Observing Schrodinger's cat [modified]
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
the fact that the cat knows whether it is dead or not
Can something know it is dead? Surely it can only know it is not dead. Or at least suspect that it is not dead. That's my problem with death, not knowing. I'd hate to die and not be aware of the fact.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
I am dead people.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
That's what I thought. That makes the description "observation" inaccurate and "interaction" preferable.
In this case I believe "observation" refers to any other entity receiving information about another that requires it to be in one state or the other. Using the tree example mentioned above, you could also tell the tree is moving by measuring changes in gravitational fields, and that is receiving information. In the cat experiment, doing so wouldn't change much because it could be a many different positions alive or dead. But for this to work you pretty much have to entirely isolate the cat from the universe, which is, as far as I know, impossible.
-
I am dead people.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
In this case I believe "observation" refers to any other entity receiving information about another that requires it to be in one state or the other. Using the tree example mentioned above, you could also tell the tree is moving by measuring changes in gravitational fields, and that is receiving information. In the cat experiment, doing so wouldn't change much because it could be a many different positions alive or dead. But for this to work you pretty much have to entirely isolate the cat from the universe, which is, as far as I know, impossible.
lewax00 wrote:
But for this to work you pretty much have to entirely isolate the cat from the universe, which is, as far as I know, impossible.
And would guarantee its death!
-
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
This explains what I have observed M$ Windows operating system: In our current (digital) computers, a bit is either set, or not. Windows, however, prefers taking the statistical approach.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Apparently so, I just googled "Gary Wheeler obituary" and got over one and a half million results.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
No, those are all wishful thinking. (Gary - not intended to be taken personally).
-
lewax00 wrote:
But for this to work you pretty much have to entirely isolate the cat from the universe, which is, as far as I know, impossible.
And would guarantee its death!
-
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
Schrödinger's Cat is one of the most misrepresented concepts in physics. The original point is rather close to your question – raising the question of what actually counts as an 'observer' and doing a reductio ad absurdum on the idea that it had to be an intelligent observer. It's not meant to be taken literally as stating that a cat in a box is in a quantum superposition of states.
-
Schrödinger's Cat is one of the most misrepresented concepts in physics. The original point is rather close to your question – raising the question of what actually counts as an 'observer' and doing a reductio ad absurdum on the idea that it had to be an intelligent observer. It's not meant to be taken literally as stating that a cat in a box is in a quantum superposition of states.
-
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
Observation, in and of itself, does not alter the state of the cat, it mearly changes the observer's perception of the state of the cat. Which confirm's the inadequacy of the thought experiment as it relates to quantum states, where observation does in fact alter the state of the observed.
Kevin Rucker, Application Programmer QSS Group, Inc. United States Coast Guard OSC Kevin.D.Rucker@uscg.mil "Programming is an art form that fights back." -- Chad Hower
-
That's what I thought. That makes the description "observation" inaccurate and "interaction" preferable.
Observation = Interaction. This is not understood by the software guys because in software Observation != Interaction. Software Terms: Observation is reading a variable or using a method to read an internal state. Interaction may inherit data manipulation (modification or write) to the element. Hardware Terms: I will put a real life example to be understood: I have a microprocessor that does not work. The main loop does not work at all and seems dead. I place the oscilloscope on its crystal clock generator and oops! everything works fine. Even if i remove the probe (or may be not). In real life observation is often interactive, either because the probe capacitance added to the inspecting circuit or a photon needed to read an atom's state. We disturb things in order to observe. However for most real life application this disturbance is insignificant and can be ignored, thus misleading us to the Observation != Interaction principle.
-
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
A form of consciousness comprised of an ever self-creating fictional continuity of experience, the observer, experiences a perceptual fictional continuity of a box, in which there's a perceptual fictional continuity of a cat, just as the cat, a form of consciousness comprised of an ever self-creating fictional continuity of experience, experiences a perceptual fictional continuity of a box, outside of which is a perceptual fictional continuity of an observer. This is why doughnuts have holes. Vernon Ruldolph realized this in 1937, reaching enlightenment when he knocked a hole in the wall of the first Krispy Kreme bakery so he could sell to customers on the street[^] ... see the 1937 entry in the Flash animation. Does anyone ever ask the box how it feels ? best, Bill p.s. Sunyata, Stern-Gerlach, Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Hartle-Hawking hypothesis[^]
"Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning." C.S. Lewis
-
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
viaducting wrote:
And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff?
