's worst metaphor". Just take a look at my channel. (Welcome to another episode of "Girl against science"...)
sillysparrowness 3 months ago 16
the eye is also a form of detector. it would be curious to do the experiment with the detector in place, BUT then not have the results available ever. would the wave function still collapse if nothing living processes the information, or does it collapse if the information is stored anywhere? what if you stored the information, but it was impossible to decipher? also, there are more than two possible states for the cat. there is alive, then many stages of dying, then dead. all in superposition.
chris11sholtz 3 months ago
@zjorichardson read what I wrote below. Both paths must be taken. If we don't observe, then we DO observe in the parallel universe at the same time. If we do observe, then we DON'T observe in a parallel universe, again at the same time. No matter what we do, the cat will either be dead AND alive for hundreds of years
NevaehBeatez 3 months ago
The experiment is very complex, yet scientists didn't make it up. Well they made up the experiment, but we don't control the atoms that we are composed of, so we aren't making this up. By nature, since an Atom has more than 1 path, so must everything composed of atoms (the entire universe) and since everything in the universe has 2 paths, both paths are taken at the same time, only if we see one.
NevaehBeatez 3 months ago
The experiment explains the duality of Atoms. Simply put, an Atom must do BOTH, but in our observation, we can only see 1 of 2. Therefore, if we observe the cat and it's alive, then in ANOTHER universe, a parallel universe, we do NOT observe the cat and he lives. This is how Atoms work. Even tho we measure the Atom and see it as a particle, it is still a wave as well. Even tho we observe the cat and its dead, it's still alive.
NevaehBeatez 3 months ago
irrelevant to the cat thing, but relevant to the 2 slit experiment, there is something called a "delayed choice experiment" that has some interesting results,regarding this issue. it kinda makes this video irrelevant.
xXV1tal3Xx 4 months ago
Okay. My question is what if we never collapse the wave. Nobody opens the box for hundreds of years. So no matter what happened the cat is dead. What collapses the wave?
zjorichardson 4 months ago
They didnt say a 'human' observer.... Just that it is observed
w215philly 4 months ago
GOD! There you go again with the cat! Why can't it be ink and paper - such that the paper be simultaneously white and blue.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!!
thetwinkleturnip 4 months ago
Comment removed
thetwinkleturnip 4 months ago
When experiencing or observing a quantum paradigm one must always remember this: 'Observable reality is different from the Quantum reality." Simple, what we see and what happens are two different things, Schrodinger's hypothesis is just that, one can neither disagree or agree on premise wether the cat in the box is alive or dead, ore experiencing both at the same time....tie in the absurdity that is the multiverse theory and you would find that the cat didn't even enter the box in another plane,
DrGaud 4 months ago
@DrGaud : so the observer looking at the box is experiencing the laws of quantum set by the nature of the universe, and inside the box 3 possibilities are occurring, creating 3 to infinity different set of probable results. Regardless of the observer or the instrument used to observe the visible plane, it always would interfere with the quantum particles that inhabit every single atom. so can we observe the quantum relm, without having uncertainty in the results......no, we arent there just yet.
DrGaud 4 months ago
RSPCA is correct
SBITSdotBiz 4 months ago
The real decision making takes place when the bioelectrical signals of your body are passed down to your brain from your five physical senses (eyes, ears, tongue, skin, and nose). So no matter how many mechanical detectors or HUMAN observers you keep to look after the poor photon's journey throught the slits, until 'YOU' find out what’s really going on, nothing is decided. That’s it.
husbathu 4 months ago
@husbathu The observer does not even need to be conscious, it could be even a stray electron.
CommentGeneric 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What if you keep the photon experiment running (with the detector near the two slits) without looking at the detector’s meter (or monitor or whateva u call it)? The reality for the photon will remain unknown & undecided for you.
husbathu 4 months ago
Dude, I think you are misinterpreting the moment of human observation in the photon experiment. The detection by the detector (near the slits) is just the 'observation of the detector' not 'observation of a human'. The human observation starts when you look at the indication meter 'OF' the detector. Until then the monitor prompts both particle and wave characteristics for the photon. So there you go. There IS a human observation deciding the photons behavior.
husbathu 4 months ago
Comment removed
husbathu 4 months ago
Comment removed
husbathu 4 months ago
Comment removed
husbathu 4 months ago
Comment removed
husbathu 4 months ago
heres my theory
if the cat is a idiot it will play with the radiocative material and release the poison.
if its smart it will just leave it alone
so so simple
ThreeLittlePigmen 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThreeLittlePigmen Just like your mind.
