Schrodinger's Cat

  • DistractionFox

    DistractionFox (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    @ Kurtni
    It's taught in chemistry/physics and psychology.
    It presents two key aspects.
    But it is most commonly discussed and studied in psychology.
    August 8th, 2012 at 05:26pm
  • wx12

    wx12 (10125)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    United States
    @ DistractionFox
    I've never heard of Schrodinger's cat being discussed in psychology. Do you mean philosophy?

    Either way, the point of my post was that philosophy has manipulated and twisted what Schrodinger's cat actually was; a comment on the absurdity of a theory in a non-scientific analogy, not a legitimate or realistic situation. Schrodinger did not believe this was a real conundrum; it was a comical tongue in cheek criticism of quantum physics. The theory Schrodinger's cat applies to does not apply to systems like a living cat, but sub atomic, quantum systems.

    I just find it irritating (and a lack of knowledge of the history of Schrodinger's cat) when philosophy teachers or students present this is a legitimate scientific discussion and debate it; there is no science that says a cat in a box can be both alive and dead, that's a gross perversion of what the analogy applies to.
    August 8th, 2012 at 05:42pm
  • DistractionFox

    DistractionFox (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    @Kurtni
    No xD I'm from England :')
    My boyfriend was taught about it in AS level psycholgy for one of the modules.

    I wasn't desputing that, only pointing out that is taught in both subjects for two different reasons and that despite it not being it's original purpose, it not has that concept aswell.
    But in pyschology it is taught to show how the mind can be manipulated to believe things due to lack of knowledge/experience or by others.

    Much like many other things, the original purpose is no longer it's ONLY purpose.
    A few simple examples are how a book can be used as a fan despite the fact it's original purpose is for entertainment, the fact that glue is often used as a drug despite it's original purpose being to join to objects together. Human's adapt the use of objects and theories to suit their needs. It's human nature.
    August 8th, 2012 at 05:54pm
  • wx12

    wx12 (10125)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    United States
    That's really interesting about the psychology, I've never heard of that before. Think

    I think the original purpose is the only one that makes sense though is what I'm saying; all of the philosophical discussions based on Schrodiner's cat are illogical/pointless to me, and people often support their illogical opinions with what they believe is science, when it's not.
    August 8th, 2012 at 07:26pm
  • solo sunrise

    solo sunrise (260)

    :
    Bibliophile
    Gender:
    Age:
    25
    Location:
    Neutral Zone
    Happy birthday, Erwin Schrodinger (Aug. 12)! Mr. Green
    August 12th, 2012 at 08:27pm
  • No Brakes; No Mercy

    No Brakes; No Mercy (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    30
    Location:
    United States
    The idea behind Schrodinger's Cat is, until you open the box, no one has any clue as to if the Cat is alive OR dead. The cat could be alive, or it could be dead. Thankfully, scientists are smart enough to realize that in order to get more grant money from their sponsors, they report that the cat, until you open the box, is neither alive nor dead, just as it is alive and dead at the same time.
    August 22nd, 2012 at 03:08am
  • raroman

    raroman (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    26
    Location:
    United States
    Yeah, pretty much, but he actually did the experiment. I learned about this in The Big Bang Theory :) Love watching that. Entertaining, and it makes you look smart. Like, yep, I am a science geek, not because I've been watching TBS..
    September 9th, 2012 at 02:05am
  • Siriano;

    Siriano; (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    I always assumed it had something to do with probability. If we have no way of knowing, there is a 50/50 chance it is alive or dead, so it is both. Think
    September 9th, 2012 at 08:14am
  • wxyz

    wxyz (240)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    96
    Location:
    Aland Islands
    Siriano;:
    I always assumed it had something to do with probability. If we have no way of knowing, there is a 50/50 chance it is alive or dead, so it is both. Think
    I follow you until "so it is both", then I'm lost. Just because there's a 50/50 chance of either one outcome or the other, doesn't mean that a lack of knowledge of the true outcome automatically implies both outcomes to be simultaneously true. Or am I just not getting it? XD
    September 17th, 2012 at 12:07am
  • Siriano;

    Siriano; (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    29
    Location:
    United States
    @ Alex; periphery.
    I don't get it either, but that's how I've always heard it explained. XD
    September 17th, 2012 at 01:59am
  • ciao bella.

    ciao bella. (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    United States
    I always view the "so it is both" thing more as a multiple-universe type thing. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to assume a very binary world, where there is a question, and the answer to it can either be yes or no. Now, both of these answers are possible, but external forces determine which one is accurate. If you assume this, then you can imagine how each answer will lead to a new question, eventually leading you to a branched tree with many questions and many answers. Each of these endpoints represents a different possible universe with a slightly different outcome. All things being equal, each of these universes is as likely as any other, until the outside force is applied. Let's view the possibilities as such: the cat is dead, or the cat is alive. There exists a possible universe in which the cat is dead, and there exists a possible universe in which the cat is alive. All things being equal, you have no idea whether the cat is dead, or the cat is alive, so we assume that at this point, the universe with the dead cat is true, but so is the universe with the living cat. Until you open the box and look, we assume the cat is both living and dead, because we don't know which it is.

    ... That is probably not any clearer.
    December 25th, 2012 at 07:53am
  • wx12

    wx12 (10125)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    31
    Location:
    United States
    Alex; periphery.:
    I follow you until "so it is both", then I'm lost. Just because there's a 50/50 chance of either one outcome or the other, doesn't mean that a lack of knowledge of the true outcome automatically implies both outcomes to be simultaneously true. Or am I just not getting it? XD
    Schrodinger's cat isn't literally about a cat; it's a metaphor for a quantum mechanics and the paradox created by the laws governing miscroscopic matter and energy (a cat is neither, of course). In the real world, of course a cat is dead or alive, regardless of if we can see it. But quantum entanglement is theorized to be matter that exists in two states simultaneously . The entire point of Schrodinger's cat was to show the limitations of quantum theory, and not to say they legitimately apply to... cats.

    and that's why I facepalm when Shrodinger's cat is turned into a philosophy debate. That was never the intention and as you pointed out, it doesn't make any sense.
    December 26th, 2012 at 09:30pm
  • wxyz

    wxyz (240)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    96
    Location:
    Aland Islands
    @ Kurtni
    Thanks, that clears it up for me. tehe
    December 27th, 2012 at 02:51pm
  • wstyd

    wstyd (100)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    26
    Location:
    United States
    @ Crash Rakashe
    So essentially- if there are two possibilities it is impossible to know which one until literally observed? Like- one cannot hypothesize about the state of a cat within a closed system
    December 29th, 2015 at 01:13pm
  • Crash Rakashe

    Crash Rakashe (150)

    :
    Member
    Gender:
    Age:
    28
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    @ wstyd

    Well, that is one way to interpret it. However in quantum mechanics it's that while the cat is in the box, it is in a "superposition" - meaning that the is both dead and alive. It only becomes one or the only when it is observed. It is us opening the box and looking at the cat which forces there to be one only outcome.

    I know that probably makes zero sense, but that's just quantum mechanics. It's fun to look at it, yet painful to understand. MinutePhysics did a great video on it, not the must detailed but his videos are always fun to watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4
    January 9th, 2016 at 09:05pm