Ask a physicist anything. (2)

[Wiccan_Child]

Q.
Is the cat alive?

Reply hazy, try again.

 

[Cabal]

Q.
Is the cat alive?

 

[Assyrian]

yes... and no.

 

[Tinker Grey]

nes and yo

 

[Chesterton]

nosey

 

[Maxwell511]

There's such a thing as causality, but it's not universally binding. Some events are caused by causes, but not all events.

At least, according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.

But has this been proven or is it an assumption?

Neither. It's been verified through about 100 years of evidence (namely, anything that verifies quantum mechanics), so it's extremely well-evidenced, so it's more than an assumption, but not quite proven.

Wiccan Child, when has any interpretation of quantum mechanics been verified? Quantum mechanics has been verified, interpretations of it have not.

Chesterton, there is no issue with causality in QM as far as I can tell. Causality IS universally binding (I don't have a clue which interpretation Wiccan is using but I am sure it is not standard). The only problem, the really weird and interesting stuff, is that the same cause can produce different results. You can fire an electron through double slits and have no clue where it is going to hit the detector. There is, though, a causal relationship between an electron being released and something hitting the detector.

 

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

Q.
Is the cat alive?

Interesting thought experiment (which hammers home the uncertainty of QM), but has anyone done something similar to this in an actual experiment?

 

[pgp_protector]

Interesting thought experiment (which hammers home the uncertainty of QM), but has anyone done something similar to this in an actual experiment?

I don't think PETA would approve.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan Child, when has any interpretation of quantum mechanics been verified? Quantum mechanics has been verified, interpretations of it have not.

Read the next couple of posts:

It's been verified through about 100 years of evidence...

What has been verified?

Quantum mechanic's stubborn disregard for our intuitive understanding of causality.

We clarified that I was talking about the mechanics themselves.

Chesterton, there is no issue with causality in QM as far as I can tell. Causality IS universally binding (I don't have a clue which interpretation Wiccan is using but I am sure it is not standard).

The Copenhagen Interpretation of the Casimir effect, wavefunction collapse, virtual particles, etc.

The only problem, the really weird and interesting stuff, is that the same cause can produce different results. You can fire an electron through double slits and have no clue where it is going to hit the detector. There is, though, a causal relationship between an electron being released and something hitting the detector.

If the same event can cause different results when repeated, then there is spontaneity in the experiment. That is where causality gets upended.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't think PETA would approve.

Why not? They can't prove the cat's in any danger .

 

[Maxwell511]

Interesting thought experiment (which hammers home the uncertainty of QM), but has anyone done something similar to this in an actual experiment?

We have done millions of experiments relating to this. Not intentionally but they have been done by everyone that exists. The question of the cats living, or not, is very similiar to the question of where do we exist. I have met noone that has existed in two or more places at once (in superposition). The result is that the deductions from QM are wrong and we are missing something really important in our understanding of the universe. I personally like Roger Penrose's ideas about mass and gravity playing a rule in state reduction.

Seriously, why don't I exist in two places at once(?) does seem to me be a really important question and does bring home the problems of QM better than the cat experiment.

 

[pgp_protector]

So you watching the game right now ?
28-28 in Overtime right now NO has the ball

 

[Maxwell511]

Read the next couple of posts:





We clarified that I was talking about the mechanics themselves.

Ah. My mistake.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of the Casimir effect, wavefunction collapse, virtual particles, etc.

The Casimir effect was predicted before it was observed. It cannot be uncaused because then it would not have been predicted. I believe you know why it happens and why you can't say that is uncaused.

The rest I'll leave for the moment because I don't want to get into the same conversation on wave collapse as the last time.

If the same event can cause different results when repeated, then there is spontaneity in the experiment. That is where causality gets upended.

If an event can cause anything then causality is not upended.

 

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

We have done millions of experiments relating to this. Not intentionally but they have been done by everyone that exists. The question of the cats living, or not, is very similiar to the question of where do we exist. I have met noone that has existed in two or more places at once (in superposition). The result is that the deductions from QM are wrong and we are missing something really important in our understanding of the universe. I personally like Roger Penrose's ideas about mass and gravity playing a rule in state reduction.

Seriously, why don't I exist in two places at once(?) does seem to me be a really important question and does bring home the problems of QM better than the cat experiment.

I could be wrong, but the Cat thought experiment does not postulate that the cat exists in "two or more places at once".
The point of it is that the decay cannot be nailed down to a single definable moment, but merely relies on a probability of the element decaying at any given moment.


So again, I ask, has anyone performed an actual experiment (PETA being irrelevant) that confirms the S. Cat thought experiment?

 

[Maxwell511]

I could be wrong

You are wrong.

So again, I ask, has anyone performed an actual experiment (PETA being irrelevant) that confirms the S. Cat thought experiment?

You can't do the experiment. You cannot observe the cat when you are not observing it. The point is the cat is (according to QM) both dead and alive while you are not observing it.

 

[chilehed]

You can't do the experiment. You cannot observe the cat when you are not observing it. The point is the cat is (according to QM) both dead and alive while you are not observing it.

Isn't the cat an observer?

 

[Maxwell511]

Isn't the cat an observer?

Not if it is dead.

When state reduction actually occurs (or if it does) is an/the issue.

To hopefully confuse you more. Is the original observer actually an observer? Is the cat dead or alive until it is observed or is it dead or alive until the observer of the cat is observed?

 

[pgp_protector]

So who's observing the observer observing the observer?

 

[Maxwell511]

So who's observing the observer observing the observer?

Some observer!!! It's turtles, I mean observers, all the way down.

 

[Assyrian]

Interesting thought experiment (which hammers home the uncertainty of QM), but has anyone done something similar to this in an actual experiment?

Couldn't CSI establish time of death?