What actually is the conclusion of this thought experiment? Does it disprove Copenhagen interpretation? What is a better interpretation then resolving the cat paradox?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
There is no paradox. Decoherence resolves the issue completely. The conclusion is that the cat is either alive or dead, like your common sense would tell you. It's not "both alive and dead" or whatever.
>Decoherence resolves the issue completely.
Quantum mechanics is still probalistic and and quantum jumps are real which is exactly what Schrodinger didn't like, nothing is resolved.
Frick off back to your consciousness thread and stop bothering me
Nothing I said is wrong, are you gonna cry or what
>quantum jumps
Not a real thing, so your post is moronic
>nothing is resolved
I'm sure you'd like to keep believing that, schizo >>>/x/
>Not a real thing
Is experimentally proven to be real
https://web.archive.org/web/20101107043403/http://www.mpq.mpg.de/Theorygroup/CIRAC/wiki/images/8/86/Samuel.pdf
Only a legit schizo believes decoherence solves anything at all
>that paper
It shows nothing other than what a double slit experiment would show. You would know this if you're not a complete schizo googling random papers in order to look for excuses to complain about quantum mechanics.
>*Only a legit schizo doesn't think decoherence solves the "measurement problem"
FTFY
>Conclusion and perspectives
>Quantum jumps of light observed for the first time
I'm not complaining about anything, quantum jumps are experimentally proven and the double slit experiment didn't prove quantum jumps of light, I don't care about your cope.
>for the first time
Oh really? Then what are spectroscopic lines
>I'm not complaining about anything
>nothing is resolved
Sure must be fun being a schizo.
>Then what are spectroscopic lines
Not an experiment for quantum jumps of light, which was only done until the paper I showed.
>Sure must be fun being a schizo.
Mainstream physics has never said decoherence solves anything
>Not an experiment for quantum jumps of light
That's exactly what it is you total loser
>Mainstream physics
Shut the frick up schizo.
>That's exactly what it is you total loser
Show me an experiment that proves quantum jumps of light like the data from my paper shows
>Shut the frick up schizo.
Cry more.
>Show me an experiment that proves quantum jumps of light like the data from my paper shows
Look at some fricking specstroscopic lines. Look at the photoelectric effect. Look at the compton effect. I can already predict your response:
>"NOOOO!! SHOW ME THE EXACT THING IN THIS PAPER IN SOME OTHER PAPER!!!"
Pathetic schizo.
There is no "mainstream physics". There is only physics and all good physicists agree that decoherence solves the silly measurement non-problem. People who disagree with this basic and true statement are pseuds and frauds like "philosophers of quantum mechanics" and other schizos who parrot their words like you. Not interested in entertaining your schizophrenia anymore. Take your meds and have a nice day or whatever.
>Look at some fricking specstroscopic lines. Look at the photoelectric effect. Look at the compton effect
All irrelevant to quantum jumps of light, the photoelectric effect has to do with both electrons and light, I'm talking about light alone, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you failed to provide an experiment that shows quantum jumps light, you lost the argument
> and all good physicists agree that decoherence solves the silly measurement non-problem
According to your non-existent poll of consesus of "good physicist" or. Even the creators of decoherence said it doesn't solve the so called measurement problem so even your messiahs didn't said such a stupidity.
What do you mean by quantum jump of light?
Isn't a wave itself a quantum jump, from a crest (through the trough) to a crest, is the 0 point of the wave measured as a quanta of energy?
>Isn't a wave itself a quantum jump, from a crest (through the trough) to a crest, is the 0 point of the wave measured as a quanta of energy?
Imagine a wave going from left to right plotted on x y axis:
0 1 2 1 0 -1 -2 -1 0 1 2 1 0 -1 -2 -1 0 1 2 1 0
Is that wave parting an equal amount of energy at every point?
And considering a wave as continous;
0..0.0001...0.0002....0.0003..........
1.....1.0001.....1.0002.........
1.100000......1.1001.......
1.20001.... 1.22222.....
1.22223....