CommentGeneric 4 months ago
It's not the detector that collapses the wave pattern; it's our knowledge or which way the particle went, or at least, our ability to know. It sounds crazy, but it's observable. If you don't believe me, then read about the Quantum Eraser Experiment, and then the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. They are real experiments (not thought experiments, like Schrodinger's cat), that prove it's not the detectors, but our ability to know. Sounds completely crazy, but there it is. Science.
messenger291 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
camera is an electronic interference... that's my take...: > )
Einstien1879 5 months ago
camera is an electronic interference... that's my take...: > )
Einstien1879 5 months ago
I believe that the state of the cat is unknown to the observer, but the observer is always oneself, so the fuction collapses TO the orserver only when THE observer observes the result of it.
If the observer is the cat or even better if instead of the cat it was you in the box there is not dual behavior for the observer, but if someone is observing from the outside of the box AND you are still inside, your state is still unkown to tha outside observer. Relativity. Depends on WHO is the observer.
wencelf 5 months ago 7
@wencelf very nice explanation
robman8855 4 months ago
A single particle is not capable to behave like a wave, that Is obvious I hope. One drop of water will not create a wave
'Observing' the experiment has NO effect upon it what so ever.
And shrodingers cat, if anything, is a failed methafore explaining that there are as many universes as there are probable outcomes and all outcomes are true in at least one of them.
I would like someone to present a video of actuall experiment, repeated at least a few times, NOT an animation.
Ilamarea 5 months ago
His cat is not dead! My t-shirt proves it :D
ThisIsCarsonian 5 months ago
A photon and cat are 2 different situations. The cat is EITHER alive or dead. It is not BOTH alive and dead. The act of opening the box will not determine the outcome, it will merely reveal the outcome to the person opening the box.
willowtale 5 months ago
If I must explain, here the you can't apply the observer principle to Geiger counter the same way you do for double slit experiment.In double slit experiment, the when the photon gets released, the possibilities are many but because f the counter it becomes one.Here,the counter is used to detect radioactive particle if there is a decay.Note the word "if".So the geiger counter here is used for detecting decay and not whether the cat is dead or not
avalanche1115 5 months ago
i like quantum physics but this thing is just bullshit.. i mean common!? Just because the scientist doesnt know if its dead or not doesnt mean its BOTH ! Its like me saying you are alive AND dead.. cause i cant see you.
FooootballFreak 5 months ago
This really bothered Einstein and other physicists, and you can see why. The revelation of this experiment, however, has to do with our consciousness. Cue the Matrix music.
smo699 5 months ago
YOU collapsed the wave function by observing the results of the photon monitor. i think...
chris11sholtz 5 months ago
shroedinger's cat was meant as a piss take by shroedinger on the Bohr championed view in the wave/particle duality.
dazdadon1 5 months ago
@dazdadon1 he later accepted the nature of quantum along with einstein
dazdadon1 5 months ago
Putting cyanide in the box isn't the cruel part. Opening the box is what you should have reported him on.
xvxbppxvx 5 months ago
lol mentally unbalanced
Superfresh602 6 months ago in playlist More videos from dprjoneslives
Not a physicist, but it think it would be more accurate to say - rather than "the cat is both alive and dead" or "the cat is either alive or dead" - "The cat is neither alive nor dead" This in your region of reality until something connects the information in your reality to the information of the reality of the cat, say light particles.
As for the ref light. It's just that it can expel information two mutually exclusive ways so if you see it do something you cannot receive the other information
dnm25 6 months ago
You don't need a human observer to collapse the wave funtion and render the cat dead or alive,you mearley need a concious observer. The only concious observer I know who cuold follow this experiment would have to be HUMAN. In the double slit experiment the detector placed by the slits is not an observer,but a mechanism we would have to use to observe the particles. Thank you.
russellprophet 6 months ago
The cat either dies or doesnt die. Human observation has nothing to do with it.
TheIphone4thewin 6 months ago
For a simpleton like yourself --
Schrödinger's Cat - Sixty Symbols
look it up.
jdgrahamo 7 months ago
The wave function is merely a probability function, it is once we detect where the particle has landed that the function collapses and we know exactly where the particle has landed. If you repeat the experiment than the particles will indeed follow the same probability wave function.
djoyce22 7 months ago
You make an exellent point, and its something that I as a very philosophical person like to ask myself. Why does humans take for granted that we have some sort of "authority" over things and why we always question other authorities.
Krissdafish 8 months ago
HOLY S*** That reply from the RSPCA was soo funny. I almost crapped my pants!
GuitarMannnnnn 8 months ago 32
Excellent video. Highlights a block that affect even the most objective of physicists... the human ego is very powerful. The belief that the collection of molecules that we are comprised of is somehow endowed with a special property is irrational.
