Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TG Daily)   Schrodinger's Cat could be visible after all, unless it's not. You never know   (tgdaily.com) divider line 38
    More: Interesting, wave function, National Research, information theory, quantum information processing, self-energy, Heisenberg, quantum systems, polarized light  
•       •       •

2465 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Mar 2013 at 9:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-04 07:59:53 AM  
Renders doubts on uncertainty?

Will he be alive for Caturday?
 
2013-03-04 08:20:28 AM  
Schrödinger's cat has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.
 
2013-03-04 08:49:39 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Schrödinger's cat has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.


was it not the whole "is it alive or is it dead? YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU OPEN IT!" principle?
 
2013-03-04 08:50:21 AM  
OK, then.  Where's my transporter?

i.huffpost.com
 
2013-03-04 08:54:09 AM  
i2.blogs.indiewire.com


What's in the box?
 
2013-03-04 08:54:21 AM  
But...Snoopy is a dog.
24.media.tumblr.com

/That's  Schroeder, you idiot.
 
2013-03-04 08:54:31 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Schrödinger's cat has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.



Sure the thought experiment is more precisely about the Copenhagen Interpretation that says the atom is in both a decayed and not decayed state, but at the core of that is the Uncertainty Principle saying that we can't know when or even if the particular unstable atom in the box will decay.
 
2013-03-04 09:03:17 AM  

Diogenes: OK, then.  Where's my transporter?

[i.huffpost.com image 570x238]


Heh!

That's what I came here to say.  They made a heisenberg compensator!
 
2013-03-04 09:09:09 AM  

UberDave: Diogenes: OK, then.  Where's my transporter?

[i.huffpost.com image 570x238]

Heh!

That's what I came here to say.  They made a heisenberg compensator!


Still no solution for evil, goatee sporting twins.
 
2013-03-04 09:24:49 AM  
If the cat is in any way observable, then the premise of the thought experiment is false and thus it is not Schrödinger's cat.

/Yeah, in real life it is pretty hard to make such a large object as a cat completely unobservable.    It is also very hard to go near the speed of light on a train, but that does not make Einsteins thought experiments invalid either.
 
2013-03-04 09:35:24 AM  
TheMysteriousStranger:    It is also very hard to go near the speed of light on a train...


Disagrees:

s24.postimage.org
 
2013-03-04 10:03:58 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-04 10:24:04 AM  
 
2013-03-04 11:04:39 AM  
Dirk Gently may or may not be unavailable for comment
 
2013-03-04 11:23:32 AM  
Was Pixel  consulted on his feelings about this?
 
2013-03-04 11:49:39 AM  

Sybarite: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Schrödinger's cat has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.


Sure the thought experiment is more precisely about the Copenhagen Interpretation that says the atom is in both a decayed and not decayed state, but at the core of that is the Uncertainty Principle saying that we can't know when or even if the particular unstable atom in the box will decay.


The Uncertainty Principle applies to position and momentum of a particle; it is specific, not generalized to any "I not no anser" situation.

/Between this and Papal Infallibility, I really want to beat nomenclaturists with a big ass-stick (preferably with a nail in)
 
2013-03-04 12:00:21 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Schrödinger's cat has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle.


Sybarite: Sure the thought experiment is more precisely about the Copenhagen Interpretation that says the atom is in both a decayed and not decayed state, but at the core of that is the Uncertainty Principle saying that we can't know when or even if the particular unstable atom in the box will decay.


I see it as mostly a teaching aid to those unfamiliar with the concept of a wavefunction.  In any science course or discussion up to quantum physics, any equation is an effort to determine a single state as accurately as possible.  F=ma, for example, or V=IR.  With enough known parameters you can know everything about the system, whether it's time-dependent or not.  This is because the equation reflects constraints on the system.  Macroscopic objects obey Newton's Laws of Motion, for example, so for any given set of conditions the possible outcomes are limited.  Fire a bullet at a piece of glass and you're not going to get weird effects like the bullet annihilating itself of passing through the glass without damaging it.  Particles can do some really funky things, so a wavefunction includes all possible states of a system and breaks them down into probabilities; it's inclusive, not exclusive.  The cat isn't "alive and dead at the same time" (that's a tragically common misquotation); the cat, at least, is very much either alive or dead.  But if you don't know and its state depends on a decaying particle, the only way to express its state mathematically is with a wavefunction:  "The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts."

The part that really gets physicists in MINDBLOWN mode (including Albert Einstein, so any lurkers here don't get it -- you're in good company) is that this equation that represents various possible outcomes IS the state of the system.  The cat's existence can't be "blurry" but its alive-or-dead state is dependent on a particle that is, which is how you can shove a cat into a wavefunction in the first place.  This has been established repeatedly in experiments; a particle simply cannot be thought of as a teeny tiny billiard ball that obeys classical mechanics.
 
2013-03-04 12:12:15 PM  
Schrodinger's Cat could be visible after all, unless it's not. You never know until you do.
 
2013-03-04 12:26:21 PM  

UberDave: Diogenes: OK, then.  Where's my transporter?

[i.huffpost.com image 570x238]

Heh!

That's what I came here to say.  They made a heisenberg compensator!


CFT,LS
 
2013-03-04 12:36:06 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: If the cat is in any way observable, then the premise of the thought experiment is false and thus it is not Schrödinger's cat.


Then whose cat is it?
 
2013-03-04 12:42:23 PM  

TheOther: Then whose cat is it?


"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-04 01:24:01 PM  
I have a LOT of problems with this experiment, as it's described in the article.

