Can someone explain to me what Schrodinger's cat means? I don't fucking get it.
it's something that's never relevant to any conversation but that redditors bring up at any opportunity to seem smart and epically scientific
>>27693635
it's a philosophy meme that seeks to explain uncertainty principles in metaphysics
what you have to know:
the cat is in the box
the cat is both alive and dead
fuck you it literally doesn't matter how or why
when you open the box, nature/physics/whatever forces itself to take a specific path, so either the cat is dead or alive after opening
there is no real explanation, there's no secret hidden meaning, that's it
It means random quantum events don't occur at the macroscopic level; the cat cannot be dead or alive. It's being dead or alive is a macroscopic event, not something at the particle level.
man, i hate shit like this, makes me feel like a retard
>>27693679
Why is a cat dying a random quantum event? What separates it from a regular quantum event? Or a regular event that isn't quantum?
>>27693747
A cat dying ISN'T a quantum event. That's the point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics
Educate yourself. Anyone who mentions Schrodinger's cat is a pretentious asshole who doesn't understand the point of the thought experiment in the first place.
>>27693747
This is the actual explanation.
Suppose you have a box, and inside that box is a single radioactive atom that has an equal chance of decaying or not decaying over 1 hour. Also in that box is a Geiger counter that, if it detects radioactivity from that atom, will release a hammer that smashes a vial of gaseous poison. Also in that box is a cat, which will surely die once it has inhaled the poison.
According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the probability of particles decaying is just that, a probability. Meaning that if a particle has a 50% chance of decaying or not, it is considered to have both decayed and not decayed at the same time, until you observe the particle itself. Schrodinger's point was that that logic is absurd to translate into macroscopic systems like a cat in a box, which, by the Copenhagen interpretation, would be both alive and dead at the same time until you opened the box and saw for yourself.
Now Schrodinger's Cat is thrown around by redditors to seem le nerdy and smart XD
>>27693846
I actually don't know anything about Quantum Mechanics. Its why I made the thread because I don't understand the thought experiment yet I hear about it all the time.dont be rude, anon. i'll get to reading though
>>27693846
The point of the thought experiment in the first place was to show any quantum event is absurd since it can be extended to cause some larger uncertainty.
>>27693635
The commonly accepted fact in Quantum theory is that individual atoms are in 2 positions while we're not looking at them. Physics professor reads that and goes, that's fucking dumb.
So he gives a lecture on that makes no sense, because if you put a cat in a box, it stills dies the same as whether we're watching it or not. >>27693846
This, basically.
>>27693891
> quantum event is absurd since it can be extended to cause some larger uncertainty.
I think you mean because it CAN'T be extended logically to express a larger uncertainty
>>27693886
see>>27693880
Who explains it well.
Anyway, QM is fun to read about, it's just annoying to see people mention SC, because it's usually just to show how "totally wacky and quirky I am because I know about a popular thought experiment".
>>27693933
So did Schrodinger just reject that theory, or all of quantum mechanics altogether? His observation makes a lot of sense when you put it like that.
>>27693635
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Until you observe an event, it exists in a superstate of both happening and not happening. Looking at things literally "makes things happen." It's like life is a procedurally generated MMO.
This is shown by the double-slit experiment.
If you shoot electrons through slits, they should splat into a slit-like pattern on the other side.
IF you observe the electrons, they do indeed do that.
IF you don't observe the electrons, they "ripple" through the slits instead and make a fuzzy mess on the other side, indicating that they lose their physicality if they're not observed.
>>27693635
>>27693880
pretty good, but missing the point.
In QM, the particle (in this case the atom) can exist in multiple states. the two states here are decayed and not decayed. So in the formalism, the atom is decayed and not decayed, ergo the cat is dead and alive. Once one opens the box, the system "reacts" to our detection. this is what we call the collaps of the wavefunction. this is what we can see as a result, depending into which state the wavefunction collapsed, meaning death or life.
>>27694020
IF that's legit, then it's proof human life is just a simulation, a very badass one at that
>>27693966
I wouldn't know
It's a philosophical analogy that tries to explain why getting any real data about quantum events is incredibly difficult.
We live on the macroscopic scale, so in order to observe events on a quantum level, we need to introduce macroscopic instruments to the quantum level. The mere act of doing so alters the quantum event, and therefore change it. But it's random in what way we change it, so it's not possible for us to predict the influence the effect measuring the event has on the event.
Therefore, you have to accept the fact that it can be with things at the same time. If measuring a quantum level event gives 2, 3, 4 ... etc results, then we have to conclude that before measuring, it is all of them at the same time.
It's the same with Schrodinger's Cat. We don't know whether the cat is dead or not as we can't predict when the poison will be released. Only opening the box, measuring it, do we know what it is, but there's an equal chance of the cat being dead and being alive. Therefore, we have to accept that before we open the box and measure the status of the cat, it is both dead and alive.
>>27694071
Fuck, I really botched that post. I hope it still makes sense.
>>27693880
Wouldn't the Geiger counter act as an observer?
>11 unique posters
apparently /r9k/ is filled with quantum physicists, damn
>>27694020
You better explain to him that an observer in this case is not a conscious thing but a particle that is directly interacting with what is being "observed", otherwise you're going to breed one of those people that think humans affect physical events with their mind and gets into all that wacky pseudoscience mysticism shit.
It's essentially explaining human measuring bias and perspective, where we apply how humans think to situations that do not require human interactions or mechanics designed by them to work
>>27693674
Same thing with Freud and Psychology.
>>27694105
Schrodinger's Cat is probably the most popular aspect of QM. Entry-level of entry-level.
>>27693635
I don't know but it looks like good wallpaper or a poster.
someone correct me if I'm wrong but from reading these posts and some other stuff on the internet, what I'm getting at is that physicists determined something strange through testing and some guy thought it was wrong? Why do people keep talking about it? There must have been many times people thought scientists were wrong about something, why do people keep talking about this specifically? wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about QM itself instead of one guy's opinion/analogy?
>>27694071
>>27694095
That's not the point, as the chances of life or death would not be equal. The chances of the cat being dead would slowly increase.
It's a refutation of quantum mechanics written by some guy in like the 50's
>>27693678
It has nothing to do with philosophy.
Erwin Schroedinger didn't come up with the thought experiment as a convenient way to illustrate quantum mechanics. Schroedinger's entire point was "quantum mechanics is dumb."
Pretty much every single person who mentions Schroedinger's Cat has missed the entire point of Schroedinger's Cat.
>>27694339
It's a thought experiment dumbass; it's lurid and morbid, so people love it and continue to treat it like it means anything, when it's actually just a really fucking shitty example of practically nothing.
>>27693880
What's the point of "interpreting" inherently unobservable state anyway? It is by definition a state before it has been observed. It's pure metaphysics in the strictest sense, so you can say whatever bullshit you want and it still affects nothing.
Or is that the whole point?