Tough because physics is all about observing. Quantum physics highlights the limitation of being inside the system while trying to measure the system.
o00Tigger00o 8 months ago
This has probably been said before, and I might be beating a dead horse now... But Schrodinger created this example to protest the idea that human observation was a determining factor in the photon's behavior. The cat experiment is NOT SUPPOSED to make sense you see, it is instead meant to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum (namely Copenhagen based) interperitation of the superposition of physical states...
WoahSalmo 8 months ago
@WoahSalmo I don't really see the absurdness though. When you accept that particles can be in superposed states until observed I don't see why a cat being both alive and dead until it's observed is an issue.
I love thinking about what if you were in the box... how would you experience it? Naively, your experience would be largely effected by whether or not you died, which is only determined after the box is opened, not before. How do you experience it in between? A superposition of experiences!
jamma246 8 months ago
@jamma246 The idea is interesting, but IMHO I believe the premise is false.
State superposition (from my experience) is the product of physicists alluding too many of their observations to frame modeling. There's a definite glitch in our frame of reference, but I'm reluctant to come to the conclusion that there is a respective glitch in the laws of physics.
While the phenomena can be math and frame modeled, no amount of 'physi-hand waving' can trump common sense. You can't be alive AND dead.
WoahSalmo 8 months ago
@WoahSalmo I disagree with this strongly. We shouldn't let common sense along guide us, or we'd be nowhere. Please explain WHY you can't be alive and dead. I don't see the problem.
As the double slit experiment shows, we really should think of the particle as being in two places at the same time, or we have to adopt even more convoluted notions. Why when this gets applied to something being dead or alive does this become nonsensical?
jamma246 8 months ago
@jamma246 I meant "common sense alone", sorry. And I stand by this; without these non-intuitive ideas we'd have got nowhere with quantum physics. Time goes slower in the presence of gravity? That goes against common sense but is true. Electrons in a closed box can only have a discrete set of energies? Against intuition but true (to some extent anyway).
People trusting their own intuition alone leads to stagnated science and religion!
jamma246 8 months ago
@jamma246 Ha, I just thought about what you said...
You would not have superpositioned experiences because you YOURSELF would be observing what was happening!
Reality check: If superpositioned states DID exist, you COULD actually do this experiment, albeit maybe with a lightbulb rather than poison.
5 bucks to the first guy who can show me a light bulb both on AND off!
WoahSalmo 8 months ago
@WoahSalmo I think you have the wrong idea. The cat can observe itself too by this logic. The point (I think) is that there is no light in the box.
And yes, you COULD do this experiment. But... how would you know about the result? You may have been in two states of consciousness when in there, alive and dead, but when they open the box and the wave function collapses, it will feel to you as if you were just in a dark box the whole time. There is no inconsistency.
jamma246 8 months ago
@jamma246 We never directly observe superposition, and neither would the cat. We wouldn't even see its effects in this experiment. The fact is, only if a particle could observe itself would it have any chance of "experiencing" superposition.
maplebayou1 8 months ago
@maplebayou1 Yes, I realise that. But it's really cool to think about nonetheless, if only from a philosophical point of view. As I said, you could have a superposition of consciousnesses but when the box is open and the wave function collapses it won't feel like that.
That doesn't mean that you can't see ANY effects of the experiment though. If may be that the results of a superposition lead to different behaviours than two pure states (def alive and def dead) from what you do in the box.
jamma246 8 months ago
@jamma246 To justify what I mean- consider the double slit experiment. It is best to think of the particle in a superposition of states. And indeed, this leads to different results than considering the case where 50% of the time the particle goes through one slit and 50% definitely the other. In the same way, being definitely alive in the box 50% of the time and definitely dead in the box 50% of the time may lead to different results than being a superposition of the two.
jamma246 8 months ago
@jamma246 don't you see a problem with it??? the problem is that the cat can only be either dead or alive, so observing an alive cat means that the cat must have been alive prior to observing it!!! superstates only exist on the quantum or atomic scale
PaladinswordSaurfang 7 months ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang I think that you need to justify this statement. If particles can be in a superposition of states I don't see the impossibility of something being both alive and dead on the macro scale. In fact, this seems to be a logical certainty once you accept atomic scale quantum effects.
jamma246 7 months ago
@jamma246 and i suppose God both exists and doesn't exist until one is proven? And 9 cubed will only equal 729 after you work it out or someone tells you it is? That's just preposterous, and there's no evidence to say a cat is dead and alive at the same time and only chooses whether it's dead or alive when you observe it. If superstates really exist, then the detector itself will break the wave function, not observation of the cat.
PaladinswordSaurfang 7 months ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang There is a difference between almost philosophical statements such as that and statements about the positions of particles.
