Hate to say it, but I think "Schrodinger's X" cartoons are played out.

Cute, though.

Could somone fill me in on this one?

Reb Cpl wrote: Move past cartoon logic, and you've lost me.

Essentially, the idea is that observing something changes (or defines) the nature of that thing.  Whether the cat is alive or dead depends on whether you look.

This phenomenon has been observed (sort of) in laboratory conditions, and is at the heart of quantum mechanics.  Just about as mind-bendy as physics can get at the moment.

usafpilot07 wrote: For the record though, it seems silly.  Regardless of whether or not you look, if the cat is dead, it's dead. You just don't know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

Although the third paragraph mocks me for my misunderstanding of quantum physics.

The actual "observer effect" described in my link is very real, and has been documented as to electron behavior.

As Wiki also points out, many people (such as myself) confuse this concept with the uncertainty principle, which is where Schrodinger comes in.  That is a quantum concept, because quarks don't have set behavior patterns, but behavior probabilities.  Even when something "should" be a certain way, you can only really speak of a range of probabilities until you measure it carefully.

It really comes down to what the definition of "is" is...

Mack wrote: This ties in to modern belief in the power of "affirmations" which states essentially that nothing has a specific existence until it is observed.  For instance, you buy a lottery ticket but don't look at the computer-generated numbers on it.  When the winning numbers are announced you don't know whether your ticket matches or not.  Under Schrodinger's theory the ticket is both a winner and a loser (in a state of flux) until you verify the numbers.  Believers in affirmations toss in the fact that they think reality can be altered by intense positive or negative thought.  They would say that one's mindset and concentration influence whether the ticket is a winner or loser right up until the minute the numbers are observed.

True - except that "The Secret" is speculation/philosophy.  The uncertainty principle and the observer effect are based in scientific observations.

Reb Cpl wrote: I'm pretty convinced that this is purely an ego thing since boiled right down to it, this sounds like "Until I know the answer, there IS NO answer."

I'm with you. It sounds like there is a ton of physics that is going over my head, but I don't see how extraordinarily complex (non-theoretical) physics can counteract me not looking at something.

Rambino wrote: This phenomenon has been observed (sort of) in laboratory conditions, and is at the heart of quantum mechanics.  Just about as mind-bendy as physics can get at the moment.

I don't know, the whole thing with 10% of me being in a different place as the rest of my body at any point in time trips me out.

Reb Cpl wrote: So Lets say there's a piece of lumber that happens to be 2' long. Its a piece of scrap lumber that was cut, so nobody has taken an exact measure of that piece. The fact that it is 2' long is, a solid fact. There is no probability, only human ignorance until it is measured. The same for the stupid cat. If its dead, its dead, and the only factor is if I know it or not.

Both statements are correct (to my understanding of these things).

The observer effect has (TMK) only been documented for subatomic particles, not 2x4s.  Similarly, the uncertainty principle, and other quantum mechanics calculations, only apply to quarks and other really really small things.

Quantum mechanics only works for itty bitty things, just like relativity only works for really big or really fast things.  For all other things in between, Newton's physics are just fine.  But when things get really really small, the rules of physics as most people know them get all screwy.

This is what led Einstein to famously exclaim that "God does not play dice".  He was not a fan of quantum physics, but it works nevertheless, and uncertainty can be observed.

The cat was just an illustration, and was not meant to be taken literally.  I am not aware of any documented quantum effects for something cat-sized.

Its a sort of whacked out "Tree in Forest" theory. Until someone is there to observe and interpret the status of the cat, does it even HAVE a status?

But this is a philosophical question (Berkeley's famous "esse est percipi") about the nature of existence.  It does relate to some extent, but again is just a theory/illustration.  Quantum effects are laboratory observed, but only as to itty bitty things.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Well it all depends on the perspective that you are looking at it from. Logic and instinct says that the cat will eventually die. From you point of view though, you can't verify this yourself. You cannot know whenether the cat is alive or dead but it has to be either, so it is considered both. The cat itself is either dead or alive but it must be considered both since it cannot be none and you don't know which it is.

This cleared it up for me, actually. I was hung up on how stupid the idea of it being dead and alive because we can't look at it, but that's the point of the example I guess.

Reb Cpl wrote: but what the hell, this is interesting.

Word. I'd love physics if I didn't hate math.

Reb Cpl wrote: So, since large objects are made up of small particles, where does this this thought go? Are you telling me that since the particles that make up the cat can exist on a multitude of planes, then the entire cat must? Or, based on the quote, the small particles are extended to different states, the the whole cat isn't? There seems to be a few significant sized gaps in the thinking here. "Little pieces are effected by observation, the big stuff isn't? I dunno. Since large objects are nothing more than many small particles.

If I could answer that question, I'd be gunning for a Nobel Prize...  :)

Between relativity, quantum mechanics, and "normal" physics, we find that different rules apply to different things at diffent times, and that is a rather troubling thought.  This is also what leads people to look for the elusive "unified theory", the holy grail of physics that will explain how/why all these different rules work together.

For specifics - high school is a long time ago, but some things do stick in my mind.  This one is famous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Nothing in quantum physics is easy to understand, but this is about the easiest out there.

Reb Cpl wrote: it doesn't make sense to think of it that way.

From what I have gathered, I think that was the point Schrodinger was trying to make.

.357 just to add my 2cents.

I sugguest going with a 351 or something, a 302 has too small a bore to make into much of a racing car, IMO.