A polarizer that "weakly interferers" with the light is actually only interfering with a few photons in the light beam. On a photon-by-photon basis, it's either polarizing them, or not.

Thus, this setup is (almost certainly) extracting the quantum properties of some photons (which changes their state), and then extracting the quantum properties of other photons (also changing their state).

It's still not detecting without perturbing the quantum states.

If this experiment works on a single photon, I'd be impressed - but the article doesn't suggest that.
 
2013-03-04 02:30:59 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Dirk Gently may or may not be unavailable for comment


that reminds me to try and shift that sofa some day.
 
2013-03-04 02:39:50 PM  

Broom: A polarizer that "weakly interferers" with the light is actually only interfering with a few photons in the light beam. On a photon-by-photon basis, it's either polarizing them, or not.


An older article linked within suggests that their claim comes from the fact that their "weak" measurements don't seem to screw up their strong measurements as much as HuP would suggest. I didn't see a link to any real research paper (though I have noscript running and it could just be invisible) but to me this suggests that they're using an inaccurate model to predict how much the weak measurement will screw up their system. Sometimes the golden rule just isn't golden enough.
 
2013-03-04 02:52:29 PM  

Diogenes: UberDave: Diogenes: OK, then.  Where's my transporter?

[i.huffpost.com image 570x238]

Heh!

That's what I came here to say.  They made a heisenberg compensator!

Still no solution for evil, goatee sporting twins.


That still doesn't explain this guy:

hauntedfire.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-04 02:57:23 PM  

Flt209er: I didn't see a link to any real research paper


I think this is it (LGT abstract & figures)...
 
2013-03-04 03:01:34 PM  
sigh - unfetchable link was rejected. The arXiv article is here (LGT abstract & link to PDF)
 
2013-03-04 03:01:49 PM  
A good link on the fundamental theory behind "weak" interrogation in quantum mechanics: Link
 
2013-03-04 03:18:14 PM  

dragonchild: TheOther: Then whose cat is it?

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
[25.media.tumblr.com image 449x449]


Well played.
 
2013-03-04 03:27:25 PM  

Flt209er: Broom: A polarizer that "weakly interferers" with the light is actually only interfering with a few photons in the light beam. On a photon-by-photon basis, it's either polarizing them, or not.

An older article linked within suggests that their claim comes from the fact that their "weak" measurements don't seem to screw up their strong measurements as much as HuP would suggest. I didn't see a link to any real research paper (though I have noscript running and it could just be invisible) but to me this suggests that they're using an inaccurate model to predict how much the weak measurement will screw up their system. Sometimes the golden rule just isn't golden enough.


Yeah, I'd buy that. Until they conclusively prove the exact same photon was measured twice, they're just fudging the numbers around. Extraordinary claims, and all that.
 
2013-03-04 03:30:46 PM  

dragonchild: TheOther: Then whose cat is it?

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
[25.media.tumblr.com image 449x449]


I would had gone with the cats of Ulthar
 
2013-03-04 03:49:35 PM  

wjllope: sigh - unfetchable link was rejected. The arXiv article is here (LGT abstract & link to PDF)


Thanks, I'll take a look sometime this afternoon.
 
2013-03-04 04:12:50 PM  

dragonchild: TheOther: Then whose cat is it?

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."
[25.media.tumblr.com image 449x449]



I'm not even a Lovecraft fan, and I think this post was brilliant.
 
2013-03-04 05:43:02 PM  
So what you're saying basically is that we have big clumsy mitts
and we won't be able to do it right until we learn to be delicate.


/caveman grunts and picks out a flea from his beard...ugh, now I know its position and momentum.
 
2013-03-04 10:04:50 PM  
There was never any question of Schrödinger's cat being invisible or visible. The question is whether it is alive or dead. In the original thought experiment, the cat is in a box (thus not visible, rather than invisible) in which a vial of poison is linked to a radioactive particle decay detector. If the particle decays, the cat dies because the bottl of poison is automatically smashed. If the particle does not decay, it lives. But without opening the box, you can't be sure whether the particle has decayed or not and thus whether the cat is dead or alive. Without the observation, it is in a superimposed state of living death. It is, in fact, a zombie cat.

Unless somebody forgets to give the cat something to drink, in which case if the experiment goes on too long, the issue of whether the cat is alive or dead resolves itself in a non-quantum way and you have no need to make the observaton. Just bury the box and forget about it.

Unless it really is a zombie cat, in which case it will dig itself out of the shallow grave and come after you.

Knowing cats, it would probably fool around with the bottle of poison and kill itself whether the particle decays or not. This shows how big an advantage physics has over biology. Physics doesn't have to deal with the perversity of living things, especially cats.

No matter how you cut it, Schrödinger's cat is a goner. For one thing, even Schrödinger is dead by now.

On the other hand, it's nice to see a local university doing interesting and important work. It makes you feel that you live somewhere where things happen and news is made, and thus a part of the world rather than some Podunk town where the only news is a murder about four times a century and marriages, deaths and births and the constant dribble of local faits divers.

The interesting thing about cats is that they tend to disappear for long periods of time even if you don't put them in boxes. A cat can vanish for years, making you think it must surely be dead, and then show up again, even if you have moved to a new house in the interim.

Cats clearly do not obey the laws of physics or any other laws.
 
2013-03-04 10:52:15 PM  
I'm uncertain about quantum mechanics...

/The joke had to be made.
//I regret nothing.
 
2013-03-05 12:22:33 AM  
 
2013-03-05 01:36:03 AM  
images.wikia.com

"What cat?"
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report