Schrodinger's cat

[superyob]

Crazy Dazz, you made my head hurt again. Stop posting words...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

By the way, you can fix your car with a sprinkling of pixie dust and Bluey's assoff. Your local leprechaun should have all you need...

[wodahs]

putting a cat in a box ! is that anything like putting a rat in a microwave ? no that's just wrong so kiddies don't do that at home mum gets upset

[Junkyard-Dog]

Yeah, we've all seen The Big Bang Theory.

[uniacidz]

Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog

Yeah, we've all seen The Big Bang Theory.

Dont admit to that man

[Yellow_Festiva]

My head hurts after reading and trying to understand (and not understand) the link at the same time....

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

trying to understand (and not understand) at the same time....

may be trying to understand it this way ive bought a few Schrödinger's clevelands in my time trying to ascertain at point of purchase if its worth the money or not wether its the brilliant runner they are trying to make it out to be or in dyer need of rebuilding and at that point I wont know till I either open it up (which is usually the best way) or fire it up but I still need to get a price on it and obtain it either way first


as for the other experiment , well I let you call it Wodahs's rat

[Junkyard-Dog]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

My head hurts after reading and trying to understand (and not understand) the link at the same time....

I see what you did there

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog

I see what you did there

your not meant to look in side the box to see otherwise its a failed experiment

[superyob]

So there are 2 possible states a Schrodinger's Clevo could be in? Either running or not. But can't be both? Is that the thrust of the cat example???

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by superyob

So there are 2 possible states a Schrodinger's Clevo could be in? Either running or not. But can't be both? Is that the thrust of the cat example???

No ,it can be both. And probably is both, but each in a parallel universe.
The engine is a balltearer if you happen to be in the right one.
Or completely worn out in the other. But you can't chose.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

No ,it can be both. And probably is both, but each in a parallel universe.
The engine is a balltearer if you happen to be in the right one.
Or completely worn out in the other. But you can't chose.

I'm going to cogitate on this for a while before I pass out...

Ok I am awake again!!! Substitute cat for Clevo if needed...

Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e., a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C...ingers_cat.svg

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by superyob

So there are 2 possible states a Schrodinger's Clevo could be in? Either running or not. But can't be both? Is that the thrust of the cat example???

It's like sitting in the car with engine off but your hand on the key ready to turn the ignition on.

Before you turn the key, the engine is both in working order but also not in working order. 50/50 chance it'll fire up, only confirmed once you turn the key.

Sadly I've owned cars just like this, they were Holdens though.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

It's like sitting in the car with engine off but your hand on the key ready to turn the ignition on.

Before you turn the key, the engine is both in working order but also not in working order. 50/50 chance it'll fire up, only confirmed once you turn the key.

Sadly I've owned cars just like this, they were Holdens though.

Does this depend on engine/cat condition??? Although I don't think that matters???

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

It's like sitting in the car with engine off but your hand on the key ready to turn the ignition on.

Before you turn the key, the engine is both in working order but also not in working order. 50/50 chance it'll fire up, only confirmed once you turn the key.

Sadly I've owned cars just like this, they were Holdens though.

I'm no physicist but Schrödinger's cat story is absurd. Would probably be more interesting if it was called Schrodinger's Holden, where until Schrodinger turns the key there are two possible outcomes: the car is a ball-tearing 500 horsepower monster or the car can't start and is total piece of junk.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by superyob

So there are 2 possible states a Schrodinger's Clevo could be in? Either running or not. But can't be both? Is that the thrust of the cat example???

Not Quite.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Schrödinger's Clevo basically says that an unstarted Clevo exists in ALL possible states.
ie, it is rusted solid, and fully reconditioned, fully worked, a bit smoky, etc, etc.
It will only collapse to a single state when you try to start it.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Not Quite.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Schrödinger's Clevo basically says that an unstarted Clevo exists in ALL possible states.
ie, it is rusted solid, and fully reconditioned, fully worked, a bit smoky, etc, etc.
It will only collapse to a single state when you try to start it.

So does this suggest parallel realities Crazy Dazz???

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by superyob

So does this suggest parallel realities Crazy Dazz???

That's the Everitt Interpretation.
All jokes aside, perhaps the greatest irony of "Schrödinger's cat" is that if taken literally, a average lay-person's answer (that the Cat will in fact be either dead OR alive, long before you open the box) is in fact closer to the original Copenhagen Interpretation.
This is in part because Schrödinger emphasised the role of observation, but also because we weren't meant to think literally about a Cat.

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

unstarted Clevo's exists in ALL possible states , rusted solid, and fully reconditioned, fully worked, a bit smoky, etc, etc.

sounds like some ones been in my shed recently I mean my mad scientist's laboratory (insert maniacal laugh here)

[Junkyard-Dog]

Omg lol.

[wodahs]

so now we leap from a thought experimental paradox to a quantum physics string theory

steady on there im only a truck driver here slow down a bit and let me get my head around this one and get up to speed

[CoupeKing]

I thought the Canaries in the mines had it tough. But a radioactive pussy? Franchise that.

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

radioactive pussy!

atleast cardboard box's only chafe

[mcflux]

Schrodinger's taco cat palindrome?

[Cav]

My mother warned me about taking drugs.

Didn't youse blokes listen to ya mother?

[supershifty]

I have nfi what's going on in here.



Back under my rock with me.

Cheers!

[wodahs]

so did we ever find the cat a home or we just completely loose it ? and any one given it a name yet ?

[cheap]

Apply Bayesian probability to Schrödinger's cat - that will really do your head in.

No cats were harmed writing this post.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by cheap

Apply Bayesian probability to Schrödinger's cat - that will really do your head in.

No cats were harmed writing this post.

Thank you very much cheap, now I have to look up Bayesian probability...

Now my head hurts again. So according to Bayesian probability, the test on the cat's condition is not the same as the actual cat and thus is flawed???

[wodahs]

Originally Posted by superyob

Thank you very much cheap, now I have to look up Bayesian probability...

Now my head hurts again. So according to Bayesian probability, the test on the cat's condition is not the same as the actual cat and thus is flawed???

I didn't want to bring this in to the conversation as Bayesians Windsor Probability generally upsets a few

with his view that
Bayesians Windsor which can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency , For subjectivists, probability corresponds to a 'personal belief' For subjectivists, rationality and coherence constrain the probabilities a subject may have, but allow for substantial variation within those constraints. The objective and subjective variants of Bayesians Windsor probability differ mainly in their interpretation and construction to the engines actual abilities


opps


and don't get me started on Bertrand's Big Block Paradox

[superyob]

Bayesians Windsor???

Oh I get it. This is a Schrodinger's Cleveland thing...

Me are smart...