Simple, it is both. You must have both very good, and very poor reflexes up untill the moment you use said reflexes, but untill you do, it means you are both.Zeroththeking said:
Schrodinger's cat?
- Thread starter Zeroththeking
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It is one of the greatest compliments ever. How many people in this world can claim that they are in superposition long enough for anyone to notice? Your friend has both the reflexes of a dead cat and a live cat at the same time! And that time period is long enough for you to notice and verify! He/She is insanely good.
Though I'm not sure how this would be possible, since by noticing his reflex situation you collapse the wave function and force him into one of the states. Unless...
OH MY GOD!!!! YOUR FRIEND IS CHUCK NORRIS!
Though I'm not sure how this would be possible, since by noticing his reflex situation you collapse the wave function and force him into one of the states. Unless...
OH MY GOD!!!! YOUR FRIEND IS CHUCK NORRIS!
That Wikipedia article hurt my brain. Can someone explain to me?
Damn, I'm usually good at these things. I sort of understood the meaning of the experiment, but I don't understand its point.
Damn, I'm usually good at these things. I sort of understood the meaning of the experiment, but I don't understand its point.
The point was to illustrate the absurdity of applying the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics to anything larger than subatomic particles. Just because subatomic particles can exist in several states at once does not mean that anything else can.ElephantGuts said:
I think. That's what I've always heard, but I'm no physicist.
EDIT: See, there you go. All cleared up for you by Maze. Now, I'm going to go back into my little mancave and pretend that physics don't exist, because they make my head hurt.
There's quite a few misconceptions about Schrödinger's Cat here. Let me clear them up.
In Quantum Mechanics, a particle is in an indeterminate wave function until it is measured.
For example, if you fire a photon at two slits the photon will have gone through both slits until you measure it, at which point the wave function will collapse into a one slit case.
This seems absurd. Heisenberg argued it didn't matter that it seemed absurd, because we couldn't expect particles on a quantum level to act in a classical way and these apparent absurdities would be confined to the quantum level.
To counter this, Schrödinger created the thought experiment with the cat, where a cat would be placed in a box with a vial of poison that would be released dependent of whether or not a particle decayed. Now the particle's decay would be based upon QM, and so, until measured, would be in a superposition of having both decayed and not decayed, but the cat's life was directly dependent of the state of the particle and so, must also be in a superposition of being both alive and dead.
The conclusion being that you can't just accept QM on an atomic level, if you accept it there, you have to accept in on our level too.
In Quantum Mechanics, a particle is in an indeterminate wave function until it is measured.
For example, if you fire a photon at two slits the photon will have gone through both slits until you measure it, at which point the wave function will collapse into a one slit case.
This seems absurd. Heisenberg argued it didn't matter that it seemed absurd, because we couldn't expect particles on a quantum level to act in a classical way and these apparent absurdities would be confined to the quantum level.
To counter this, Schrödinger created the thought experiment with the cat, where a cat would be placed in a box with a vial of poison that would be released dependent of whether or not a particle decayed. Now the particle's decay would be based upon QM, and so, until measured, would be in a superposition of having both decayed and not decayed, but the cat's life was directly dependent of the state of the particle and so, must also be in a superposition of being both alive and dead.
The conclusion being that you can't just accept QM on an atomic level, if you accept it there, you have to accept in on our level too.
Until a conscious being observes their state of being it is both a compliment and an insult, call it a 'back-handed compliment' if you like.
Ah, an excellent explanation! I understand now. Thank you sir.Maze1125 said:
Now I can answer the OP's question: I have no idea.
(Not much of an answer but atleast I can confidently say it).
Doesn't necessarily mean the OP is referring to Shrodinger's cat once inside the box. The cat could have had amazing reflexes outside (and inside, in fact) the box, and this would have nothing to do with getting put into the box.ddq5 said:
That explanation was pretty unclear, so allow me to use an analogy. If you tell someone that they have the dashing good looks of (*picks a random dead celebrity*) the late Heath Ledger, that doesn't necessarily mean you are saying that said person is deceased...
I politely disagree with that interpretation, though your reasoning is sound.silver scribbler said:
Firstly, Schrodinger's cat is not one specific cat, it refers to any cat that is in that particular box. Therefore, if the cat is no longer in the box, it is not a Schrodinger's cat. The main point in the original question is not whether the cat is in the box or not, but whether the cat is dead or alive.
Schrodinger's cat experiment demonstrates the principle of superposition: the ability of something to be in two distinctly different states at once (in this case, a cat is both dead and alive at the same time). The superposition is disrupted when you measure that thing (open the box and look at the cat) and the object in question is essentially forced to choose between one of the possible states (the cat is now either dead or alive, but not both).
In quantum mechanics, this is done through the use of wave functions, which presents a probability of an object being in the possible states. Before a measurement, the function is distributed so that the object can be in any of the possible states. But when measured, the function "collapses" so that it shows 100% probability of being in the state that you just measured. If you then leave the object alone for a time, the wave function will then widen out to eventually cover all the possibilities again (how long you have to leave it depends on the object).
To compliment someone for having the reflex of Schrodinger's cat is the equivalent of saying that person has the reflexes of a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time, since Schrodinger's cat is in a superposition (of being dead and alive at the same time). The cat's reflexes are not restricted by the box, but a dead cat's reflexes are roughly equivalent of that of a large boulder. Therefore you have someone who at the same time, has amazing reflexes and is about as agile as a brick wall.
My apologies if my explanations are inadequate or have confused you further.
No, your explanation was in fact incredibly well written. I did already (barely) understand the physics behind the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment. I was not, however, aware that the cat ceased being a Shrodinger's cat if removed from the box, so thanks for clarifying that. I was obviously applying overly simplified logic to the problem.Pingieking said: