Quantum uncertainty, and Schrodinger's cat

[bilby]

This is a thought experiment based on theory. It can probably be a hypothesis because nobody has disproven it yet, but it is theoretically possible according to our present knowledge about quantum mechanics. A hypothesis is "soft" science but it is still science; it's stronger than just a random assumption.

Thought experiments and theoretical physics have been correct in the past. Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted gravitational lensing. QM predicts this.

It doesn't matter how you try to couch an unsupported claim.

Without evidence to support it I have no reason to believe in beasts such as cats that are both alive and dead.

I don't think you understand the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment:

1) The cat in the experiment is placed in a 'box' (an unobservable location),

2) The 'box' also contains a mechanism that will, with 100% certainty, kill the cat if a certain quantum event (eg the decay of a radioactive particle), which has a 50% chance of happening, occurs.

3) We know from Quantum theory that it is only possible to correctly predict the future state of a quantum system in which such an event may have occurred, by considering the event (in this case, the radioactive decay) to exist in a superimposed state of both having occurred and having not occurred, until such time as an observation 'collapses the wave function', to produce only one of the two possible outcomes.

1, 2 and 3 are not in dispute; 1 and 2 are premises of the experiment, and 3 is amongst the best supported facts in all of science today.

4) Given 3 and 2, we can say with confidence that the only way to correctly model the future state of the system before it is observed, is to consider it as existing in superimposed states of both possible outcomes having occurred; and that this superposition of states must apply not only to the microscopic event (the radioactive decay), but also to the macroscopic event (the life or death of the cat).

This thought experiment was specifically designed to highlight the fact that the observed reality at the quantum level is both transferable to the macroscopic level, and completely at odds with our understanding of reality. In other words, it is exactly as reasonable to think of a cat that is both dead and alive, as it is to think of a radioactive material that has both decayed and not decayed, or an electron that is both over here and over there at the same time - and it is demonstrable that these are irretrievably connected states of affairs. If it is possible for electrons to be in two places at once, then it is also possible for cats to be both alive and dead simultaneously (and the life or death of the cat in this thought experiment is merely a place-holder - for all probabilistic events at all scales - and has nothing to do with life per se, so it is not a biological question).

Now, one can (and clearly you do) try to resolve this by simply declaring that at all scales, probabilistic events are immediately resolved - the radioactive decay either happens OR it does not; the electron passes through slit A OR slit B; the cat is alive OR dead.

But we know from experiment, and from Quantum theory, that this is not true. We know (with as great a degree of certainty as we have ever known anything), that the radioactive decay BOTH happens AND it does not; and that the electron passes through BOTH slit A AND slit B, unless and until an observation is made to determine which of these actually occurred. The only logical conclusions we can therefore reach, are that either the cat is BOTH alive AND dead, or that Quantum theory is completely wrong.

It seems unreasonable to throw out the single best supported scientific theory in history, simply because we don't like the un-testable and unobservable consequences that this theory has for reality.

 

[skepticalbip]

It doesn't matter how you try to couch an unsupported claim.

Without evidence to support it I have no reason to believe in beasts such as cats that are both alive and dead.

"..the 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality 'ought to be.'"
~ Richard Feynman,

It is irrelevant whether you believe it or not, whether you understand it or not. There are a great many people who don't believe we ever landed on the Moon but it still happened. Of course, it would be impossible to convince them because they don't want to believe it - it conflicts with their world view.

 

[beero1000]

I'm really looking forward to the day that untermensche backs down from one of his 'grand proclamations of obvious truth'.

 

[bilby]

I'm really looking forward to the day that untermensche backs down from one of his 'grand proclamations of obvious truth'.

I advise against holding your breath.

 

[barbos]

You are being intentionally dense, aren't you?

You seem to offer nothing but insults.

Again, the reason we need biology is because physics doesn't have a definition of life.

That doesn't mean a cat can be both alive and dead. That is only some nonsense a physicist would believe.

Discussed problem has nothing to do with biology or even cats.

 

[Juma]

Yes. But this is about your claim.

My claim is that no evidence supports the claim that an animal can be both alive and dead.

Again, there is nothing in physics which can tell the difference between life and not-life.

This is not evidence of the claim about animals being alive and dead. This is a blindness.

Why wouldnt a cat follow the laws of physics?

 

[untermensche]

My claim is that no evidence supports the claim that an animal can be both alive and dead.

Again, there is nothing in physics which can tell the difference between life and not-life.

This is not evidence of the claim about animals being alive and dead. This is a blindness.

Why wouldnt a cat follow the laws of physics?

Just show me a cat that is both alive and dead and I will agree it is a law of physics.

I won't agree to anything that has no evidence to support it.

What rational person would?

 

[bilby]

My claim is that no evidence supports the claim that an animal can be both alive and dead.

