Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> It was never intended to be used to imply that the 
> state in such a box could/does exist in the real world.

  AFAIK there's a big difference between an analogy and a thought experiment.

  An analogy is describing in layman terms something complicated. The analogy
is not to be taken literally, but just as a way to visualize the concept
being explained.

  A thought experiment, however, is something which should happen (even if
it's physically unfeasible to put into practice). It's not an analogy, but
an actual phenomenon which should happen if the theory is true and the proper
conditions could be set up.

  Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment, not an analogy.

> And, if you think about it, it can't be otherwise. If you observe a 
> particle with a detector, the detector "causes" the state change.

  But in the thought experiment the detector already measured the radioactive
particle and caused (or not) the hammer to break the flask. The cat itself
also observes what happens (quite literally). Yet the thought experiment
still maintains that (given that the inside of the box is completely isolated
from the outside), the cat is in two superposed states. Not as an analogy or
figure of speech, but literally.

  If the solution were that simple, it wouldn't be a thought experiment
(with multiple possible explanations) at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message