Well, no scotch, but during my QM class at university, it sure took a lot, and I mean A LOT, of coffee to make it through those exams...and I still don't think I fully understand it! Maybe scotch would have been better! :laugh: Oh well, too late now...
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
-
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
using your argument there is actually a meta-duality in the the state of "observation".. the entropic knowledge that the cat has is equivalent to the knowledge of the observer as they are one in the same, however when the observer opens the box to measure the entropy is released and the system becomes slightly more ordered. because it is a closed system the net result is only one observation. -- once a quantum mechanics grad student... :-\
I'd blame it on the Brain farts.. But let's be honest, it really is more like a Methane factory between my ears some days then it is anything else...
-----
"The conversations he was having with himself were becoming ominous."-.. On the radio... -
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
Yes the cat is an active observer (assuming its alive) and from its viewpoint the state has settled to ono of the two possibilities. However until the box is opened there are still two seperate states as far as the external observer is concerned - one has a living cat which has observed itself to be alive and the other has a dead cat which in its final moment of life observed its death. i.e. for the internal observer the state has been fixed but for the external observer it still is not determined which internal observer you have.
-
As it is impossible for information to move from within the box, the fact that the cat knows whether it is dead or not is immaterial (to all but the cat). I think an observation can be classed as the exchange of information. So it doesn't matter if it is an intelligence or not - because if something is measurable it is measurable - whether is measured or not. The cat's state of health CANNOT (by definition) be determined by any observation from outside the box - because there is no transfer of information between the two systems. Anything inside the box "doesn't count" in this case, because we are talking about transfer of information specifically from within to outside of the box. Within the box, the state of health of the feline is known - whether the box contains only the cat, some decaying radioactivity and some poison, or contains the cat, a marching band and a pile of bell-bottom trousers.
viaducting wrote:
how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff?
Looking at the bottle (most of which is within my system, and therefore measurable by me), I'd say about a third of a 750ml bottle, plus a couple of pints of Guinness.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Looking at the bottle (most of which is within my system, and therefore measurable by me), I'd say about a third of a 750ml bottle, plus a couple of pints of Guinness.
Unless you are moving at relativistic speeds, then its increasingly more.
-
Based on what we know of trees, a tree does not grow wihtout a root system and pretty much any tree we see laying on its side has - of course - fallen. We don't have to see it fall to know that it fell. The question is whether or not the tree has fallen until we have observed that it has. If the tree falls and crushes you, even with your back to it, the tree has interacted with you in a number of ways before your untimely demise, via sound, the rush of forest animals trying to run past you to get out of the way of the falling tree, and finally the tree contacting your person. You have, in the end, interacted with the tree without observing it in the classical sense of "observation".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 8:43 AM
-
So if it wasn't observed, it never happed? That is so "tree falls..." if I never heard it.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
S Houghtelin wrote:
So if it wasn't observed, it never happe[ne]d? That is so "tree falls..." if I never heard it.
Yes, exactly. Only, you can't even say the tree fell, because nobody observed it. If you already knew that the tree fell, it must have been by observation or by construction, in which case the wave function has already collapsed. I *love* quantum philosophy!
-
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
viaducting wrote:
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed?
Well, if the cat is asleep all the time it stays in the box, then it can't be an active observer.
modified on Monday, July 25, 2011 12:13 PM
-
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed? On a related topic, in a QM collapsing-the-waveform sense, what does an "observation" mean? Does it mean an observation by an intelligence or just an interaction with another system? If the latter, then wouldn't "interaction" be a better description than "observation"? If the former, then how does the QM system being measured know that the interaction it is experiencing is an observation by an intelligence and not just a random interaction with a passing particle/wave? And finally, how much Scotch does it take to make yourself believe you understand this stuff? Edit: An interesting blog entry on this topic is here[^].
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 10:52 AM
This discussion is 80 years out of date. Collapse of the wavefunction is an idea from the 1930's.