For example: does God only exist or not exist until proven? How does this question have relevance? Let's say that a God, if it exists, is made of particles(??). The particles of God are still there, it's just not a certainty in the position of them. And any effects in the past the God has had will still have happened.
jamma246 7 months ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang Also, I don't know what you mean by "the detector itself will break the wave function".
Basically, if you think that this idea is so preposterous, please give a thorough example involving superposition of particles which highlights the absurdity as opposed to just saying "I suppose God both exists and doesn't exist until one is proven".
Also, watch this, it's good:
/watch?v=dvYYYlgVAao
jamma246 7 months ago
@jamma246 i mean the detector will either detect the radiation and the cat will die, or it wont and the cat will live... why should the cat be both alive and dead? it's not like the detector both detects and doesn't detect radiation? Why do you think observation has any effect whatsoever on the state of the cat? you're the one that needs to give some evidence because that doesn't make sense. The Schrodinger's cat experiment was made by schrodinger to show how absurd quantum mechanics is.
PaladinswordSaurfang 7 months ago
@PaladinswordSaurfang Can't the detector be in a superposition of states also?
Tbh, I don't know the fine details of the thought experiment, but I think that it's supposed to be a closed system and that the method of determining whether the cat should die or not should not be the problem, but I do see what you mean now.
All I am trying to say is this: the ideas are NOT absurd, they just seem so intuitively. Physicists of far more intelligence than you or I still argue about this idea.
jamma246 7 months ago
Or it is just their way of saying "we don't have a fucking clue".
thealienwarlord 8 months ago
The cat is dead because it couldn't breathe. Just because we don't know if something is or isn't doesn't mean it is both. It is either or not both in our realm/dimension. The scientists just haven't realized this yet.
thealienwarlord 8 months ago
its as if the photon is aware it is being observed. WHAT THE FU-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!
RainbowManification 8 months ago
The paradoxes of quantum mechanics only occur when you assert that human intervention and consciousness are what constitutes a measurement. I can't remember who, but I believe it was Heisenberg who recommended that the term "measurement" in quantum mechanics be changed to "event." The failure here is in the language, not QM. Measurement suggests some kind of anthropomorphic characteristic and has lead to the disgustingly solipsistic arguments of otherwise brilliant minds, i.e. Wigner.
DavidAlanRogers 8 months ago
The act of human "observation," is not a likely candidate for "measurement." This is still an unsolved philosophical (notice, I don't say physical) problem. Most physicists don't care about the problem, because the predictions and calculations of QM are independent of your interpretation. Presumably, in the huge calculation of the wave-fn of this large system, somewhere in the math of large numbers the superposition effects tend away in an appropriate limit. That's a superior assertion.
DavidAlanRogers 8 months ago
Please watch RF's lecture at the University of Auckland: "If you don't like it,"
LHC 2012 might get us a little closer to Higgs' Boson. Science becomes religion at some point asking you to believe albeit with evidence. It is not for us mortals to question the intricacies of Nature. That is the way she is. You wish to know WHY? Go to Zeus or Abraham's God or Hindus ParamAtma. Human brains are still evolving. Give another 50k years or more.
amoralis123 9 months ago
It's like when a tree falls in the woods. The cat can see it too.
AKEdify 9 months ago
that makes no sense its like if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it make noise well of course it does becuase human oservation does not change the outcome it will always make sound so the cat isnt in 2 states it either in 1 or the other
knisleyfilms 9 months ago
this guy sounds like the dyson vacuum cleaner guy...
ryanryebread 9 months ago
It has nothing to do with human observation
timothy51886 9 months ago
@timothy51886 it has everything to do with human observation. It has to do with NOT observing it.
devinekralc 9 months ago
Sorry ran out of space in the last comment - therefore extrapolating this logic, in the thought experiment of Schrodinger's cat, it is not the "perception" of the cat that causes it to be dead or alive, it is the "perceptability". For instance if a camera was in the box, with the cat recording to a VCR, the cat would be in a definitive state due to the presence of the camera NOT dependent on someone watching the tape.
poiuythalo 9 months ago
@poiuythalo There is an important difference, though, in that the "paths" here are readily distinguishable even at the point of the Geiger counter, so the introduction of the VCR doesn't really change the experiment in that sense. It could be argued that the VCR is now in superposition along with the cat and the rest. We won't observe any interference effects in any case.
maplebayou1 9 months ago
@maplebayou1 I think the Geiger counter is supposed to be part of a "closed system" in the thought experiment - though I am not sure. I accept that the detection of a radioactive particle would normally collapse a wave function but I think the idea is that in this case it isn't supposed to...
