Schrodinger's cat

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

siriusdogstarone

Guest
<p>So If dumb is smarter than he must be smarter than&nbsp;dumber .<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /></p><p>&nbsp;Who is dumbest&nbsp; ? Kind of Like who's on first routine ?&nbsp;. </p><p>Well I am just trying to grasp the basic concept of Shrodinger's Cat .</p><p>So basically&nbsp; the cat dies&nbsp; when the vial is broken (particles )&nbsp; and released .</p><p>At the time it arrives&nbsp; or before it's arrival&nbsp; is the unknown&nbsp; factor .</p><p>So the cat would be in a decaying state&nbsp; upon it's arrival ? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#339966">E To The Square</font> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="#666699"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So the cat would be in a decaying state&nbsp; upon it's arrival ? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by siriusdogstarone</DIV></font><br />It makes no sense to think about a cat in a superposition of states.&nbsp; This is actually a terrible way to try and understand quantum mechanics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It makes no sense to think about a cat in a superposition of states.&nbsp; This is actually a terrible way to try and understand quantum mechanics. <br />Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>It works pretty well for molecular orbital theory, as a mathematical construct.</p><p>Wayne<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It works pretty well for molecular orbital theory, as a mathematical construct.<br /> Posted by drwayne</DIV></p><p>By "it" I hope you mean "quantum mechanics" and not "a cat in a box".&nbsp; I was disparaging a cat in a box as an educational tool, not quantum mechanics. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By "it" I hope you mean "quantum mechanics" and not "a cat in a box".&nbsp; I was disparaging a cat in a box as an educational tool, not quantum mechanics. <br />Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>Superposition of states - specifically LCAO - Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals - no cat's involved.&nbsp;&nbsp; ;)<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Superposition of states - specifically LCAO - Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals - no cat's involved.&nbsp;&nbsp; ;) <br />Posted by drwayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><span class="body1"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="1">There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity.<span>&nbsp; </span>I do not believe that there ever was such a time.<span>&nbsp; </span>There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper.<span>&nbsp; </span>But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve.<span>&nbsp; </span>On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. &ndash; Richard P. Feynman in <em>The Character of Physical Law</em></font></span></span> <p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

Tsurugi

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>My cat is so crazy that he is always in the quantum superposition state whenever I'm not looking at him.</p><p>His name is Schrodinger, too.&nbsp; XD </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Tsu</p><p> </p><p><em>"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."</em> </p> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<div class="Discussion_PostQuote">It's about time you take a position and tell us what state you're in.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Florida!</p><p>;)</p><p>Wayne
</p><p>metastable ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kg

Guest
<font size="2">Is the cat not qualified to observe whether or not it has been poisoned&nbsp;or do it need a PhD?&nbsp;&nbsp;<br /></font>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is the cat not qualified to observe whether or not it has been poisoned...?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></font></p><p>Very interesting question.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

Tissa_Perera

Guest
<p>It is a great thought experiment but I can twist it as follows.</p><p>The first person to open the box decides if the cat is dead or allive and keeps the secret.</p><p>Then to a second person before opening the box the cat is in limbo.</p><p>Then the second person opens and decides dead or alive, which may or may not not match</p><p>up with the first persons finding. And so on and on.......</p><p>Now what of quantum creepiness? Remember Einstein never liked this spooky/creepy action of</p><p>quantum physics.</p><p>Read my web at cosmicdarkmatter.com for a good old mechanical solution of nature.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p>I think that it is not a person who is the "observer" that forces the selection of a single state from the superposition of states, and it is not the cat either.&nbsp; I think it is the individual cat molecules involved in a reaction (or not) with poison molecules.&nbsp; Each molecule, via the test apparatus that is it's electron cloud, determines whether or not it has been bound to a poison molecule. If the determination of a sufficient number of cat molecules is 'yes', the unfortunate cat's fate is sealed whether or not any other observer ever looks.</p><p>(Or, if the poisoning is by radiation, each cat molecule determines if it's structure has been altered and how.)&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mickeyl

