The cat is either dead or not. It is not both dead and not dead.
What was the point Schrodinger was trying to convey?
You may say it's just an analogy, but fact of the matter is, the experiment could be easily replicated. And the cat would be either dead or not.
The point he was trying to convey was how ridiculous the many-worlds interpretation is, for the reason you stated.
It is both dead and not dead, that is the whole point of the example..
>the experiment could be easily replicated. And the cat would be either dead or not
That was the kind of the point. It shows how different quantum mechanics are from how things happen in the macroscopic world.
Copenhagen actually
No it isn't
>the experiment could be easily replicated. And the cat would be either dead or not.
What's being discussed is the pre observation state, that is before the box is opened.
If you think that's ridiculous and that *obviously* the cat is alive or dead even when the box is closed then you agree with the point he was trying to make, i.e. that theories that ascribe ontological reality to superposition states must be wrong.
The fact you think schroschro's cat is retarded was exactly his intent.
Because it is.
>You may say it's just an analogy, but fact of the matter is, the experiment could be easily replicated. And the cat would be either dead or not.
It's not an analogy. It's called *thought* experiment. It's not a physical one. The point of it is to show that unobserved phenomena exist in a quantum state. Until it's observed, it's neither here nor there. Read up on wave functions.
>Schrodinger cat threads
you can tell school just started
The point was that quantum mechanics is silly and can't possibly be true. Unfortunately for Schrodinger, Bohr proved that the superposition states of the cat should decay at a rate proportional to its mass, which is fuck huge for quantum scales and means that the superposition could only exist for a vanishingly small period of time.
[insert 8th post, that makes the exact same point as all the other ones here]
[insert 9th post, that makes the exact same point as all the other ones here]
[insert 10th post, that makes the exact same point as all the other ones here]
This is one of those "I barely understand the subject so I'm going to recite my popsci understanding condescendingly to people basically on my level" posts that get worse around the start of school
>until it's observed, you can't know
ok
>until it's observed, it's neither here nor there
bullshit
smaller than planck time?
...
OP here, that's what I was getting at.
Schrodinger created the experiment trying to make the Copenhagen interpretation sound absurd, not trying to defend it.
I dunno. You could probably do something like -(mass energy)/hbar t in the exponent and get some ridiculously small value.
It's neither dead nor alive. It's just in an indeterminate state of every potential outcome.
Threads like this, present an issue with our education system. We simplify advanced concepts so the general undergraduate can get a frail grasp on many complex concepts in a short period of time.
Is this methodology inherently flawed? Would we be better off ignoring concepts like this until they were actual critical to understanding a concept and explaining them in depth, rather than giving short "teaser" explanations which may not be entirely accurate?
I am rather curious what you guys think.
>interpretive physics
What shit school did you go to?
I think the problem with Schrodinger cat is that it's never explained that it's supposed to sound absurd because IT IS ABSURD and that's the whole point.
>muh formulas
>even though it is known as a fact that they are wrong or incomplete or both
>your cat is a vector in the vector space generated by the "alive" and "dead" basis elements
>cat accidentally a hadamard gate
>schrodinger's cat
Wrong? Lol there's a pretty big body of work that suggests otherwise
Yes and yes. There's a big problem of deconstruction of assumption from one theory to another when they're not taught in depth and especially when they are not explicitly taught as models.
I think this cant be and sgouldnt be avoided. As you teach the more basic concepts and foundations at least the smarter students will start asking questions or wonder about the implications. I think there needs to be a good way to explain every concept at the level of the students respectively. A simple "we will do this next year" is not very satisfactory, so education should at least mention what is and what isnt a thing.
There are a lot of misconceptions and half-truths, that stem from oversimplifications that need to be tackled, but I think this is better than people being entirely ignorant
It's easy to tell.
You weigh the box.
When the cat dies, its soul leaves and the box becomes lighter.
No observation needed.
>The cat is either dead or not. It is not both dead and not dead.
That was the point Schrodinger was trying to convey. He was not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Electrons exist in a superposition of states, that is up spin and down spin simultaneously. Only when we measure it does it retain a particular trait, as in up or down spin. This idea is esoteric and tough to grasp.
'
So, the famous chemist Schrodinger came up with his own example. Yes, the cat is both dead and alive until the container is open. Yes, this is hugely confusing. Yes, the whole point of the example is to exaggerate the reality in a macroscopic way to highlight the absurdity that the Copenhagen interpretation is of how atoms operate.
Gravity, bang, QM is dead
But isn't the idea that it is neither alive nor dead observable with the double slit ecperiment? Photons don't can take paths which are neither of the two paths if unobserved.
Schrodinger proved Copenhagen wrong with Schrodinger
The point was NOT to illustrate the weirdness of quantum theories
The point was to illustrate how absurd that interpretation is
>but fact of the matter is, the experiment could be easily replicated
No. Not even close.
Maintaining a macroscopic object in a state of superposition is effectively impossible because of the size of the measurement apparatus you would need to maintain it.
Catbox thread?
youtu.be
>Schroedinger
>Planck
I starting to get curious here lads pic related.
The thing that has always confused me about Schroedingers cat is, how is the geiger counter not considered observation and thus immediately cause the system to collapse in either state. Can someone explain?
>how is the geiger counter not considered observation
Because it is you who are the observer and not the Geiger counter.