Schrodingers Cat Thought Experiment

I have read other threads on here about Schrodingers Cat, and am moving an arguement with Dwydder from another thread here so we can get opinions of people familiar with Schrodingers Cat Experiment.

First of all I'd like to point out that Schrodingers Cat experiment was approached
with a Bohrs Coppenhagen Interpretation of the double slit experiment in mind.

Bohr would argue that the moon itself does not exist unless it is observed/measured.

Some people may recall the Bohr and Einstein debates. Now I am not suggesting
Einstein or Bohr is correct I am just stating the frame of mind You should be in when approaching Schrodingers point when addressing the Schrodingers Cat Thought experiment. The experiment showed what kind of absurdity is modelled when you follow the Bohr Coppenhagen interpretation.

You may remember Albert Einstein telling Bohr' "Do you really think the moon is not there when we are not looking at it?"
to which Bohr responded,
"Einstein, does not tell god what to do!"

Let us start with the beginning experiment..
view this short clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

That is the Double slit experiment, and its results have baffled scientists and scholars for over the past 125 years since young first attempted it. It is the greatest mystery of our time.

Now I am not judging which is correct view, but this experiment has been interpreted in many ways.

The most commonly accepted interpretation of what we just saw was
The Coppenhagen Interpretation ... It is hard to swallow and may seem impossible to most, however the Coppenhagen Interpretation says that Matter needs an observer consiousness to exist. Many arguments exist as to what quantifies as an observer, but that does not detract from the "absurdity" of this interpretation.
How can matter not exist unless it is observed?
A coppenhaganist will tell you that if your fridge door is closed then all of your food inside will exist only as wavefunctions, and will not collapse into particle form and become real until it is observed.

Actually; there are many variations of the coppenhagen interpretation, however the father of the Coppenhagen Interpretation was someone born in Coppenhagen Niels Bohr

Neils Bohr was the fellow that argued to Einstein that the moon does not exist unless it is observed. What is this dude smoking?

Nonetheless; The Coppenhagen Interpretation is the most widely accepted by quantum physicists with an 80% acceptance rate.

The following interpretation is 2nd to that.
The many worlds theory... The many worlds theory is very simple. Some physicists argue that there are infinite earths and every possibilty in past/present/future exist on them.

Now how hard is that to accept? What do these guys smoke?

Our two best choices are that matter does not exist unless it is observed, or that infinite earths are out there, and every possibility exists.

I know this has sciforums trolls, but if you wish to argue against these points please do so with an educated view and not try to ridicule what is commonly accepted. These ideas are not my own, and I am not supporting any views at this time.

Okay so using a Coppenhaganist view that matter does not exist except as a wavefunction how would the Schrodingers Cat Thought Experiment work?

The Schrodingers Cat thought experiment goes into detail about how it would be possible for a cat to either live or die with a 50% probability of either. The box is of solid construction and is covered/soundproof/and sealed with enough oxygen to support the cat.

This is only a thought experiment and is meant to make a point, it has never been conducted (by someone sane any ways).

Schrodinger Cat Thought Experiment: A cat has a 50% chance of living or dying in the morning. Until the box contents are examined in the evening the cat exists only as probable wavefunctions, and can exist both alive and dead at the same time. Once the cat is Observed then it instantly collapses its waveform from waves to particles (as is done with the double slit experiment), and the cat must become one or another form.

What many people do not grasp is that according to the thought experiment the cat is considered to be
a) invisible (as it is a wavefunction only according to Bohr)
b) Alive and dead ( quantum mechanics are weird, but yes Schrodinger is saying life or death occurs at the moment of observation, and not at the actaul time of life/death. If the observation occurred several days later then smell would also instantly be created.)

Schrodingers point was that quantum world is absurd, and could this be a possibility? Could we ourselves live as possibility waves until we connect with others. It makes you think, and is a classic Thought Experiment. It does seem very absurd and he made his point that it was. It is odd that some physicists now believe the wavefunction is correct, and that the cat would be both alive and dead, dependant upon what it (or mass consciousness) decides upon measurement/observation.

I am not arguing that this experiment is valid. In fact; Albert Einstein would argue that it is impossible. I am not arguing for or against. I am trying to demonstrate this thought experiment so some people can grasp it, and what viewpoint it was taken from.

I would also argue that according to Bohr/Schrodinger in the Schrodingers cat experiment the following statement would be true..
"The cat would exist exist only as a probability wavefunction until it is observed, then the wavefunction would collapse into particles, and the cat would reveal itself as truly alive or dead."

,and that this is a correct portrayal of how the experiment should be perceived even if only to draw attention to its absurdity.

I argue that in the minds of Bohr and Schrodinger (even if to point out the absurdity of quantum mechanics or the Copenhagen interpretation) the above statement would be considered an accurate portrayal of what they are demonstrating. I am not saying it is true. I am saying in the opinion of coppenhaganists or schrodinger only.

