- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Reply hazy, try again.Q.
Is the cat alive?
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.
Interesting thought experiment (which hammers home the uncertainty of QM), but has anyone done something similar to this in an actual experiment?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?
Read the next couple of posts:Wiccan Child, when has any interpretation of quantum mechanics been verified? Quantum mechanics has been verified, interpretations of it have not.
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.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of the Casimir effect, wavefunction collapse, virtual particles, etc.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).
If the same event can cause different results when repeated, then there is spontaneity in the experiment. That is where causality gets upended.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.
Why not? They can't prove the cat's in any dangerI don't think PETA would approve.
Interesting thought experiment (which hammers home the uncertainty of QM), but has anyone done something similar to this in an actual experiment?
Read the next couple of posts:
We clarified that I was talking about the mechanics themselves.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of the Casimir effect, wavefunction collapse, virtual particles, etc.
If the same event can cause different results when repeated, then there is spontaneity in the experiment. That is where causality gets upended.
I could be wrong, but the Cat thought experiment does not postulate that the cat exists in "two or more places at once".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
So again, I ask, has anyone performed an actual experiment (PETA being irrelevant) that confirms the S. Cat thought experiment?
Isn't the cat an observer?
So who's observing the observer observing the observer?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?