poiuythalo 9 months ago
@poiuythalo It really depends on your interpretation of QM. In some interpretations, any macroscopic system "collapses" the wave function of a "quantum" system when the two interact. In others, all systems are quantum systems, and a system can be in superposition from one point of view and not from another. In such an interpretation the Geiger counter is in superposition from the point of view of an outside observer but not from the point of view of the cat.
maplebayou1 9 months ago
It is not "detection" that most physicists focus on but "detectability" - that is if it is possible to figure out which slit the photon passed through that most people agree is the key ingredient of getting the wave generated "interference pattern" Chiao, Kwiat and Steinberg did an experiment where photons were "marked" when they went through one slit, which caused the interference patten to vanish. When they "Unmarked" the photons going through the 2nd slit, the interference pattern emerged.
poiuythalo 9 months ago
looooooooooooooooooool - the responce by RSPCA i hillarious....
by the way, ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, do they protect "cruelty to animals" or animals??? so, to the question of yours. only thing i can say that you wont get an answer to that one anywhere since nature denies us one
cauda123 9 months ago
what have i come to where, THIS is what im looking at on my weekend?!!
mrssassychick7 9 months ago
I don't know much about Shrödinger's cat - it is big puzzle to me.
But I know that double slit experiment is very sensitive to condition of the slit(s) itself.
I also tied single edge diffraction - sharp razor blade gives me nice diffraction (powerful 532 nm laser). Any damage on the edge of the razor blade is clearly visible and can ruin it.
So, placing "monitor" or detector to one or both slit(s) may change condition - ruining or collapsing wave functions.
MilanKarakas 10 months ago
the property you're looking for is either the cat is dead or not. Since the geiger counter does not collapse the wavefunction of the cat but rather of the radioactive particle. You would need a detector that directly detects the state of the cat. This could be achieved by letting the geiger counter send his information to a screen, or by simply looking into the box. However it's only us how would consider the cat in a superposition state. For the atoms within the box the cat's state is known.
quitchiboo 10 months ago
So all this so show we know nothing unless we make an observation?
Kuramoong 10 months ago
@Kuramoong There is much more to it than that. You might say there is not one specific thing to know. Multiple "realities" are superposed. Of course, when we make an observation, we see only one reality. But what we see can very much be influenced by the others we don't have direct access to.
maplebayou1 10 months ago
The wave function is a function of probability. Without checking the state, you can't say what the state of the cat is. So its a 50/50 chance of it being dead or alive. Once you've checked you know for sure that it's (example) alive. The wave function collapses into a 100% chance of the cat being alive. It is the measurement of the state of the cat that collapses the wave function, not the measurement of the geigerteller since it measures radioactivity and not the state of the cat.
syruss877 10 months ago
you "it's both before you se it" and "I don't belive in matter" guys, are a bunch of childish people, desperatly trying to look smart. just get into your heads aready that the experiment is meant to show how wierd QM is. not that the cat is both dead and alive. everyone thought of silly things like everything is a dream, and that it's not there when i close my eyes, when they were kids. this is science not very bad philosophy
joddden 10 months ago
@joddden Superposition is perfectly good science. The Copenhagen interpretation is the most favored QM interpretation among physicists. Locality in either space or time is dead. QM is far more than "weird." It is revolutionary. That does not mean "quantum mysticism" is justified. It does mean that we have to abandon some very cherished assumptions.
maplebayou1 10 months ago
@maplebayou1 ok, but im not sayin QM i weird, I'm just hoping we'll get the string theory working soon. then things will fall into place real good I belive!:D what I am saying is this: The guy who said that matter dont eksist, and that nothing is real is stupid.
and that the experiment is meant to show how odd QM can be, when applied to a practical problem. like this cat
joddden 10 months ago
you "it's both before you se it" and "I don't belive in matter" guys, are a bunch of childish people, desperatly trying to look smart. just get into your heads aready that the experiment is meant to show how wierd QM is. not that the cat is both dead and alive. everyone thought of silly things like everything is a dream, and that it's not there when i close my eyes, when they were kids. this is science not very bad philosophy
joddden 10 months ago
I'm going to start by saying I'm certainly not smart, or I don't feel I am.
But I'm assuming this support the saying.
You changed the outcome be measuring it.
Well in fact that is exactly the point.
Or is it, nope it probably is.