Guest
<p>Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to <font color="#003399">quantum</font> law, in a <font color="#003399">superposition</font> of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). </p><p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font size="2">This is a stupid (quantum) supposition.&nbsp; If we're relying on human observation for our reality, --then the cat is neither alive or dead until we open the box and observe it.</font></p>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is a stupid (quantum) supposition.&nbsp; If we're relying on human observation for our reality, --then the cat is neither alive or dead until we open the box and observe it. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>Stating the cat is <em><strong>neither</strong></em> dead or alive implies the cat does not exist.&nbsp; In this thought experiment, the cat is know to exist.&nbsp; Given the uncertainty of knowing whether the particle decayed or not, it can be said the cat is <strong><em>both</em></strong> dead and alive until an observation can be made.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p>You ought to try applying Schrodingers Cat to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. </p><p>In the dual split experiment we find that light interferes with itself like a wave and creates an interference pattern. If each photon passes through only one of the slits, we wouldn't have expected to see this interference pattern. If you slow down the emission rate until you are firing single photons at the slits, you still get the pattern. If you put in an apparatus to measure which slit a photon actually passed through, you find out that the photon travelled through either one or the other slits, but the interference pattern disappears! </p><p>In the quantum eraser, you send the photons from each slit down different paths and the apparatus to find out which path the photon took adds a certain "spin" to each photon, a different spin for each path, and the photons then hit a detector that can measure both the hit location and the spin of each photon and thus detect an interference pattern if there is one. But if the detector can tell which path the photons took you find no interference pattern, it just detects a band of light with no pattern. </p><p>Then you add an apparatus that can remove the information of which path the photon took. This is done is by removing the certain "spin" of the photon that was added by the other apparatus. You have now had a system where the photons had "which path" information, which has been removed before they hit the detector. When you turn on the eraser, the interference pattern is detected once again! </p><p>In the delayed choice quantum eraser, you add a method by which this "which path" information can be removed <strong>after</strong> the photons have hit the detector! You delay the choice of whether to erase the "which path" information until the photons have already been detected.</p><p>This is done by adding a device called a downcoverter to each path, right after the slits, that produces 2 photons from the original photon, each with 1/2 the original frequency. You can then send those photons, called the <em>signal</em> photon and the <em>idler</em> photon, along different paths. The signal photon is sent directly to a detector the and the idler photon is sent along a different path, but these photons are <strong>entangled</strong>. Using a system of different paths where the idler photons information is either erased or not, and sending them to different detectors and then correlating the data from all the detectors, you find interference patterns in the data depending on which detectors you compare to each other. </p><p>But if you set up the devices to erase the "which path" information from the idler photons <strong><em>after</em></strong> the signal photons have hit their detector, you find a hitherto undetected interference pattern hidden in the signal photon data! <strong>All</strong> the signal photons can have hit their detector and been recorded before the "which path" information is erased from their entangled idler photons, and there will be no interference pattern apparent in the signal detector data until it is finally compared to the data collected at the idlers detector. The idlers eraser could theoretically be put <strong>any</strong> distance away from the experiment, and there will be no interference pattern until the idler is erased, finally detected and correlated with the signal photons.</p><p>Is quantum entanglement subject to the arrow of time? </p><p>Here is another (in my opinion much clearer!) description of the experiment.</p><p>How can we apply this to the cat? Well it seems to me the cat might be both dead and alive throughout its whole life.... and we won't even know for sure after it's dead!</p><em>"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".</em> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
S

Skeptic_Dragon

Guest
<p>Well, put <em>SpeedFreak</em>.</p><p>&nbsp; I think it's the word <em>"observer"</em> that throws people, as was stated earlier (<em>DrRocket</em>).&nbsp; The assumption that most humans (read: layperson) like to make is that the observer must be a) alive and b) intelligent.&nbsp; Both of which result in an anthrocentrist view of&nbsp;reality, making it appear that the entire universe would be in superposition until we (humans) evolved to collapse the fields.&nbsp; The collapse of the wave function intrigues me, and I would like to look into that experiment above more.&nbsp; I remember reading about the macroscopic quantum behavior of liquid helium at extremely low temperatures and I do tend to wonder how superposition of states effects the helium on these macroscopic levels with regard to "registering" and collapse of the superposition.&nbsp; I'm not a physicist by trade, but an engineer, so I guess that makes me "dumberer", but not "dumberest" (the heretofore unknown fourth state of dumb).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mickeyl

Guest
<p><font size="2">Human observation </font><font size="2">has no relationship to reality.&nbsp; It is immaterial if a human-being can determine whether/if the cat is alive or dead, at any specific point in time.&nbsp; The cat could not care less.</font>&nbsp; </p>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Human observation has no relationship to reality.<br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></font><br />Yes.&nbsp; I think the emphasis placed on human observation's effect on reality is akin to the Earth-centered view of the universe.&nbsp; Reality could get along just fine without us.&nbsp; Reality does not care what we think of it.&nbsp; It's ironic that any feeling of grandeur we humans have concerning the effect of our consciousness on reality stems from the inability of our mind to comprehend reality -- or itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

siriusdogstarone

Guest
<p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">This is an interesting&nbsp; theory of&nbsp; an exmaple no doubt to&nbsp; get people thinking on the same level .&nbsp; So in reality the cat&nbsp; doesn't matter&nbsp; at all it's the suppostion of&nbsp; states . It kind of pre-empts space travel&nbsp; in away is what I am</font></p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">thinking&nbsp; about that . That's my theory&nbsp; that's why we sent&nbsp; animals into space</font></p><p><font size="3" color="#0000ff">in the first place . We knew&nbsp; if&nbsp; we did it right&nbsp; they would come back alive to us in a space capsule .<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#339966">E To The Square</font> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY