• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
My takeaway on Keel is that he was an entertainer first and foremost. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for him, however I recognize him for what he was, a sensationalist writer. You are welcome to your own opinion of him, of course.

Don Ecker did an excellent interview with him in which he makes a few surprising admissions. I don't have a link, but I 'm sure it can be easily found.
WELL worth worth seeking out IMO and I will.


Above, above...yeah it was silliness TO, but GDit, I take this "entertainment" a good deal more so seriously than the average individual. I am not prepared to reasonably, nor rationally, declare that and myself as being solely delusional just yet. I just cannot appreciate someone thrusting multiple false perspective based corrections upon me while blanketing the accuracy of as much in the false guise of their first hand experience. Domestic bliss does not a good forum make. Pretense does not good conversation make. My uptake on our friend in question, minus the first or second day of conversation, was a continual mix of each of the later two attributes, and I DO apologize as it simply got the better of me. Maybe it's me that needs to cool it enough to realign my own tolerance perspectives. It's just that in all truth, that would seem counter intuitive to being an honest, assertively forthright, conviction driven contributor. It's a fine line, but I REALLY, on my worst day, don't want to honestly discourage ANYONE EVER. That's simply not me and if anyone, wherever, is deluded enough to walk away from such a priceless paranormal resource as what this forum represents, let alone the archived paracast show, it demonstrates a level of grandiose impulsiveness most assuredly underlining investigative qualities that most any paranormal consideration could do without from the start. Somewhere the spade turns up, and it is called for what it is. Refinement's a bitch.
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
Which is at odds with your instinctive grasp of schrodengers cat , indeed it was Intended as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation.

The cat is either dead or alive in accordance with the mechanism as described, the observer has no effect at all.

Like wise reality is independent of your conciousness
, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, it makes the same noise as if someone were.

Our version of reality is skewed by our perceptions, but the reality goes about its business regardless of our perceptual limitations, for example Its raining neutrinos

Billions of them raining down on you as we speak, that you do not observe them is of no importance
100 billion neutrinos per cm2 per second rain on us to be as exact as one can with this

Whats contained between our ears is the sum total of our sensory bandwidth, not reality itself
This is wrong. The only thing pertinent *is* our observation of the cat being dead or alive, with the chamber sealed, we have NO IDEA OF WHAT THE REALITY CONTAINED THEREIN REPRESENTS due to the nature of super position's effect on reality. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
This is wrong. The only thing pertinent *is* our observation of the cat being dead or alive, with the chamber sealed, we have NO IDEA OF WHAT THE REALITY CONTAINED THEREIN REPRESENTS due to the nature of super position's effect on reality. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
Actually its you whos wrong


Common sense tells us this is not the case, and Schrödinger used this to highlight the limits of the Copenhagen interpretation when applied to practical situations. The cat is actually either dead or alive, whether or not it has been observed.
“[It] prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality,” Schrödinger wrote. “
Schrödinger’s Cat explained - Telegraph
“[It] prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality,” Schrödinger wrote"
And yet youve done just that...........
You missed the point of the exercise
The experiment was designed to illustrate the flaws of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics
In 1935 Schrödinger published an essay describing the conceptual problems in QM
We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives
http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-3.html

Quantum physics postulates a strange superposition of multiple possible states simultaneously, a notion Schrödinger thought ridiculous, and he devised this experiment to illustrate to his Physicist peers ~why~ it was ridiculous. Contrary to popular belief, he was not trying to explain superposition to the general public.

this thought experiment is NOT to be taken literally as it is a reductium ad absurdio to the Copenhagen theory which basically states that all things exist in a superposition until observed. part of this thought experiment was to mock the idea of observers and measurers, who is qualified to be an observer. This was never meant to be take seriously, it was meant to make a mockery of a terriblely thought out and not widely accepted school of thought

New Scientist TV: One-Minute Physics: Is Schrödinger's cat dead or alive?

The whole point of SC cat has gone over your head, thus you dont get the joke.

SC is not an explanation of superposition, its a mockery of it



listen carefully to the 46 second mark, Schrödinger put forth this theory to show the absurdity of quantum theorty.

Schrödinger's cat is not suporting the theory of superposition, its having a laugh at it.

I'm embarrased for you mate

And the fact you cant get your head around something this simple and easy to confirm with google makes discussion of Quantum decoherence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Impossible to even start with


I could go on to discuss quantum decoherance, specifically that von Neumann has not shown the assumption that the collapse occurs at the level of consciousness is equivalent to the assumption that it happens at any other earlier stage if one considers also other possible measurements that could be carried out along the von Neumann chain.

Indeed

Because it was impossible to find precisely at what point does something quantum devolve into a classical state, it was impossible to decide at what point of the measurement process actually sparks the "wave function collapse". Since it is assumed that a conscious observer is involved in the measurement process, it was theorized that perhaps it's the moment of being aware of a measurement that actually sparks the wave function collapse. It's kind of like arguing that life must begin at the exact moment where the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm, because it's too difficult to decide unambiguously where else it could "exactly have begun". John von Neumann was said to have proved this to be a fact, but his proof was later found to contain flaws.


Quantum decoherence asserts that in real life, "quarter wave filters" are not exactly ideal, but slightly imperfect, so that, over time, the quantum state function degrades to the point where it becomes classical, without any need for an observation to be made, or involving any consciousness in the process. In effect, it's the environment itself that eventually forces the "wave function collapse". Once it is understood how it is possible to conceptually and experimentally "bridge" the quantum and the classical states, quantum decoherence theories become easier to grasp, because it implies a degradation over time, something formerly thought to happen only "instantly".

And this makes perfect sense, long before the universe evolved conciousness, wave function collapse was happening, it really doesnt require an observer.

It would be a stunning example of egocentric / humanocentric hubris to think so.

Im sorry Jeff, you have to be "this" tall to take the ride, and you just dont have the mental height necessary to engage in this topic.

Perhaps one day, but not today

I sincerely wish i could find a kinder way to put this

As the wiki stub says

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand
Your inability to grasp what Schrödinger was trying to convey with his cat, puts you in this category.

The “truth”The reason the alive-and-dead cat sounds ridiculous is because it was meant to. Schrödinger’s 1935 thought experiment was intended to show what he considered to be the absurdity of a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics

Schrödinger’s cat | Myth Busters | Fortean Times

Schrödinger is – like countless satirists before and since – a victim of his own success. Generations of theoretical physicists have proposed resolutions to his paradox, while popular culture continues to take it at face value. Erwin may (or may not) be spinning in his grave.

Youve made the classic rookie mistake of taking it at face value.

But cheer up, youve learned something today
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mike

Paranormal Adept
The discontinuous "wave function collapse" postulated in the Copenhagen interpretation to enable the theory to be related to the results of laboratory measurements now can be understood as an aspect of the normal dynamics of quantum mechanics via the decoherence process. Consequently, decoherence is an important part of the modern alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, based on consistent histories. Decoherence shows how a macroscopic system interacting with a lot of microscopic systems (e.g. collisions with air molecules or photons) moves from being in a pure quantum state—which in general will be a coherent superposition (see Schrödinger's cat)—to being in an incoherent mixture of these states. The weighting of each outcome in the mixture in case of measurement is exactly that which gives the probabilities of the different results of such a measurement.

The many worlds interpretation, does allow for global superpositions. But its not a theory i personally favour.
We currently observe one universe, and i have an issue with the energy required to sustain multiple universe of every order of probability.

If the universe splits in two with every single possible choice made by every single possible option available, the energy required to maintain these multiverses is beyond mindboggling, the one we observe is mindboggling enough, without permutations in the orders of magnitude such a possibility would require.

In short i dont think superposition needs an observer to collapse the wave function from quantum to classical, Its a natural process similar to atomic decay.

Thats my last word on this, i dont claim to be right. But neither am i going to subject myself or the audience here to the headache of debating such a complex topic
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
Mike,
Please stop pretending you are doing anything other than bolstering perspective consensus and opinion here. Just admit that you don't "get it", or that you simply have chosen to entertain an alternate view. What you personally think is meaningless with respect to super position. This is science Mike, and no, you didn't write that book either. You don't claim to be right, yet you go out of your way to state that others are wrong. Explain that to me apart from your ego defending itself. The TRUTH is that the nature of what is happening in the box/chamber prior to observation is non specific. Uncertain. End of story.
 

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
Will everyone holding an advanced degree (or any degree at all) in theoretical physics, math, or chemistry please raise their hands? Uhhh-huh.
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
Mike,
Please stop pretending you are doing anything other than bolstering perspective consensus and opinion here. Just admit that you don't "get it", or that you simply have chosen to entertain an alternate view. What you personally think is meaningless with respect to super position. This is science Mike, and no, you didn't write that book either. You don't claim to be right, yet you go out of your way to state that others are wrong. Explain that to me apart from your ego defending itself. The TRUTH is that the nature of what is happening in the box/chamber prior to observation is non specific. Uncertain. End of story.
I dont need to explain, cant you read ?

Schrodinger himself explains it

Question: What is Schrodinger's Cat?
Answer: Erwin Schrodinger was one of the key figures in quantum physics, even before his famous "Schrodinger's Cat" thought experiment. He had created the quantum wave function, which was now the defining equation of motion in the universe, but the problem is that it expressed all motion in the form of a series of probabilities ... something which goes in direct violation to how most scientists of the day (and possibly even today) like to believe about how physical reality operates.
Schrodinger himself was one such scientist and he came up with the concept of Schrodinger's Cat to illustrate the issues with quantum physics. Let's consider the issues, then, and see how Schrodinger sought to illustrate them through analogy.

Whether or not the scientist opens the box is irrelevant, the cat is either alive or dead, not a superposition of the two states.

Schrodinger's Cat Thought Experiment

Schrodinger created this experiment, not to demonstrate superposition, but to criticise it.

But apparently you know better than schrodinger himself what the cat in the box is supposed to illustrate.

The cat is either dead or alive, not both that was the point he was trying to make.

You cant seriously be telling us if you performed the experiment today, the cat would be niether dead nor alive until you opened the box and looked in ?

Thats a direct violation of how physical reality operates.

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum.[2] The thought experiment illustrates quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation.

The nature of what is happening in the box is VERY specific, its either alive, dying or dead, its not all three

Whether or not the scientist opens the box is irrelevant the cat is either alive or dead, not a superposition of the two states.
Schrodinger's Cat Thought Experiment.

Heres what he said

Schrödinger wrote:[2][3]
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)


Ive posted link after link making the point it wasnt supposed to illustrate superposition it was suppposed to show how absurd it is, but apparently you know better than Schrodinger himself what he was trying to say. It was intended to show superposition was an invalid blurred model


"I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
-Erwin Schrödinger, speaking of quantum mechanics
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mike

Paranormal Adept
This thought experiment is widely misunderstood. It was meant (by both Einstein and Schrödinger) to suggest that quantum mechanics describes the simultaneous (and obviously contradictory) existence of a live and dead cat

Erwin Schrödinger's intention for his infamous cat-killing box was to discredit certain non-intuitive implications of quantum mechanics

Einstein and Schrödinger did not like the fundamental randomness implied by quantum mechanics. They wanted to restore determinism to physics. Indeed Schrödinger's wave equation predicts a perfectly deterministic time evolution of the wave function
Schrödinger's Cat


Erwin Schrödinger's intention for his infamous cat-killing box was to discredit certain non-intuitive implications of quantum mechanics

But apparently you know his intention better than he did.
Now THATS an ego

But you should take heart

This thought experiment is widely misunderstood


You misunderstood the intent behind schrodingers cat, no biggie. Now you know the truth

Live and learn thats the way to go
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mike

Paranormal Adept
The TRUTH is that the nature of what is happening in the box/chamber prior to observation is non specific. Uncertain. .
I was taught never to kick a man when hes down.......
Unless he looks like he might get up again lol

But lets suppose for a moment that SC was intended to demonstrate rather than discredit the observer effect.
Schrodinger as i have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt intended to use SC to discredit the idea not promote it, but lets say the opposite were true.

Its a fundamentally flawed experiment



The Copenhagen interpretation states that the act of measuring something causes the quantum wave function to collapse. In this analogy, really, the act of measurement takes place by the Geiger counter. There are scores of interactions along the chain of events - it is impossible to isolate the cat or the separate portions of the system so that it is truly quantum mechanical in nature.
By the time the cat itself enters the equation, the measurement has already been made ... a thousand times over, measurements have been made - by the atoms of the Geiger counter, the vial-breaking apparatus, the vial, the poison gas, and the cat itself. Even the atoms of the box are making "measurements" when you consider that if the cat falls over dead, it will come in contact with different atoms than if it paces anxiously around the box.
Whether or not the scientist opens the box is irrelevant, the cat is either alive or dead, not a superposition of the two states.

The cat is either dead or alive before the observer opens the box, The wave function has already collapsed. Its status is not uncertain, its one or the other

Schrodinger's Cat Thought Experiment

Schrödinger himself said, later in life, that he "wished he had never met that cat".

Stephen Hawking is famously quoted as saying "When I hear about Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun." This represents the thoughts of many physicists, because there are several aspects the thought experiment that bring up issues. The biggest problem with the analogy is that quantum physics typically only operates on the microscopic scale of atoms and subatomic particles, not on the macroscopic scale of cats and poison vials.

Notwithstanding the experiment was intended to discredit not demonstrate the observer effect, it is in and of itself so flawed as to be cable of doing so even if it were.



Double Bazinga.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mike

Paranormal Adept
Touching again on the many worlds hypothesis and why i dont think its likely

If quantum theory indicates that the atom is both decayed and not decayed, then the many worlds interpretation concludes that there must exist two universes: one in which the particle decayed and one in which it did not. The universe therefore branches off each and every time that a quantum event takes place

In this interpretation, every time a "random" event takes place, the universe splits between the various options available. Each separate version of the universe contains a different outcome of that event. Instead of one continuous timeline, the universe under the many worlds interpretation looks more like a series of branches splitting off of a tree limb.

The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics, which proposes that the situation actually branches off into many worlds. In some of these worlds the cat will be dead upon opening the box, in others the cat will be alive. While fascinating to the public, and certainly to science fiction authors, the Many Worlds Interpretation is also a minority view among physicists

Again can you imagine the energy involved at just the atomic decay level ?

Let alone such events such as the wind on a blade of grass type scenario's does the grass stem break or bend ? it does both and two entirely seperate universes are born of the event.....


This culminates in the famous Schroedinger's cat thought experiment, which shows the logical contradictions in trying to apply the Schroedinger wavefunction literally
Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) - What is the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics?
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
Touching again on the many worlds hypothesis and why i dont think its likely

If quantum theory indicates that the atom is both decayed and not decayed, then the many worlds interpretation concludes that there must exist two universes: one in which the particle decayed and one in which it did not. The universe therefore branches off each and every time that a quantum event takes place

In this interpretation, every time a "random" event takes place, the universe splits between the various options available. Each separate version of the universe contains a different outcome of that event. Instead of one continuous timeline, the universe under the many worlds interpretation looks more like a series of branches splitting off of a tree limb.

The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics, which proposes that the situation actually branches off into many worlds. In some of these worlds the cat will be dead upon opening the box, in others the cat will be alive. While fascinating to the public, and certainly to science fiction authors, the Many Worlds Interpretation is also a minority view among physicists

Again can you imagine the energy involved at just the atomic decay level ?

Let alone such events such as the wind on a blade of grass type scenario's does the grass stem break or bend ? it does both and two entirely seperate universes are born of the event.....




Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) - What is the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics?
Mike,
PLEASE, stop. What was that you stated about "the last word on the matter"? For everyone that , and I swear to goodness that this *is* my last word on the matter, is interested in clearly understanding Schrodinger's Cat experiment, just go to this one simple link and read it for yourself. There is no need for 80 posts that attempt to inform when one little simple link will more than do the trick. I wish you all the best with this one. There are in fact 3 or 4 very classic interpretations of the experiment that are presently held in well recognized esteem, so you'll need to more or less choose what makes sense to you.

I will state that I have heard some of the most incredulous statements I have ever heard on the matter right here in this thread, but here it is for your own defining pleasure.

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would LOVE to know what YOU define this experiment as revealing. To me, it reveals the extremely uncertain nature of the most minute and intricate reality building blocks known to man.

Peace/Out
 

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
And for the paranormal visual learners in the audence here is the true story of Schrödinger's Cat. In some ways it represents the discussion above as in, when you look carefully at the discussion Mike is right 50% of the time and Jeff is right 50% of the time, or something like that. I can't tell; it's too entangling. Ba-Dump-Bump! Chhhssssssss!!!
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
Taking a topopgrahical view its clear Jeff has formed a quasi-religious view that reality doest actually exist outside of conciousness

At any one time, the sum total of all reality is contained between our ears. That includes everyone you meet. Apart from personal experience, they do not exist. .
Reality is subjective and does NOT exist apart from yourself or the human condition. Absolutely impossible to prove otherwise.
And that schrodingers cat proves this is so, that conciousness affects reality.

And like all religious zealots, no amount of proof, no amount of clear and obvious truth will shake his faith, that his brand of sillyness is correct.

The universe aka reality was ticking along nicely long before conciousness evolved out of the biological process, for billions of years in fact.
Schrodingers thought experiment, as i have proven was designed to discredit the observer effect, not demonstrate it.

He has the firm religious belief that were you to perform the experiment that cat would indeed exist in a state of being both dead and alive, completely contrary to what schrodinger was trying to point out.

Heres what Einstein had to say about the experiment from the link you posted


The thought experiment illustrates this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.[4]
Einstien thought the idea of a both dead and alive cat absurd, and that the thought experiment refutes (do you know what refutes means jeff) most elegantly the superposition idea, that the cats state is independant of the act of observation.

Ive given example after example, directly quoted Schrodinger and Einstein, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the purpose of the SC thought experiment was to refute as absurd superposition and the observer effect, not demonstrate and confirm it.

But clearly since youve incorporated it into your religious view that conciousness creates reality, no amount of proof will ever shake your faith


And again notwithstanding the experiment was designed to discredit the observer effect, noy demonstrate it even if we forget that for a momemnt

However, one of the main scientists associated with the Copenhagen interpretation,
Niels Bohr, never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave function, so that Schrödinger's cat did not pose any riddle to him. The cat would be either dead or alive long before the box is opened by a conscious observer.[6] Analysis of an actual experiment found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave function before there is any conscious observation of the measurement.[7] The view that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector can be developed into objective collapse theories. The thought experiment requires an "unconscious observation" by the detector in order for magnification to occur..
So you are 100 percent wrong about scrodingers cat on two distinct levels, one that it was designed to demonstrete the effect, and two that actually does demonstrate the effect
 

mike

Paranormal Adept
And for the paranormal visual learners in the audence here is the true story of Schrödinger's Cat. In some ways it represents the discussion above as in, when you look carefully at the discussion Mike is right 50% of the time and Jeff is right 50% of the time, or something like that. I can't tell; it's too entangling. Ba-Dump-Bump! Chhhssssssss!!!
While i get the attempt at humour, it must be pointed out the joke falls flat for the very reasons ive been posting

This was the very point of the SC experiment, to show that things like entanglment and superposition simply dont work at a macro level.

Stephen Hawking is famously quoted as saying "When I hear about Schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun." This represents the thoughts of many physicists, because there are several aspects the thought experiment that bring up issues. The biggest problem with the analogy is that quantum physics typically only operates on the microscopic scale of atoms and subatomic particles, not on the macroscopic scale of cats and poison vials.
Or in this case jeff and I, that was the whole point of the exercise, to show that the cat, a macro element could not be in a micro/quantum state ie both dead and alive.

If the Copenhagen interpretation suggests the radioactive material can have simultaneously decayed and not decayed in the sealed environment, then it follows the cat too is both alive and dead until the box is opened

Common sense tells us this is not the case, and Schrödinger used this to highlight the limits of the Copenhagen interpretation when applied to practical situations. The cat is actually either dead or alive, whether or not it has been observed.
“[It] prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality,” Schrödinger wrote. “

The experiment was designed to illustrate the flaws of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics, which states that a particle exists in all states at once until observed.
Schrödinger’s Cat explained - Telegraph

Jeff and i cannot be in an entangled 50/50 state because we are at the macro level, these effects only occur at the micro level

In 1935 Schrödinger published an essay describing the conceptual problems in QM .
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a ``blurred model'' for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite macroscopic state. That is the measurement problem and Schrödinger's cat is a simple and elegant explanations of that problem
Even without a mechanical recorder, the cat's death sets in motion biological processes that constitute an equivalent, if gruesome, recording. When a dead cat is the result, a sophisticated autopsy can provide an approximate time of death, because the cat's body is acting as an event recorder. There never is a superposition (in the sense of the simultaneous existence) of live and dead cats.
The paradox points clearly to the Information Philosophy solution to the problem of measurement. Human observers are not required to make measurements. In this case, the cat is the observer.
In most physics measurements, the new information is captured by apparatus well before any physicist has a chance to read any dials or pointers that indicate what happened. Indeed, in today's high-energy particle interaction experiments, the data may be captured but not fully analyzed until many days or even months of computer processing establishes what was observed. In this case, the experimental apparatus is the observer.
And, in general, the universe is its own observer, able to record (and sometimes preserve) the information created.

The basic assumption made in Schrödinger's cat thought experiments is that the deterministic Schrödinger equation describing a microscopic superposition of decayed and non-decayed radioactive nuclei evolves deterministically into a macroscopic superposition of live and dead cats.
But since the essence of a "measurement" is an interaction with another system (quantum or classical) that creates information to be seen (later) by an observer, the interaction between the nucleus and the cat is more than enough to collapse the wave function. Calculating the probabilities for that collapse allows us to estimate the probabilities of live and dead cats. These are probabilities, not probability amplitudes. They do not interfere with one another.
After the interaction, they are not in a superposition of states. We always have either a live cat or a dead cat, just as we always observe a complete photon after a polarization measurement and not a superposition of photon states, as P.A.M.Dirac explains so simply and clearly.
Schrödinger's Cat

Jeff and i cannot be in a state of entanglement any more than the cat could be in a superposition

The reason the alive-and-dead cat sounds ridiculous is because it was meant to. Schrödinger’s 1935 thought experiment was intended to show what he considered to be the absurdity of a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. He imagined shutting a live cat in a box containing what he called a “diabolical mechanism”, which, depending on an event that can’t be predicted, would either kill or not kill the animal. If the theory accepted by most of his colleagues were taken to its logical conclusion, the cat would at some point be neither wholly alive nor wholly dead – and would only become either alive or dead at the moment that an observer looked inside the box. This, Schrödinger pointed out, was just plain silly, and therefore the theory must be incomplete
Schrödinger’s cat | Myth Busters | Fortean Times

Shrodinger thought it silly and ridiculous
Einstein thought it was absurd
Hawking wants to grab his gun when he hears of it (perhaps the funniest mental image to date)
Niels Bohr gets it (that the cat is either dead or alive not both)


Jeff thinks he know better than these four.........

Which would be funny if it wasnt just plain sad
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Muadib

Paranormal Adept
Jeff and I have been down this particular road before, as has been pointed out none of us really know, Mike's interpretation is the more mainstream and accepted one, it suffers from the fewest logical inconsistencies and it's the one that I ultimately agree with. However, it must be pointed out that there are some scientists out there who side with Jeff and believe that consciousness causes the wave function collapse. I don't personally buy it, but until it's eliminated as a viable option, I can't fault anyone for wanting to believe it. It makes consciousness inseparable from the very fabric of the universe itself, and by extension, it makes those of us who are conscious part of that fabric as well. It's a very romantic idea. You can read about the 3 main interpretations of the wave function collapse problem here:

Quantum collapse - RationalWiki

One thing I would like to know is if Jeff, or anyone else, who believes that consciousness causes collapse has an answer to this thought problem, put forth by Shimon Malin, it illustrates a very real problem with the idea of conscious observation being responsible for wave function collapse:

"Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all."
 
Last edited:

S.R.L.

Paranormal Adept
This may help or possibly confuse, for whatever its worth. After spending decades of time and billions of dollars you would tend to think that someone would have figured this out by now. There have been scientists who have been sent to the edge of madness in the pursuit of this answer. Pilot Wave Theory, once thought to be the answer, apparently was just a way to skirt around the wave collapse problem. Anyone interested in the real time thinking on this may want to visit Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums



 
Last edited:


Top