It's a famous thought experiment.You have a cat in a box. Along with the cat there is a vial of poison, and a radioactive source. There is a certain probability that the radioactive source will emit a particle that shatters the vial, releasing the poison and killing the cat.
While the lid is on the box, you have no way of knowing if this has occured. Therefore the cat is in a state of 'Quantum Flux' and is neither alive, nor dead, but some undetermined state.
When you open the box and determine wether the cat is alive it then 'becomes' one or the other.
It's a demonstration of observer-specific reality in quantum physics.
Or something...
(While the lid is on the box, you have no way of knowing if this has occured. Therefore the cat is in a state of 'Quantum Flux' and is neither alive, nor dead, but some undetermined state.
When you open the box and determine wether the cat is alive it then 'becomes' one or the other.
It's a demonstration of observer-specific reality in quantum physics.
Or something...
supermoore: HUNG,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:39,
archived)
I've never understood this one.Surely the cat is either alive or dead. Looking in the box only informs the viewer as to its state.
(
chobb ,ø¤ºGREATº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºRAPISTº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºRECOMMENDEDº¤ø,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:41,
archived)
theeffect of the observation effects the outcome kinda thing.
( Tyronne Get To Falkirk,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:42,
archived)
Yes, butthat's not much good to the observer is it? Until you view it it could be a dancing monkey for all you know.
( supermoore: HUNG,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:43,
archived)
adancing monkey in a box is more fun mind.
( Tyronne Get To Falkirk,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:44,
archived)
The observer is ignorant of the state of the cat,but the cat *is* either alive or dead.
( chobb ,ø¤ºGREATº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºRAPISTº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºRECOMMENDEDº¤ø,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:45,
archived)
And you know this how?Our scientific method is based on observation. How can you establish a fact if you can't back it up with experimental observation?
It's a philisophical issue, granted, but there you go.
(It's a philisophical issue, granted, but there you go.
supermoore: HUNG,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:48,
archived)
I know this because the cat can *only* be alive or dead.It cannot be in a 'state of flux', because cats don't do that.
( chobb ,ø¤ºGREATº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºRAPISTº¤ø,¸¸,ø¤ºRECOMMENDEDº¤ø,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:52,
archived)
How do you know that unless you have observed it to be true?Since the only time the cat can be in flux is when it is not being observed, it is impossible to say.
( supermoore: HUNG,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:53,
archived)
wooah yes, the demonstration of the absurdities of traditional logic as compared to quantum states where-in people feel compelled to supply seemingly obvious contradictions entirely based on alternative methods of measuring the results while the reality lay in the fact that the methods all constitute measurement of the concealed state..
excellent exercise in thinking "outside the box" and introduction into the realities of the breakdown between more a more newtonian view of physics and the reality of quantum mechanics. a quintessential zen approach to expansion of knowledge through unanswerable questions.
more or less, i have no idea what im talking about, but it sounds friggin great, eh?
(,
Sun 20 Jun 2004, 11:37,
archived)
excellent exercise in thinking "outside the box" and introduction into the realities of the breakdown between more a more newtonian view of physics and the reality of quantum mechanics. a quintessential zen approach to expansion of knowledge through unanswerable questions.
more or less, i have no idea what im talking about, but it sounds friggin great, eh?
Who needs to look in the box when you can just shake it and see if it meows? MakTheYak,
Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:45,
archived)