Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: DoctorBeaver on 30/09/2007 16:51:06
-
I was wondering - someone opens the box & sees whether the cat is dead or alive. Then he shuts the box & runs away without telling anyone what he saw.
Another someone (not of the George variety, just a random other) comes along & sees the box. Now, he doesn't know Mr First Someone has had a peek, so is ignorant of the fact that the cat's health has been ascertained. In fact, Mr First Someone may have let the cat out of the box & taken it with him. That means there are now 3 possibilities for the puddytat - alive, dead, & gorn!
So how does Mr First Someone's actions affect the waveform? Does it remain collapsed after he ascertains the aliveness or deadness of the cat regardless the fact Mr Another Someone is ignorant of the situation?
-
The truth is (this is my theory):
If Mr.First doesnt tell the outcome to anyone.
Then the Wave function is less affected ... and plays itself in a random way.
Generating contradiction in worst situtation in some distant future if the two people meet..
If Mr.First tells it to Mr.A then the wave functions looses its randomness and is more or less determined. BUT the contradiction can still appear in the ratio of 2:1
If Mr. First tells it to n people then the contradiction can appear in (n+1):1 ratio.
It is important to understand that no one is wrong.
The observation led to diversity of truths.
Therefore I believe in Singular Validations and existence of sister truths...(which may contradict each other)
-
For fear of impending headache, this will be short, and i have my eyes closed.
can't the cat still be dead, alive or both? If the first someone gained the knowledge that the cat was dead, and left. Would it still be dead if he had another peek just to make sure?
sorry, panadol time...
-
Paul - that's sort-of my point. The 2nd someone is unaware of the cat's state, therefore the waveform, for him, must still be intact. However, the 1st someone caused the waveform to collapse by having a look.
I think what I'm asking is, does each person have their own waveform with regard the cat, or does the cat have its own waveform which can un-collapse when the 1st person shuts the box again?
-
ermmm, seeing as the cat is dead, alive and both at the same time. I think that each and every attempt to open the box will produce a different, or even the same result. I think that both the cat and each person have their own waveform and influence on the result.
even if you open the box a second time and find the cat still dead, it is a different result because of how the waveforms interacted with eachother.
-
Can I have some of your Panadol? [xx(]
-
It is not that complicated.
The wave function depends on the numbers of observers but the anomaly always has a chance.
Dead cat can be found alive with probability depending upon the observers.If there is only one observer then the Event has a greater chance to show a dead cat as alive.
Chances of event manifestation depends on the history of observers who share common truth.
This is how the constitution of Nature of nature is made.
Every tree which falls makes a sound... but excpetion can not be ruled out. If only you heard it.
Every object may continue to be observed in its inertial state but the exception can not be ruled out.If only you observed it.
-
It is not that complicated.
The wave function depends on the numbers of observers but the anomaly always has a chance.
Dead cat can be found alive with probability depending upon the observers.If there is only one observer then the Event has a greater chance to show a dead cat as alive.
Chances of event manifestation depends on the history of observers who share common truth.
But if the cat is dead, it's dead. No matter how many people look at it, it won't come back to life.
In any case, if the cat is known to be dead, then there is no probability function at all.
Also, how can it be that there is a greater probability of an anomaly if there is only 1 observer? I would have thought it extremely unlikely that an anomaly would show itself on the 1 and only observation. Surely, if there were 20 million observations the probability of an anomaly is increased.
-
I was wondering - someone opens the box & sees whether the cat is dead or alive. Then he shuts the box & runs away without telling anyone what he saw.
Another someone (not of the George variety, just a random other) comes along & sees the box. Now, he doesn't know Mr First Someone has had a peek, so is ignorant of the fact that the cat's health has been ascertained. In fact, Mr First Someone may have let the cat out of the box & taken it with him. That means there are now 3 possibilities for the puddytat - alive, dead, & gorn!
So how does Mr First Someone's actions affect the waveform? Does it remain collapsed after he ascertains the aliveness or deadness of the cat regardless the fact Mr Another Someone is ignorant of the situation?
But who knows there were two observers?
If there is a third observer, that sees the first observer, and then sees the second observer, then the third observer in theory has seen both events.
On the other hand, if there is no common observer to link the two observations, then for all practical purposes, there was only ever one observer (i.e. each observer only knows of one or the other observer, and so in each observers world, he is the only observer).
In essence, the concept is no different than regarding the cat itself as being the first observer, even before the first human observer has opened the box.
-
All wave functions collapse in the brain.
One observer can find the Dead Cat observation contradicted with Live cat observation.The observations can not be shared with others. More the number of observers less likely it is to find the exception.
How and what explanation you give depends on you(as a single observer).
I would have said the ghost has returned!!
But who will believe you?
Anyways suppose this can happen what explanation will you give?