Dwydder said I did not understand the Schrodingers Cat Experiment, and I think I clearly have shown I do, and he does not. If anyone else wishes to disagree that what i have typed in blue is not true in the eyes of Bohr/Schrodinger I would also call them idiots as well.

You either get this experiment or you do not. It is kind of deep for some people.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZTPvrhmdc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4




and for laughs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oerZnryFxX0&feature=related

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kw is being dishonest.
I gave him reasons why he's wrong (according to Schroedinger himself) in this thread[sup]1,2[/sup] (which he dismissed as me quoting from "whatever") and he's also looked at this thread in an attempt to support his view (and failed - in fact that thread specifically refutes him).

Also interesting is his modified claim:

which contrasts with his original argument (first link - post #19)

1: I particularly enjoy the fact that he can't spell Copenhagen or my name, and
2: his ranting insults about my stupidity are quite amusing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I said Coppenhaganists/Bohr (I say Bohr because the coppenhagen interpretation has been shuffled to mean a myriad of things, but Bohrs views clearly show he believed matter does not exist except as a wavefunction until observed)

So If I said Coppenhaganists/Bohr believe that matter only exists as a wavefunction then I would have added until it observed/measured.

The other thread was in response to a science fiction writer looking at fiction possibilities, I stated everything similarly to the way i did in this opening post and did not support the coppenhagen interpretation.

I do actually support the Coppenhaggen interpretation, however did not pick sides until this moment. The Many worlds theory seems a little too crazy for me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey, that's clever. You've just linked to this thread.
Is that in case you lose it?

 

I need to respond to this comment from dwyddyr

I misspelled Dywyddyr simply because I did not want to bother looking at such a well thought out name. I will forget its spelling soon after logging off, or better yet have not memorized it.

It is true that I have misspelled Copenhagen throughout by adding another P.

I did not realize this was a spelling forum. However; I can point out spelling errors by Dywydrr (however its spelled, I'm too lazy to look every time).

Let us not forget his classic thread,

I'd like to point out that at the bottom of Dwyydryd old post he claimed I misspelled his name (which i do voluntarily), and Copenhagen.

look at his above thread he started.

His title, "Sceince saves our teaspoons" is the actual spelling of the title he gave this thread. Forget the numerous times he spelled "science" as Sceince" in his thread.

Imagine being on a science forum called "sciforums" (doesnt first three letters give you a clue Dywyddyr) that science is spelled starting with a "Sci". This is not Sceforums.com after all.

I do not want to go on too much about spelling, but I was attacked first for my spelling of his name and Copenhagen.

Please visit his Thread to verify that I am not making this up.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107004

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107004

This is the same Dywyddyr that claimed to have read a book from Schrodinger . I am sorry but I generally believe people who read are often good spellers.

I am sure you are not as stupid as I am imagining, but threads like "Sceince saves our teaspoons" seems like stuff science could do without.

Just in case you do not understand this post Dywyddyrr Science is spelled S C I E N C E, and Not S C E I N C E.

I believe you have learned more about the Schrodinger Cat Thought experiment tonight than at any other time.

 

Schrodinger's thought experiment, like EPR, was meant to demonstrate that QM can't correspond to reality--that something must be wrong with the model.

But: it didn't.

 

Which happens to be an infractionable offence. Well done.

Oh dear. Someone doesn't keep up. [ENC]Sceince[/ENC].

Correct.

Hence the thread is in Free Thoughts.

[ENC]Science[/ENC]. [ENC]Sceince[/ENC]. [ENC]Seance[/ENC].
It's amazing how some people are so blinkered.

I see. You pointing out "spelling errors" has educated me on Schroedinger's Cat.
How does that work, exactly?

 

Is this a Schrodinger's catfight???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Try this version, crossing it with the double slit experiment.

A piece of equipment capable of emitting a single photon is placed so that it is aimed at a screen with two parallel slits in it. Next to slit B is placed a detector. A circuit leads from the detector to a vial of cyanide, which will be broken if the detector trips. All this is placed in a box, with a cat, carefully placing the cat on a nice silk cushion. The box is closed.
Remotely, the photon is fired at the screen.

Now, does the photon go through slit A, leaving the cat unharmed; go through slit B, killing the cat with cyanide; or go through A and B, again killing the cat.

What will you find when you open the box later?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Shrodinger: Oh no, surely you ain't drunk again isn't it Tiddles?

Tiddles: I can't stand all the fame and attention.

 

Interesting idea Captain Kremmen.

Guess that would be an act of measuring so it would behave as a particle and only trigger one detector, yet Bohr would still believe that the cat was in a state of juxtaposition until the box was opened.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

funny

It was Dwyddyrdd that started the entire spelling error thing in his first post here.
p.s. While Dwyrrydd likes to correct spelling errors maybe you should go back and edit the name Schrodinger Dwyyddyyr. You just spelled it Schroedinger. You can claim to read the mans book, but you cannot even spell his name. For those reading this, it has probably been changed in editing since now.