Again, there is nothing in physics which can tell the difference between life and not-life.

This is not evidence of the claim about animals being alive and dead. This is a blindness.

Why wouldnt a cat follow the laws of physics?

They are not known for their obedience.

 

[untermensche]

I'm really looking forward to the day that untermensche backs down from one of his 'grand proclamations of obvious truth'.

Asking for evidence of wild claims is a grand proclamation?

Believing wild claims based on no evidence but only speculation is the problem here, not me.

 

[bilby]

I'm really looking forward to the day that untermensche backs down from one of his 'grand proclamations of obvious truth'.

Asking for evidence of wild claims is a grand proclamation?

Believing wild claims based on no evidence but only speculation is the problem here, not me.

Only if you consider Quantum Electrodynamics (probably the best evidenced theory in the history of the world) to constitute 'wild claims based on no evidence but only speculation'. If you accept QED, then the problem must be you.

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't matter how you try to couch an unsupported claim.

Without evidence to support it I have no reason to believe in beasts such as cats that are both alive and dead.

"..the 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality 'ought to be.'"
~ Richard Feynman,

It is irrelevant whether you believe it or not, whether you understand it or not. There are a great many people who don't believe we ever landed on the Moon but it still happened. Of course, it would be impossible to convince them because they don't want to believe it - it conflicts with their world view.

You are right that it doesn't matter if I understand.

But it does matter if there is evidence to support a claim.

All I need is evidence of a cat that is both alive and dead, not claims of one.

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't matter how you try to couch an unsupported claim.

Without evidence to support it I have no reason to believe in beasts such as cats that are both alive and dead.

I don't think you understand the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment:

1) The cat in the experiment is placed in a 'box' (an unobservable location),

2) The 'box' also contains a mechanism that will, with 100% certainty, kill the cat if a certain quantum event (eg the decay of a radioactive particle), which has a 50% chance of happening, occurs.

3) We know from Quantum theory that it is only possible to correctly predict the future state of a quantum system in which such an event may have occurred, by considering the event (in this case, the radioactive decay) to exist in a superimposed state of both having occurred and having not occurred, until such time as an observation 'collapses the wave function', to produce only one of the two possible outcomes.

1, 2 and 3 are not in dispute; 1 and 2 are premises of the experiment, and 3 is amongst the best supported facts in all of science today.

4) Given 3 and 2, we can say with confidence that the only way to correctly model the future state of the system before it is observed, is to consider it as existing in superimposed states of both possible outcomes having occurred; and that this superposition of states must apply not only to the microscopic event (the radioactive decay), but also to the macroscopic event (the life or death of the cat).

This thought experiment was specifically designed to highlight the fact that the observed reality at the quantum level is both transferable to the macroscopic level, and completely at odds with our understanding of reality. In other words, it is exactly as reasonable to think of a cat that is both dead and alive, as it is to think of a radioactive material that has both decayed and not decayed, or an electron that is both over here and over there at the same time - and it is demonstrable that these are irretrievably connected states of affairs. If it is possible for electrons to be in two places at once, then it is also possible for cats to be both alive and dead simultaneously (and the life or death of the cat in this thought experiment is merely a place-holder - for all probabilistic events at all scales - and has nothing to do with life per se, so it is not a biological question).

Now, one can (and clearly you do) try to resolve this by simply declaring that at all scales, probabilistic events are immediately resolved - the radioactive decay either happens OR it does not; the electron passes through slit A OR slit B; the cat is alive OR dead.

But we know from experiment, and from Quantum theory, that this is not true. We know (with as great a degree of certainty as we have ever known anything), that the radioactive decay BOTH happens AND it does not; and that the electron passes through BOTH slit A AND slit B, unless and until an observation is made to determine which of these actually occurred. The only logical conclusions we can therefore reach, are that either the cat is BOTH alive AND dead, or that Quantum theory is completely wrong.

It seems unreasonable to throw out the single best supported scientific theory in history, simply because we don't like the un-testable and unobservable consequences that this theory has for reality.

Again, it doesn't matter how one tries to couch a claim and boost up it's credibility.

A claim without evidence is an empty claim.

A claim that a cat can be both alive and dead is an empty claim.

And it doesn't matter how many people believe the claim.

 

[barbos]

LOL

 

[bilby]

I don't think you understand the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment:

1) The cat in the experiment is placed in a 'box' (an unobservable location),

2) The 'box' also contains a mechanism that will, with 100% certainty, kill the cat if a certain quantum event (eg the decay of a radioactive particle), which has a 50% chance of happening, occurs.

3) We know from Quantum theory that it is only possible to correctly predict the future state of a quantum system in which such an event may have occurred, by considering the event (in this case, the radioactive decay) to exist in a superimposed state of both having occurred and having not occurred, until such time as an observation 'collapses the wave function', to produce only one of the two possible outcomes.

