A man by the name of Erwin Schrodinger devised and proposed a paradox in 1935 that, if a cat was put into a container and poisonous gas released and the box was closed, would the cat be alive until you opened the box to witness the cat dead?
I wish to ask all of you, do you think that Schrodinger's theory is possible, or is it a bunch of crazy bologna?
I personally find it possible, after all you can't see it 'alive' even though it's dead until you would open the box, but then it would have to be dead.
I have argued against Schrodinger's Theorem for as long as I can remember. Simply because an event is not observed does not mean that said event does not take place. That holds true across multiple realms of philosophical and scientific discourse and it will continue to hold true. Much as the 'tree in the woods' argument. Simply because someone is not there to hear/see an event does not mean that the event did not take place. How much more conceited can you get than to say 'if someone did not witness an event then said event did not take place'. We already know this is false. Equation solved for.
I have argued against Schrodinger's Theorem for as long as I can remember. Simply because an event is not observed does not mean that said event does not take place. That holds true across multiple realms of philosophical and scientific discourse and it will continue to hold true. Much as the 'tree in the woods' argument. Simply because someone is not there to hear/see an event does not mean that the event did not take place. How much more conceited can you get than to say 'if someone did not witness an event then said event did not take place'. We already know this is false. Equation solved for.
Thank you.
I'm going to throw a baby down the well. Don't worry, the well is deep enough that nobody will see it, and therefore the baby won't be dead.
According to quantum theory, the cat is LITERALLY dead and alive at the same time (until observed).
You are absolutely wrong and you display your utter lack of knowledge as to what quantum theory truly entails by this comment.
Quantum Theory: A theory developed in early 20th century, according to which nuclear and radiation phenomena can be explained by assuming that energy only occurs in discrete amounts called quanta.
Not sure what you were trying to say, but it's pretty obvious that it has no bearing on quantum theory whatsoever.
i tried my hardest to ignore this thread. THIS IS STUPID. it denies all science and religion, mosly science. if i "kill a cat, is it alive till i look at it?" no. if a tree falls and no one is around does it make a sound? yes. you are not the center of the world, stuff moves on without you
it denies all science and religion, mosly science.
That's because it is a philosophical debate. If you can't debate philosophy without reverting to childish accusations then I would recommend you keep to a more age-appropriate thread.
Simply because an event is not observed does not mean that said event does not take place.
I believe you misunderstand the point of the experiment. The point isn't that the cat can't be dead until you see that it is, it's that while in the box, there is an equal probability of it being dead or alive (Due to the radioactive element of the experiment), and therefore it can be said to be both until the cat is observed to be one or the other. Nowhere is it intended to say that because the cat is not observed, the cat can't be dead, or vice versa. What you say does discount the tree in the forest, but not Schrodinger's cat.
I thought that Schrodinger's motive in the experiment wasn't to actually prove the paradox, but it was to make fun of the scientific method at the time. Also; there's a funny song about it.
You are absolutely wrong and you display your utter lack of knowledge as to what quantum theory truly entails by this comment.
Quantum Superposition:
The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a superposition of the two, where the amount of each configuration that is in the superposition is specified by a complex number.
From Wikipedia...
The cat is in a superposition of dead and alive states. When the cat is observed, it collapses into one of the possible states. Schrodinger used this example to show why the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics made no sense.
Solution! Just put a camera in there with the cat, then look at the tape later! Thus, you will know when it died, without having to see it with your own eyes!
I'm going to throw a baby down the well. Don't worry, the well is deep enough that nobody will see it, and therefore the baby won't be dead.
Sigh..... not even the right experiment.
I tried my hardest to ignore this thread. THIS IS STUPID. it denies all science and religion, mostly science. if i "kill a cat, is it alive till i look at it?" no. if a tree falls and no one is around does it make a sound? yes. you are not the center of the world, stuff moves on without you.
Religion is irrelevant in this thread. You should learn something about the topic before posting or at least read the posts.
Solution! Just put a camera in there with the cat, then look at the tape later! Thus, you will know when it died, without having to see it with your own eyes!
Doesn't work like that you collapse the function it's the same as with the double slit experiment.
@darkroot. your right it doesnt. i read all the post and i heard about Schrodinger. so i mentioned somethong i shouldnt have, i stand by EVERYTHING else
The point isn't that the cat can't be dead until you see that it is, it's that while in the box, there is an equal probability of it being dead or alive
Of course there is an equal probability, either the cat died or it did not. However observation of such an event, or lack of observation, does not affect the outcome of the event, which is implied when the idea was put forth that the cat would remain alive until you opened the box. That was the portion of the hypothesis which I addressed in my initial reply as it is the portion of the hypothesis which we know to be untrue and which negates any further discourse on this topic.
@Aknerd
I am aware of the superposition portion of the quantum theory. I'm also aware that it is only implied to the mechanics of an individual particle, not a collection of particles. In this scenario a living being, a cat, is being used, not a subatomic particle, hence the nature of quantum theory is not applicable. Schrodinger's examples replaced subatomic particles with living beings and proposed that if quantum theory applied then said being could be both alive and dead.
Quantum mechanics are not applicable in such a situation, and furthermore we already know and have observed that a living object cannot be both alive AND dead at the same time, which was proposed by this argument.
The cat doesn't count. In one of the states (death), the cat is not able to observe, is he? The cat can't observe himself in the dead state. According to the cat, he never dies.
So your saying a living thing is incapable of observing weather it's dying or not? If this all really does depend on observation, and the cat would be the only observer, and the cat can only observe itself as alive, then it could only exist in the living state until further observation, not both. Really this all doesn't sound like it makes much sense, and really is unimportant since quantum physics doesn't apply anyway.
Doesn't work like that you collapse the function it's the same as with the double slit experiment.
I already addressed this, being that the cat is on a macroscopic level this already collapses the function. Or as Walker said quantum mechanics doesn't apply.
I apologize, right after I posted, I saw some people explain the point of Schrodinger's cat. I know almost nothing about quantum theories, but when I read it was to mock one, a theory I heard about came to mind. I wasn't sure if it was that exact theory, but the one that came to mind was the one Darkroot posted where the particles (if I remember correctly), seemed to act different depending if they were observed or not.