Ashda8 10 months ago
Schrodinger's cat was not meant to show the absurdity of quantum mechanics itself, but specifically the copenhagen interpretation which was an eccentric combination of science and the epistemological theory of Niels Bohr who was an anti-realist. He believed that no value could exist for any observable unless it was measured, but this is an extreme epistemological opinion not a scientific one.
sidneyx2 10 months ago
As for the cat it is a matter of perspective. It is alive as long as I think it is. Another researcher may think it is dead right off the bat, so it is dead as long as he thinks it is. So who is right? Both are depending on the time of each observers observation. It is both dead and alive depending on the time you are making the statement and whether or not it has been proven one way or the other through direct observation, so it is in flux until the box is opened and its state is proven
michaelf1900 10 months ago
As for the slit experiment maybe the atomic structure of the detector caused the electrons to react differently. Or it could be that the act of detection itself produces its own disruptions on the atomic, sub-atomic and energy levels that could influence subatomic, atomic and energy reactions.
michaelf1900 10 months ago
continued from post 1 If none of these observers were present then neither event existed, because neither event was “named “ for lack of a better word.
michaelf1900 10 months ago
Maybe it is a matter of naming the event that makes it decisive. Take the old if a tree falls story. If the tree falls and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound? Yes and NO if you hear it you have just created the situation where there was a sound ,so now it did make a sound. If you do not hear ( no concept of sound) then there was no sound it was a vibration. You have just created a situation where there was a vibration. to you it was not a sound therefore it did not make a sound.
michaelf1900 10 months ago
@multiplemugs Measurement in QM is simply a correlation between the states of 2 systems. If the state of the vial inevitably changes with the state of the radioactive material, it measures it. The real weirdness of QM comes in when you realize that this "measurement" doesn't happen at any specific time. The equations have to be reconfigured from the start of the experiment when we change the apparatus. This is why quantum erasers, even delayed choice quantum erasers, are possible.
maplebayou1 10 months ago
.....why don't they try a different kind of detector
WTFGiordan 10 months ago
to compare cat with photon is just ridiculous. it would be better to compare it to virus. virus is neither dead nor alive
MisterBerazumis 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only way to answer this problem is to do the experiment itself. In my own opinion, an observer collapses the radiation to particles as it reaches the activator. Now, wouldn't the atoms of activator absorb that energy and emit again as radiation? If this was the case, then the cat would certainly die, else the material of the activator absorbs the amount radiation completely and the experiment would be non-sense.
vcases 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only way to answer this problem is to do the experiment itself. In my own opinion, an observer collapses the radiation to particles as it reaches the activator. Now, wouldn't the atoms of activator absorb that energy and emit again as radiation? If this was the case, then the cat would certainly die, else the material of the activator absorbs the amount radiation completely and the experiment would be non-sense.
vcases 10 months ago
The only way to answer this problem is to do the experiment itself. In my own opinion, an observer collapses the radiation to particles as it reaches the activator. Now, wouldn't the atoms of activator absorb that energy and emit again as radiation? If this was the case, then the cat would certainly die, else the material of the activator absorbs the amount radiation completely and the experiment would be non-sense.
vcases 10 months ago
The only way to answer this problem is to do the experiment itself. In my own opinion, an observer collapses the radiation to particles as it reaches the activator. Now, wouldn't the atoms of activator absorb that energy and emit again as radiation? If this was the case, then the cat would certainly die, else the material of the activator absorbs the amount radiation completely and the experiment would be non-sense.
vcases 10 months ago
Einstein criticized this particular view of qm when he suggested, in effect, that by its standard, that the moon wouldn't exist until it was observed -- say, by a mouse.
At one point the strict interpretation was that the measurement taken by an instrument, in itself, was insufficient to collapse the wave function -- that an actual "observer" in the sense of a conscious observer had to see the results. Until they were "observed" in that sense, then no observation had taken place.
prodprod 10 months ago
(cont'd) (2) But recent experiments (which I'm afraid I can't cite because I read about them some time ago) suggest that the measurement itself, independent of any observation, actually will collapse the wave function, and that no observation, in that sense, is really required. Rather, what seems to collapse the wave function is a sort of progressive cascade of ever-increasing interactions that, at a certain point, become irreversible -- like dominoes tipping over.
So the cat would die.
prodprod 10 months ago
the schrodinger's cat experiment is an epic fail.
JohnF30Music 11 months ago
Its simple the cat is alive or dead, not both. The fact that its an unknown to the observer is does not make it both.
If you have two people doing the experiment and one checks the cat out and doesnt tell the other person then the person, who has not checked, has the same information as the original experiment.
theFLCLguy 11 months ago
@theFLCLguy All you have done is add another entangled system to the pot. The second observer can't see if the first observer is in superposition, so we still don't know if the cat is in superposition. We can never directly observe superposition, and we will never observe its effects in this particular experiment. So claiming that it isn't happening amounts to a statement of faith.
maplebayou1 11 months ago
@maplebayou1 Its imposible for the cat to be alive and dead.
