Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> This was, indeed, the whole point of the Schodinger's cat argument. Is 
>> the cat alive enough to collapse its own waveform?
>>
> 
> Well, that would seem obvious. Its bigger than a single particle, so 
> yes.

Uh, so no. The point was that the result was unobservable from outside the 
box. How does the scientist know whether the waveform was collapsed or not?

> The point of the thought experiment was to describe the apparent 
> weirdness only, not to talk about macro level objects behaving as single 
> particles. ;)

It hasn't anything to do with single particles. The point was that you can 
have an entire collection of particles in superposition. The device 
measuring the radiation goes into superposition. Why doesn't the cat?

(After all, the whole thing behind quantum computing and bose-einstein 
condensates is to get multiple particles in superposition. It's certainly 
*not* limited to a single particle, or there wouldn't be apparent weirdness 
about it brought up by the cat.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> (After all, the whole thing behind quantum computing and bose-einstein 
> condensates is to get multiple particles in superposition. It's 
> certainly *not* limited to a single particle, or there wouldn't be 
> apparent weirdness about it brought up by the cat.)
> 

Hmm. Well, this is true, but the point of such a condensate is that you 
have slowed the motion of all particles, as much as feasible, to the 
point where they **cannot** undergo any sort of transitions, beyond the 
ones they already undertook to reach the state. And, since such a 
state's simplest form is one where all particles are in superposition. I 
suppose, if you froze the cat... but, I think we would tend to agree 
that its alive/dead state would be a mute point after that. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> that its alive/dead state would be a mute point after that. ;)

Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as "interaction 
with another particle." Indeed, figuring out the probabilities of where the 
particle goes is basically calculating all possible interactions the 
particle might have had while you're not looking. There's no fundamental 
reason in the equations that the wave forms should collapse, and there's no 
fundamental reason why any lab equipment you might set up shouldn't be in a 
superposition of states. Indeed, if you look up how a delayed choice quantum 
eraser works, you can see that the particle can be in a superposition of 
states even after it has been measured and recorded, let alone interacting 
with one other particle. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

(And incidentally, the word is "moot", not "mute." :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as 
> "interaction with another particle."

Actually it is - the observing apparatus (be it a human or a measuring 
equipment) being comprised of particles, and the observation being 
performed by having the particle actually interact.

The interesting thing here being that there is no such thing as an 
outside observer in this entire universe (as, by definition, such an 
observer would obviously have to be not in but outside of it).

I guess it is safe to claim that a flesh-and-blood human being is not an 
outside observer in this sense.


Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only thing 
we have is interaction.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only thing 
> we have is interaction.

That is, indeed, 82% crazy.

It also seems oddly descriptive of my life... Forever observing other 
people, yet almost never actually interacting with them.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>> Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as 
>> "interaction with another particle."
> 
> Actually it is - the observing apparatus (be it a human or a measuring 
> equipment) being comprised of particles, and the observation being 
> performed by having the particle actually interact.

I was stressing the singular there. An observation doesn't happen when the 
particle interacts with one other particle.  I.e., it's not "we don't know 
what the result will be until the particle interacts with another particle, 
and then the wave function collapses." The particle can interact with 
arbitrary many other particles before the "wave function collapses."

> I guess it is safe to claim that a flesh-and-blood human being is not an 
> outside observer in this sense.

Right.  Or a cat. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The interesting thing here being that there is no such thing as an 
> outside observer in this entire universe (as, by definition, such an 
> observer would obviously have to be not in but outside of it).
> 
> I guess it is safe to claim that a flesh-and-blood human being is not an 
> outside observer in this sense.
> 
> Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only thing 
> we have is interaction.

One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse to 
particles.  XD

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
> God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
> observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse to 
> particles.  XD

One could, but one would be wrong. ;-)

Robert Sawyer has investigated that in a quite delightful novel called Starplex.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>> Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only 
>> thing we have is interaction.
> 
> That is, indeed, 82% crazy.

Why is that?  You've heard of Heisenberg, haven't you? :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
>> God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
>> observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse 
>> to particles.  XD
> 
> One could, but one would be wrong. ;-)

Wrong?  Qualitatively, it wouldn't be 'wrong' so much as 
'unprovable'...either way.  'Wrong' is reserved for statements which are 
*provably* untrue.  'Not provable'!='not right' or 'not wrong'

:3

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message