Observing Schrodinger's cat [modified]
-
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.
-
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
"As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed?" More importantly than that, whenever I put my cats in boxes, they usually make it known that they are still very much alive without my having to peek inside, not to mention that they are not terribly happy about their predicament either. Cat in a box? Schrodinger obviously never took his cat to the vet :)
patbob
-
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
I always thought that the point of the thought experiment was that "you don't know anything until you get off your behind, open the box, and take a look." Without gathering additional information, the cat is both "as good as new" and "as good as dead" as far as the rest of us are concerned - and the cat doesn't get a vote in the matter. Perhaps I missed the point of the lecture way back when... :doh: As far as the use of synaptic efficiency enhancer goes, I think 3 full shots of a reputable single-malt will get you started nicely.
-Bob
-
viaducting wrote:
As the cat is an active observer inside the box, isn't the whole premise of the thought experiment flawed?
You're over thinking it. It's a thought experiment and, like an analogy, it only goes so far.
Even moreso, it was a thought experiment to show "this is ridiculous, that's really what you are planning to use?"
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
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
If there is a TRUE observer this piece of reality needs to be simulated. If the observer is part of the simulation, obviously, it is not needed. If it is not simulated their state remains uncertain... It's a matter of resource saving. So the premise is correct if the cat is not a TRUE observer. Hope this helps ;)
-
Your explaination is well put. :) My point exaclty! :thumbsup: Just because it wasn't observed, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things happen all the time without being observed. Observation proves that stuff does happen and that observed reactions can be reasonably expected to occur again.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
-
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
The fact that we make the observation is made , means that the system is not in a quantum state (unknown/variable/anything is possible). and about intelligence , just because my retard friend makes the observation; the outcome doesnt change. (id take a shot at IQ saying that its just bullcrap because QM doesnt vary with IQ)
-
-
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