Schrödinger's Cat

[Artythizza]

Hey!

 

I am just wondering what was he trying to prove in this experiment? (Schrödinger's Cat)

 

Thanks for any information!

[farmboy]

Hey!

 

I am just wondering what was he trying to prove in this experiment? (Schrödinger's Cat)

 

Thanks for any information!

 

I wouldnt say he was really trying to prove anything, I suppose he was trying to highlightt the absurdity of extending the copenhagen interpretation (specifically the uncertainty principle) to macroscopic (I mean human sized lol) objects.

[iNow]

It was a thought experiment, not a clinical experiment.

[Mystery111]

It's an anecdote acting as a thought experiment. As for what he was proving, just as was said. It was to highlight the descrepency of understanding how quantum systems behave differently to larger masses and how two different outcome can exist due to a wave function.

 

His experiment has been answered through decoherence. The cat won't be alive and dead at the same time.

[Artythizza]

Hmm, so the experiments weren't ever really done? They just thought about it? And there wasn't really anything to prove from it... That's weird. Would there be any point in actually doing the experiment? Or would that just be a waste of cats?

[cosmic rain]

The experiment concluded that there was no way to know whether the cat in the box was alive or dead without direct observation. Since direct observation violates uncertainty, a determination of the truth had to be made without it. The cat is both alive and dead, and reality is a superposition of states.

 

 

[Artythizza]

The experiment concluded that there was no way to know whether the cat in the box was alive or dead without direct observation. Since direct observation violates uncertainty, a determination of the truth had to be made without it. The cat is both alive and dead, and reality is a superposition of states.

 

 

 

Okay, that makes much more sense than what I thought. I have another question though; why does it matter if it violates uncertainty? Aren't we trying to be certain when we experiment, not uncertain?

[Lightingbird]

I believe the experiment is more along the concept that reality is perceived by someone acknowledging it.

 

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

In other words, If you can see your best friend and see that is alive. Then he sees you and verifies the same thing. Then as I look into your window can see you and your friend standing together acknowledging your alive. This goes on and on. Eventually, someone outside of the planet would have to see us for us to exist. So the theory reflects the possibility of alternate realities for every outcome for all possible events.

 

Again, correct me if I am wrong.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Lightingbird

[Mystery111]

Yes but experimentation clearly shows there is a ''cut-off'' between the micro-world and the macro-world. This may be no larger than let us say a semi-macro object - we've managed to observe quantum wave oscillations to a certain degree without direct observation, but after a certain point the usual quantum weirdness we might associate at the level of electrons and protons begins to dissipate with the larger object you deal with. The Schrodinger Cat experiment can easily be determined not to be the product of two outcomes because we initially believed that the quantum weirdness extends even to our level of every day macroscopic objects, which just isn't the case.

[cosmic rain]

Okay, that makes much more sense than what I thought. I have another question though; why does it matter if it violates uncertainty? Aren't we trying to be certain when we experiment, not uncertain?

 

You should read up on the uncertainty principle. It says you cannot know the truth about a particle's position and momentum simultaneously. You can only know the truth about one or the other at any given time.

 

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

You should read up on the uncertainty principle. It says you cannot know the truth about a particle's position and momentum simultaneously. You can only know the truth about one or the other at any given time.

 

You cannot even know the truth about one thing as that increases the uncertainty in the other to infinite amounts

[math] \sigma_x\sigma_p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}[/math]

 

if one of the quantities is exact, then the standard deviation is zero and you end up with trouble

[Faz]

I saw a youtube documentary on using quantum physics for mind power, basically saying that like this experiment, only when we witnesses a part of reality is when it snaps into place and we become certain about it. Kind of like how if a tree falls but you didn't see it then in your mind no tree fell because it's not part of your reality. The video got so many bad comments it was hilarious. But how about the idea that this is a shared world and we each just witness different things?