Let me ask you this, Why are you thinking that its both? Wouldnt it just be an unknown answer?
theFLCLguy 11 months ago
@theFLCLguy Correct,the answer is - unknown. I did not claim that it was both. You are the one making a claim, that it is "impossible" that it's both. Superposition is one possible explanation for effects that we see in other experiments. Not this one. There are other possibilities, but if you want to understand the real weirdness of QM, this is not the experiment to start with.
maplebayou1 11 months ago
@maplebayou1 Sorry, when discussing this with my friends most said the cat was alive and dead. I did the foolish thing and assumed you thought the same as them.
theFLCLguy 11 months ago
Human observation is suggested to show the statement that the universe is in multiple states at the same time, and human conciousness just makes up this non existent (otherwise existing in multiple states) reality. Not sure if it comes out from quantum mechanics or pseudoscience using it though. Problem is ,universe, unlike the isolated lab experiments with photons, is a system where particles already interfere whith each other so a detector (like human brain) does nto make it change.
VarykGerai 11 months ago
what the hell was the significance of the RSPCA letter
09brownr 11 months ago
thepoint is not human observation!but in a deeper lever is the expectation that is behide the opservation!you can`t see thinks that you don`t expect to!expectetion is a co-creation!what blinds your eyes is your senses to keep you seperate from the truth that youare the system!you can`t make an experiement without you!be the experiement as a part of it!as you look the experiement!you lose the point!yu are not lookink the experiement but who you!(andyourteexpectetion)react in functionwiththesystem
kachetil 11 months ago
Watch a video on delayed choice quantum eraser to find your answer.
RonBurgundy161 11 months ago
Observation need not be done with eyes. We observe things through cameras, microphones, various instruments, etc. Even deduction may even be a form of "observation" in a Quantum sense.
The answer to your question is that consciousness is the fabric of the universe. Anywhere we observe or explore with the expectation to find something, is being created by us. We are all one "soul" experiencing itself in a dream we call reality. I think therefore I am. Matter does not exist.
tdragonxp 11 months ago
@tdragonxp shove youre pseudo science up your ass.
VarykGerai 11 months ago
@tdragonxp That is a bunch of hooey.
Superphilipp 11 months ago
As pointed out, he used this to show the absurdity of quantum physics.
To add to your 'slit experiment' mathematically, it's possible to prove the photon went through slit A, through slit B, through both slits and through neither. All at the same time.
As you pointed out, human observation has nothing to do with it. In fact, it's ridiculous. What does conscious or subconscious knowledge has to do with anything. It's all about interaction between particles. That's what it means to observe.
tiaxanderson 11 months ago
@tiaxanderson It may or may not be about consciousness, but it is certainly about information. Your statement that it is about "interaction between particles" needs considerable qualification. Direct interaction with a particular particle is not required to influence its behavior. To explain the results of QM experiments we must abandon local mechanisms and our common sense notions of time.
maplebayou1 11 months ago
@maplebayou1 I never specified direct interaction. Maybe I wasn't clear.. But all I wanted to point out that this collapse of the waveform function happens when the particle is affected by something other than itself.
tiaxanderson 11 months ago
@tiaxanderson Fair enough, but it's important to realize that this so-called "collapse" does not take place at any specific time in some experiments. This is why many physicists avoid talking about collapse altogether. A lot of confusion arises from the fact that people think measurement and entanglement are two different things. They are not.
maplebayou1 11 months ago
@maplebayou1 Fair enough.
tiaxanderson 11 months ago
i think you missed the point that Schrödinger wrote the box as "a steel chamber" not just a box.
so anyone outside of the box has anyway knowing what is happening inside of box.
yes, the geiger counter is a detector but it is inside of the box.
atmark666 11 months ago
Comment removed
atmark666 11 months ago
i fur kin h8 radioactiv cats.
icutrollin 11 months ago
isn't the cat also a detector
fairyheli2 11 months ago
@fairyheli2 It is, but that's not the point of the experiment. The cat in this case is not considered a detector. You could leave the cat out and say that we have a bottle with poison and a bottle which released poison.
WStilgar 11 months ago
there are two cats one dead the other alive when you look in the box the alive cat goes through a secret door wich leads to an invisible conpartment so you think it is dead
pierhead12345 11 months ago
Ok I will explain it to you as simple as possible but first I want you to know that I think you are disturbed (not for making this question the way you behave indicates that)
The experiments is not "litteral" the cat doesnt have 2 states. Its the fact that its possoble to a particel being radio active and colapse as well as beeing radio active and dont colapse..
So the change is 50-50 to happens and there is no way ti predict this state.. the only way to predict this happening is by obsverving
Emeengor 1 year ago
@Emeengor ....is by observing if the the paricle colapses or not :) so we dont know if the cat is alife or dead because we cant predict if the radio active matter had a particle colapsing or not..so we have to open the box and see ...