Etc?
Dank question my guy, tack this onto it;
Can part/s of the wave be absorbed, reflected? And parts continue on waving?
Now we are arriving at cool thought locations.
If this wave hits into an object, or just, what is the meaning of an atom, or an antenae absorbing the entire wave, literally where does the waves body go, when an electron absorbs a light wave it absorbs some fraction of the wave depicted in the replied to post 0 1 2 1 0 -1 -2 -1 0...
The atom/electron can absorb a quanta of 1 from that wave, or a quanta of .0013 or a quanta of .1534? Those are arbitrary numbers I'm aware the answer will either be yes an electron/atom can absorb any finite near infinitesimal quantity of light wave, or no, the electron can only absorb specific numbers (recall it being the latter)
So the electron is bumped up an energy level, that body of light wave is now existing in between the electron and nucleus? But it can't hold on it quickly waves out just as it waved in and goes on its way? ( Like an ocean wave rising and falling a buoy?)
This is awesome thought, really gets toward the conception of EM waveness, the possible physicality of it's body, hope someone respond so I may further press
Hope the previously conversing peeps respond
Yes I would like this conversation to continue to hopefully more clearly see what may be rightish and wrongish
In a little bit, I will work up the courage and intelligence required to respond
Physichad here. Those posts gave me cancer and I'm leaving this thread. Should've known better than to click a frickin cat thread.
You may (or may not) know more than me, but I am very likely smarter than you in raw and specific capacity
Ohhjhj dsmmmmnnnn please respond wowowoeooeoeoe
This too this too yes yes yes yes
Kek
What are you? His sidekick or something?
>Quantum mechanics is still probalistic
REALITY IS NOT PROBALISTIC
MANS BEST MAPPING GRAPHING TOOLING RULERING OF REALITY REQUIRES PROBABILITIES FOR PREDICTIONS BECAUSE MAN CANNOT CAPTURE A REAL TIME 1:1 DEPICTION OF NATURES TRILLIONS INTERACTING WITH TRILLIONS OF MICRO DETERMINICIES
Shouldn't Man be able to know a real time 1:1 relation of Natures micro trillions interacting with Natures micro trillions, by plugging in all the known laws of physics into a super computer simulation and inputting the starting relavant variables, and then computing over time and space?
If humans know a relavent amount of laws and variables, but they have known starting conditions of the experiment and plug it in, and then run the physical experiment; if the simulation performs different results than the physical experiment Either, and/or (I really want to popularize the use of andor to replace and/or):
-The simulation was not inputed with all variables (hidden variables theory)
-The simulation was not inputed with all laws
-The universe itself is a simulation and it's most micro fundamental grounding of (pseudo) physical laws is not physically mechanically logically if A then B logically reasonable.
moron, how you gonna capture state of trillion of trillion particles with infinite precision? Just because you can't doesn't mean that once you did it would be still random as frick bro, stop taking soi and return to reality
You didn't comprehend what I wrote, it seems
No, it does not. Even even the people who came up with it admit it does not solve the
Why Decoherence has not Solved the Measurement Problem:
'in their seminal paper on decoherence
as a source of spatial localization, Joos and Zeh (1985) state “Of course no unitary treatment
of the time dependence can explain why only one of these dynamically independent com-
ponents is experienced.” And in a recent review on decoherence, Joos (1999) states “Does
decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us is that
certain objects appear classical when observed. But what is an observation? At some stage
we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0112095.pdf
Ok let's take a step back; Schrodinger proposed this thought experiment in relation to the Probability Math that man depends on to predict if A then B subatomic particles and EM field reactions in relation to angular momentums, charges, absorbtions, emitions, reflections, refractions, coherences, incoherences, electron orbital energy states, nucleai stabilities, masses, momentums, etc.
Oh dear...... Is it true Schrodinger was just saying:
Your guys interpretation that your math weather man metrology predictions are not 100% certain and accurate, and require probababilities, for some silly small simple minded myopic school boy simpleton out of touch fantasy loving reason you declare that reality equals probabilities (probably akin to the tabloid popscis of the day purposefully andor accidently brainwashing the youth and their peers with falsity);
Here is a thought experiment that process your interpretation foolish.