1, 2 and 3 are not in dispute; 1 and 2 are premises of the experiment, and 3 is amongst the best supported facts in all of science today.

4) Given 3 and 2, we can say with confidence that the only way to correctly model the future state of the system before it is observed, is to consider it as existing in superimposed states of both possible outcomes having occurred; and that this superposition of states must apply not only to the microscopic event (the radioactive decay), but also to the macroscopic event (the life or death of the cat).

This thought experiment was specifically designed to highlight the fact that the observed reality at the quantum level is both transferable to the macroscopic level, and completely at odds with our understanding of reality. In other words, it is exactly as reasonable to think of a cat that is both dead and alive, as it is to think of a radioactive material that has both decayed and not decayed, or an electron that is both over here and over there at the same time - and it is demonstrable that these are irretrievably connected states of affairs. If it is possible for electrons to be in two places at once, then it is also possible for cats to be both alive and dead simultaneously (and the life or death of the cat in this thought experiment is merely a place-holder - for all probabilistic events at all scales - and has nothing to do with life per se, so it is not a biological question).

Now, one can (and clearly you do) try to resolve this by simply declaring that at all scales, probabilistic events are immediately resolved - the radioactive decay either happens OR it does not; the electron passes through slit A OR slit B; the cat is alive OR dead.

But we know from experiment, and from Quantum theory, that this is not true. We know (with as great a degree of certainty as we have ever known anything), that the radioactive decay BOTH happens AND it does not; and that the electron passes through BOTH slit A AND slit B, unless and until an observation is made to determine which of these actually occurred. The only logical conclusions we can therefore reach, are that either the cat is BOTH alive AND dead, or that Quantum theory is completely wrong.

It seems unreasonable to throw out the single best supported scientific theory in history, simply because we don't like the un-testable and unobservable consequences that this theory has for reality.

Again, it doesn't matter how one tries to couch a claim and boost up it's credibility.

A claim without evidence is an empty claim.

A claim that a cat can be both alive and dead is an empty claim.

And it doesn't matter how many people believe the claim.

If you can describe Quantum Electrodynamics as 'an empty claim', and do so with a straight face, then there is no hope for you.

You will not be understanding the universe today.

 

[tupac chopra]

If you can describe Quantum Electrodynamics as 'an empty claim', and do so with a straight face, then there is no hope for you.

You will not be understanding the universe today.

If only we understood it as you do.

This thought experiment was specifically designed to highlight the fact that the observed reality at the quantum level is both transferable to the macroscopic level, and completely at odds with our understanding of reality

How do you know your crazy theory is transferable?

 

[DBT]

Wave collapse is expressed as the deterministc world of macro scale structures and events, hence little or no display of quantum superposition on a macro scale.

The bottle of beer on the table empties according to Newtonian principles and is never both full and empty in the same moment in time, hence the quantum to classical transition, below Compton scale quantum weirdness, superpostion, etc, is strong, but above that scale, quantum effects are weak or non existent.

In other words, the quantum to classical transition called decoherance.

 

[untermensche]

If you can describe Quantum Electrodynamics as 'an empty claim', and do so with a straight face, then there is no hope for you.

You will not be understanding the universe today.

I'm not.

I'm saying the specific claim that a cat can be both alive and dead is an empty claim.

 

[PyramidHead]

I must admit to some ignorance about quantum electrodynamics, but if a cat that is neither (a better word than 'both' I think) alive nor dead is a necessary outcome of the theory, then it would be hard to deny it without denying the whole theory. As I understand, quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate scientific model of reality ever devised, in terms of the predictions it makes about empirically observable phenomena.

 

[untermensche]

I must admit to some ignorance about quantum electrodynamics, but if a cat that is neither (a better word than 'both' I think) alive nor dead is a necessary outcome of the theory, then it would be hard to deny it without denying the whole theory. As I understand, quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate scientific model of reality ever devised, in terms of the predictions it makes about empirically observable phenomena.

You are expressing faith.

I don't share your faith.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How can you grok quantum or relativistic Reality from a "logical," commonsense, 3-D, cause-and-effect, point of view? Everyday experience does not apply. Our minds aren't built to comprehend it.

The question is not understanding quantum physics but giving an expression (formulation, description, wording) of the situation relative to the cat in shrödinger's experiment.

It's not exactly that there's a single, actual live/dead cat waiting to be discovered or 'realised' by an outside observer. Real Reality is more like a field of all things possible, which our perception collapses into a single potentiality or, alternatively, which doesn't collapse but from which we're only able to follow one of the myriad potential realities.

It's not that either. What we have are a number of different interpretations and maybe none of them is correct.

For me, the problem, when there is one, is that of the formulation. Alternative universes, it's Ok, no problems. A cat both dead and alive, that is a problem. Just change the wording, it's good enough.
EB