 

Oops wrong. Again.

 

Also.
What would happen if you never looked to see whether the cat was alive or dead, but just remotely opened a door, releasing it, if alive, into a room full of identical cats.
You come back later and look in the room, but you are not sure whether the cat is there or not because an indefinite number of cats were let into the room.
Then all the cats are released, so it is impossible to ever check, and the box, with the dead cat if the cat died, is put into a furnace.

Theoretically, if it was alive, would you have seen it among the other cats?

 

What if the cat gave birth to kittens inside the box, and a kitten sized hatch was opened releasing the kittens into a room of identical kittens?
Would you see the kittens?
And say they could get back into the box and feed from the mother.
Would milk from an alive dead cat be any use to them?

 

I suppose it would depend on your interpretation of the experiment. It may also depend on your view of what constitutes an observer. Could an animal be considered an observer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem

actually never mind.. no matter what the view of your experiment the outcome would be you would see them.

If the kittens were born before 50/50 chance of gas... They would be legitimate and seen.

If the kittens were born from the live cat at 50/50 chance of gas ... They would be legitimate and seen. This may also conclude the experiment early if they were observed by count or something. But live cats can give birth so nothing strange.

If the Cat inside died before birth from the gas then the kittens would not be possible.

 

Third choice - we can't observe the electron/photon without messing with it. I mean it's not like you can just turn on a light and look at it under a magnifying glass...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How would you suggest that someone test this hypothesis? Can we test by not observing?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi Gmilam,

That phrase,

was in reference to the famous Einstein Bohr debates about Quantum physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates

That is where that statement came from the mouths of Einstein and Bohr.

In all fairness though the double slit experiment does not seem to have rational explanations and has been the thorn in the paw of quantum physicists for over 125 years when Young first performed it.

This is the experiment that you asked about in the first question. This is how they test the hypothesis. It is kind of insane.

Have a look at this experiment and then try to explain it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

It is very mysterious and seems to baffle all.

Bohr wrote the most commonly accepted "Interpretations" of what the experiment could mean. It is called the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The interpretations for this experiment hardly seem sane. In the Copenhagen interpretation according to Bohr Matter remains a probability wavefunction until it is observed by a consciousness (Consciousness?? Really??). Then it collapses into a particle and becomes visible.

In other words, Bohr would argue that the contents of your fridge cease to exist until you open the door and see what is inside. Then poof! It all particalizes.

Another Interpretation is the many worlds theory, and that means that every possibility on earth in past and in the future is present on an infinite number of earths. (That may also be hard for many to swallow).

There are no really sane answers.

However there are other interpretations as well, but none of them seem credible. It is like a scientists form of religion to buy into one Interpretation or another. Some people don't buy into any Interpretation as they find them all ridiculous, but there must be an explanation.

 

Is not in the link you gave.
Nor does it (the quote) actually support your contention.
(Oh, and you have an extraneous comma in there too).

On the other hand, looking at an earlier link you gave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem
We have this:

 

The Two-Slit Experiment

In the case of one electron interfering with itself in the two-slit experiment, modern physics has by necessity unhinged itself from causal reality by having it that electrons do not exist until they are observed at the phosphor screen, the pattern being caused by the superposition of all possible paths the electron might take to the screen, yet, interference happens, adding up, and even electrons hundreds of kilometers apart will form an interference pattern that accurately corresponds to the source’s diameter.


The Two-Slit Mystery Revealed

In the two-slit experiment, in which one photon (or electron) is sent through one at a time, still adding to an interference pattern, the solution to the mystery is that any given photon sets the aperture’s state based on its exit trajectory, for it has a particular momentum and energy based on the aperture’s state and the incident photon’s momentum; so, the next photon to follow encounters this set state, which is that casual relationship between the two, although widely separated in time.

The material of which the aperture is composed is a system with an existing quantum that that interacts with an incoming photon. The three states that the aperture must occupy are

1) photon is incident,
2) photon merges with aperture, and
3) photon is transmitted.

(1) doesn’t play a role because the beam is standardized.

Since energy and momentum are always conserved and there is angular variance caused by the width and spacing of the slits, the aperture’s quantum state changes depending on the direction of the transmitted photon.

The aperture, although macroscopic, still exists in only one state at a time, and charts the path for the next incident photon. The results of the photon passages, due to the conversation of momentum (to infinitely fine resolution), must be preserved in the aperture’s current state as a complimentary response.

So, there is no observer-created reality with none before it. Heisenberg was then wrong to say that “atoms are not things”. Reality remains intact.


OK, that is one possible interpretation supporting reality, but I think I also have another somewhere that does show there is no objective reality. I'll have to look for it.