-
I was wondering - someone opens the box & sees whether the cat is dead or alive. Then he shuts the box & runs away without telling anyone what he saw.
Another someone (not of the George variety, just a random other) comes along & sees the box. Now, he doesn't know Mr First Someone has had a peek, so is ignorant of the fact that the cat's health has been ascertained. In fact, Mr First Someone may have let the cat out of the box & taken it with him. That means there are now 3 possibilities for the puddytat - alive, dead, & gorn!
So how does Mr First Someone's actions affect the waveform? Does it remain collapsed after he ascertains the aliveness or deadness of the cat regardless the fact Mr Another Someone is ignorant of the situation?
But who knows there were two observers?
If there is a third observer, that sees the first observer, and then sees the second observer, then the third observer in theory has seen both events.
On the other hand, if there is no common observer to link the two observations, then for all practical purposes, there was only ever one observer (i.e. each observer only knows of one or the other observer, and so in each observers world, he is the only observer).
In essence, the concept is no different than regarding the cat itself as being the first observer, even before the first human observer has opened the box.
George - I understand all of that. But what about the waveform? Is there a waveform for each observer or just 1 waveform that collapses then un-collapses?
-
All wave functions collapse in the brain.
One observer can find the Dead Cat observation contradicted with Live cat observation.The observations can not be shared with others. More the number of observers less likely it is to find the exception.
How and what explanation you give depends on you(as a single observer).
I would have said the ghost has returned!!
But who will believe you?
Anyways suppose this can happen what explanation will you give?
Sorry, I don't understand that.
-
I mean to say that contradictory observations propagate with less probability.
The number of contradictory observations decrease exponentially with increasing number of observers.
But those contradictory observations are real.
Sometimes it is due to limitation of the brain and sensory perceptions. And sometimes it is infact real.
Have you seen a dead cat getting alive?
If you answer yes then the theory says you will not be able to demonstrate it.
If you assume what you saw was real then how can you explain the dead cat becoming alive?
I would explained using Ghosts:-))
-
hmmm... I think I follow that. Sort of. Ish.
-
As a consequence if you promise not to tell anyone then you can travel at speeds greater than that of light. You can observe weird things.
You can find things like ghosts!!
-
As a consequence if you promise not to tell anyone then you can travel at speeds greater than that of light. You can observe weird things.
You can find things like ghosts!!
Non-locality is just one of the many interpretations of the QM paradoxes, not an established fact. Furthermore, it seems that not even the hypotesis of superluminal actions can solve all of them:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529v1
Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations.
-
George - I understand all of that. But what about the waveform? Is there a waveform for each observer or just 1 waveform that collapses then un-collapses?
OK, I am stretching my understanding of QED, but is not the wave function a probability wave, rather than a wave of a physical particle, so therefore two different observers can perceive two different probability waves, yet still see the same particle.
-
George - would it be true to say that it is the probability of an observer finding the cat in a particular state rather than simply the probability of the cat being in that state?
If that is the case then Mr First observing the cat will have no effect on Mr Second's probability function.
Oh, actually it would as Mr Second could find the box empty due to the action of Mr First. So, in that respect, Mr First has affected Mr Second's probability wave as prior to Mr First's involvement the cat could only have been in 2 states - alive or dead - and now there are 3 possibilities.
So if you were calculating Mr Second's probability function with passing time, you wouldn't be able to factor in the probability of the cat not being there if you were unaware that Mr First had opened the box.
Prior to Mr First opening the box the cat was alive & dead at the same time. After his involvement the cat is alive, dead, and gone at the same time. I'm not sure if that's important or not. [???]
P.S. If the box was empty, Mr Second still wouldn't know if the cat was alive or dead.
-
George - would it be true to say that it is the probability of an observer finding the cat in a particular state rather than simply the probability of the cat being in that state?
I am not sure about that.
I believe that Einstein would have said yes, but the reason Einstein formulated the thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat was to show the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation (that I believe Schrödinger was putting forward) that regarded the observers probability to be equivalent to the actual probability.
If that is the case then Mr First observing the cat will have no effect on Mr Second's probability function.
Oh, actually it would as Mr Second could find the box empty due to the action of Mr First. So, in that respect, Mr First has affected Mr Second's probability wave as prior to Mr First's involvement the cat could only have been in 2 states - alive or dead - and now there are 3 possibilities.
So if you were calculating Mr Second's probability function with passing time, you wouldn't be able to factor in the probability of the cat not being there if you were unaware that Mr First had opened the box.
You could get around this by having a glass top to the box, so the observer can look in without altering the outcome.
If the first observer does change the outcome for the second observer, then they can no longer be regarded as independent outcomes, and so the wave must be collapsed when the first observer looks in.
-
But, surely, looking through the glass top would be the same as opening the box. Either way a definite state is observed which causes the collapse of the probability function.