The fotton travels through the "Gravity/energy" of the nucleons that are in the atmosfere thats why it does not behave like a bullet... if you do that in space the photon the photon wont be affected by other energies and travel in a line (though the detector will
Emeengor 1 year ago
@Emeengor ... (though the ditectors nucleons will affect the photon)
Emeengor 1 year ago
could this also be implying that the outcome of the life can possibly be affected by the person who sees the cat ie: guy one sees it dead--- rewind back in time and have guy 2 look at it--- he finds it alive. can i please have an answere
alfa999er 1 year ago
if we didnt question things like our existence or have doubt about things would we be as advanced as we are today or maybe stuck somewhere in the 18th century. its the great minds that have thought outside the box that have sparked many great inventions and ideas.
sariglenn 1 year ago
Reminder: Being conscious has nothing to do with the change of the behavior of the photon. It doesn't have to do with us at all.
timothy51886 1 year ago
what would be the outcome if there was just a glass box? then you can watch... Thus it'd still be a 50/50 chance? OR is it that if you open the door, the waves change, and thus activating the release of poison?
spydude123 1 year ago
@spydude123 If a human observer can see the process than he is entangled with the system. He will either see the cat live or die in the course of the experiment. There is still a 50% chance, but once a particle is emitted, this probability is irrelevant for this observer. It's not about opening the door, it's about whether information about the state of the system in the box is accessible to systems outside.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
@maplebayou1 can you please clearify what the last sentence means
alfa999er 1 year ago
@alfa999er If the state of an external system, such as a human being, changes as the state of the cat changes, it is entangled with the cat. If the cat dies and the human detects this, the human is now in the "I see dead cat" state. If not, the human is in "I see live cat" state. Therefore the state of the human is perfectly correlated with the state of the cat. If the cat is informationally isolated from the human, the two are not entangled and the cat remains in superposition.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
@maplebayou1 wow... i read this a few times and now it kind of makes sence. ty
alfa999er 1 year ago
Feynman. What a dude!
Mojosbigstick 1 year ago
Its frightening to think that nature is trying to conceal its secrets.
kiemul136 1 year ago
What happens if instead of slits they go through curved 90 degree halls to the photo sensitive plate? Would the interference be there?
youngday713 1 year ago
@youngday713 I'm not sure what you mean by "curved 90 degree halls," but as long as the paths are indistinguishable you will see interference. If the potential paths are completely isolated from one another then obviously they are distinguishable.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
A person goes into wallmart, 2 minutes later a group of armed men enter the same building. You hear shots. Now.....the person that went in could be shot or not and the same goes for the armed men. The only way to find out for certain is to go in and check. A safer way would be to watch the nine o'clock news. By the way,the cat experiences the same shit inside the box as the person outside, inside he will never know for certain if there is food on the plate or his owner died of a heart attack.
morantaing 1 year ago
@morantaing The indeterminacy in the Wal-mart scenario is fundamentally different from that in QM. In the former case, there are 2 distinct outcomes and they do not interact. In QM, the mathematics allows the system to evolve over time by the interaction of "potential" states. What state is ultimately observed will reflect that interaction. This is why we see interference effects and other wave-like phenomena, even though we always observe particles as particles.
maplebayou1 1 year ago
Every physicist loves using the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment as a way to show how quantum mechanics works. The funny thing is that Schrodinger proposed his cat as a way to show how ridiculous quantum physics is.
welcomeblack 1 year ago 19
@welcomeblack Thanks for pointing this out, although with one small error. He was trying to illustrate the absurdity of one particular interpretation of QM, not the entire field of quantum mechanics. It's sad that it's been misused, and not just by physicists, but by plenty of interested laymen spreading the anecdote.
tml4873 1 year ago
@welcomeblack Schrodinger Cat experiment was proposed to show how some statements of quantum physics where ridiculous, not to show how quantum mechanics work
VarykGerai 11 months ago
@welcomeblack
Schroedinger was NOT trying to show how ridiculous quantum mechanics was. He was trying to demonstrate that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was nonsensical. The Schroedinger thought experiment doesn't explain any aspect of quantum mechanics, its just a demonstration of the absurdity of describing macroscopic systems as a linear superposition of states.
DavidAlanRogers 8 months ago
you my friend, are a lunatic
sowpouse 1 year ago
I dont see why there would be a dispersion with 2 slits and not with 1. I mean, wave wise it should refract in both setups, therefore the particles should appear dispersed in both of them no?
Shoyrou 1 year ago
@Shoyrou I'm not sure what you mean by "dispersion." You will always get some diffraction. You will not, however, get an inference pattern with only one slit. If it is narrow enough, you will get a broad dispersion of hits on the screen, but no interference pattern.
maplebayou1 1 year ago