AND WHAT WOULD YOU KNOW, THE SAME POPSCI HEADLINE TABLOID ADVERTISER CHARLATANS TOOK THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT PROVING THEM WRONG AND MOCKING THEM, AND SAID, RUN TO THE PRESSES, WE HAVE ANOTHER FLASHY MAGIC COMIC BOOK STORY ABOUT REALITY DUUDDEE MANNNN, THE ONLY SMART GUY IN THE ROOM SAID SOMETHING ABOUT AN ALIVE AND DEAD CAT QUICK QUICK NOTIFY THE PRESSES
I think you are maybe confusing classical indeterminacy with quantum.
'Indeterminacy in measurement was not an innovation of quantum mechanics, since it had been established early on by experimentalists that errors in measurement may lead to indeterminate outcomes. By the later half of the 18th century, measurement errors were well understood, and it was known that they could either be reduced by better equipment or accounted for by statistical error models. In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.'
>In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.'
That's because they are meteorologist weather men of the micro world who say: it may be sunny or it may rain;
So there is no error, because they probabilistically covered all base; Nature knew 200 years ago if it would be sunny or rain today:
EXCEPT!!!!!! How humans can influence things, Conciousness is not fully determined, so if it was determined at the big bang that a certain tree would fall tommorow in the middle of the Amazon rain Forrest in a place never touched by humans; it is possible for Humans to find that tree and preventing it from falling; this is the very meaning and nature of conciousness, to self determine, to play a role in the outcomes of universal history
You might be interested in this paper in which a case is made that classical physics are also fundamentally indeterministic.
Indeterminism, causality and information: Has physics ever been deterministic?
'A tradition handed down among physicists maintains that classical physics is a perfectly deterministic theory
capable of predicting the future with absolute certainty, independently of any interpretations. It also tells that
it was quantum mechanics that introduced fundamental indeterminacy into physics. We show that there exist
alternative stories to be told in which classical mechanics, too, can be interpreted as a fundamentally indeter-
ministic theory. On the one hand, this leaves room for the many possibilities of an open future, yet, on the
other, it brings into classical physics some of the conceptual issues typical of quantum mechanics, such as the
measurement problem. We discuss here some of the issues of an alternative, indeterministic classical physics
and their relation to the theory of information and the notion of causality.'
file:///Users/johnbolt/Downloads/Del_Santo_FQXI_essay_indete.pdf
>The conclusion is that the cat is either alive or dead,
LOL!
Science had to think hard about this.
The cat is dead and alive at the same time LMAO, fricking hell, just imagine that, poor fricking cat.
Thought experiment, more like fart experiment.
>Decoherence resolves the issue completely
Yes
>The conclusion is that the cat is either alive or dead, like your common sense would tell you. It's not "both alive and dead" or whatever.
No. Decoherence means both are outcomes are real but separate, hence both outcomes happen. Hence its cat alive and cat dead dead, but not at the same time, and also not "superposition" because interactions happen instantly hence decoherence happen at every changing moment.
Wait, isnt cat observer himself? He also has brain and some low form of consiousness? Does this also work with human in a box?
None of that is relevant. Stop reading popsci
I don't understand why this filters people so hard. Superposition is utilized all the time in physics. The principle of superposition in physics states that the total is the sum of its parts, in loose language. For example, if I have two point charges in free space, we say the net electric field is writable via superposition, i.e.
[math]E_{text{tot}} = E_1 + E_2[/math]
You can interpret E_1 as "ignore every other charge, and write down the electric field from charge 1." Likewise for E_2.
In quantum mechanics, we say the total probability an observable is in some final state is given by
[math] |text{tot}> = |1> + |2> [/math]
You can again interpret |1> as "assuming no other state exists, write down the existence of state |1>." Likewise for |2>. What superposition doesn't mean, and has never meant, is that |1> and |2> exist simultaneously.
I usually think of it all slices on the time axis, and above it being the superposition. It seems easier that way.
what a terrible explanation
why?
Whence the wave function? All measurements are random.
What if I flip the sign between |1> and |2>? Have you thought about the consequences of that?
Then |tot> = |1> + (-|2>)
Any other questions?
My point was your post indicated you didn't understand what the phases in the superposition were doing
What the frick are you talking about? Phases don't couple the states; they're manifestly decoupled.
>What the frick are you talking about?
Your explanation looked to me like you didn't understand that the phases in a superposition were meaningful information, but maybe I just misread it.
The conclusion is that shit happens whether or not you're there and everything else is just irrelevant drivel
>put cat in a box
>seal the box
>pull out a 9mm
>shoot the box several times
>the cat is in a superposition of being dead and alive until I check
Lmao. The cat is ded.
>Does it disprove Copenhagen interpretation?
No. Cats are conscious. Consciousness ends von neumann chain. Consciousness can never be in super position. Consciousnes is not in the physical world, the physical world is in consciousness. Schrödinger eventually figured this out by the way. Pic related. A consciousness can never be both dead and alive. And the superposition is one of a super position of POSSIBLE outcomes, not instantiated physical realities.
>cats are conscious
Unless they are NPCs (non player cats).
This is true. There is the philosophical problem of 'the problem of other minds'. You can't ever experience another human's mind, let alone a cat. So I assume the cat is conscious but it could be an NPC. Interestingly Schrödinger also had a quote about
>he doesn't know about distributed solipsism
Or schizophrenia multiple character disorder, or people like Shakespeare
>distributed solipsism
go on...
consciousness is just a feedback loop
My dick is superpositioned in both ass and vegana, ama.
SCHIZOPHASIA THREAD!!!!
WHOEVER CAN WEDGE THE MOST MEANINGLESS SOIENCE BUZZWORDS INTO THEIR POST WINS
this
also
>immmm gunnna quantuuuuuuumm!!!
*100 old professors summon an international meeting for the grand conclusion, through decades of work*
"We have concluded............" *world wide silence*
"That......"
"Before we open the box, the cat COULD be either dead or ALIVE."
*World wide laughter*
the cat is literally an observer. the wave function collapses way before you open the box.
i don't remember what it was called but there is another paradox with same idea that was formulated before schordinger's cat in a more logical way.
it goes a long the lines that you tie the outcome of some quantum experiment to actions A and B where A negates or is the opposite of B and vice versa then superposition implies that A and B happen at the same time which is impossible.
also i am not sure how this would work if you assume that interaction causes collapse
no not the heckin caterino
You see to really get somewhere in thought one has to have a love for novelty, uniqueness, escsping repetition, cycle. A lover of melody (yes rhythem is important and nessecary, I love rhythem, harmony and melody of course), one must lsy down foundations of thoughts, plant seeds, tend to those seeds with water and sun and fert, etc. One must have an ideal vision of soaring,a goal of a melody, and start somewhere with a hazy aim, but the belief that if kept at some fuzzy path, a most beautiful and glorious clarity may be achieved.
To approach pure mystery, to approach that which is not known or understood by anyone (not saying that is the case of this topic persay), to walk into a dark Forrest blindly, in search of absolute understanding Truth. To however sense the presence of light, to trust there is knowable light that is currently unknown, and that it must be located in some direction, so at the very most you must try looking in all directions, at the very least a few directions seem more likely than most.
why does this board attract the mentally ill at such a high rate compared to others?
>Mad sointist because the truth behind mysterious "quantum mechanics" is exposed
Ah yes, ive lost the discussion. Time to insult, little woman soiboi.
case in point, still fascinating to see in action.
this guy gets called mentally ill 10-20 times a day and its like water off a ducks back, he has no ability to self reflect, i wonder if he even has a conscience
?
stop torturing animals
https://odysee.com/@Realfake_Newsource:9/RFNS-10.21-003-020:3