If the first observer does change the outcome for the second observer, then they can no longer be regarded as independent outcomes, and so the wave must be collapsed when the first observer looks in.
But from the second observer's perspective, the outcome is still uncertain as he is unaware that Mr First has done anything. Doesn't that mean the waveform hasn't collapsed, but has merely been altered to include the 3rd possibility even though the second observer is unaware that the 3rd possibility exists?
-
But with the glass top, the observer has still looked inside and an outcome of his observation been made. I still think each observer contributes to the outcome, that way it is different everytime.
Each has their own influence or wave upon that of the cats..assuming the cat is in the box.
-
But with the glass top, the observer has still looked inside and an outcome of his observation been made. I still think each observer contributes to the outcome, that way it is different everytime.
Each has their own influence or wave upon that of the cats..assuming the cat is in the box.
Is this not then a peculiarly anthropocentric perspective.
If there is no communication between observer one, and observer two, and there is no physical action by one observer that influences the outcome for the other observer, then what difference does it make whether the observer is human, or non-human (e.g. a fly on the wall)?
-
I've often wondered about the nature of the observer. In a 2-paths experiment (where a particle can take either of 2 paths), what if no-one actually looks at the results? All you have is data in a computer. Does that cause the waveform to collapse? Or, as George said, what if it is observed by a fly? Or a dog? A chimp? Where is the line drawn?
-
You are losing me now. But saying that, why should it be limited to human observation?
-
You are losing me now. But saying that, why should it be limited to human observation?
This is why it only makes sense that an observer is either the final observer, or an intermediate observer that is communicated with by the final observer (not necessarily concious communication, but merely that information is passed is passed between the first and second observer).
In this context, there is no reason why the interim observer need even be animate (the final observer is ourself, and thus must be human, only because we are human).
This must mean that there must be multiple wave functions, depending on whom the final observer is (but this is unprovable, because any attempt to prove it would need some form of information between the final observers, which would invalidate the rule that no information may pass between the different final observers).
-
There is one case where the issue of two observers can interact with each others observation without directly communicating between them, and that is with the EPR paradox (i.e. making observation (e.g. of spin) of two entangled particles that have been entangled).
-
I repeat once again:
1.We are made up of associations which defines the expected constitution of world.
2.The associtions were learned or taught by system when you were young and not so intelligent.
3.The constitution relates events and your senses.
4.The cat dead or alive is driven by such associations.
So much on the nature of laws and its relation with observer.
=================================
Quantum Theory says there are chances of finding cat dead or alive:
1.As I said this expectation is driven by past association.
2.The outcome is driven by past knowledge of outcomes.
3.If more number of people know the story then more likely it is to be true.
4.Therefore the wave function does not manifest in independent form if Observers share the History.
5.IF the Observer is a kind one and has no desired purpose of demonstrating the "magic" it to the world then he can achieve singular validations. He can in other words discover a different physical constitution. Such new observations break the past associations ... but now he doesnt have any way to demonstrate it to anyone.
In other words it is a number of observer dependent reality.
For a Group or Groups the laws "appear" to be different and for individuals the same constitution appears different.
All manifestations of past(which defines what is real or not)come out of one grand constitution and are equally true.
Happy?
-
If we refer to the original thought experiment, surely the CAT would know whether it were alive or not. Hence the quantum problem is resolved.
I don't like cats anyway - they crap on my garden and they kill lots of nice birds.
If I did the experiment, I'd forget about the fancy bit of quantum equipment - just stick with the Cyanide tablet. Oh you brute!
-
dkv - I really don't know what you are trying to say. QM has nothing to do with expetations or levels of intelligence. And how can the outcome be driven by past knowledge of outcomes? If every outcome you've known says the cat is alive, that does not mean the cat is alive this time. All you can say is that your expectation of the outcome is driven by knowledge of past outcomes.
As for your assertion that the more people who know a story, the more likely it is to be true - that is absurd. Urban myths gain status by the number of people who believe them. Millions of people know the story of Harry Potter. Does that mean it must be true?
And what do you mean by "If the Observer is a kind one and has no desired purpose of demonstrating the "magic" it to the world then he can achieve singular validations. He can in other words discover a different physical constitution. Such new observations break the past associations ... but now he doesnt have any way to demonstrate it to anyone."? I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
-
If we refer to the original thought experiment, surely the CAT would know whether it were alive or not. Hence the quantum problem is resolved.
The cat (not sure about a CAT - what has Computer Aided Tomography got to do with it) would be the initial observer, but ultimately the final observer is you, and you do not know whether the cat is alive or dead until it communicates this fact to you (it either jumps up and scratches your eyes out for the dastardly experiment you subjected it to, or it is lying there with its legs in the air - either way, it has communicated to you whether the particle was emitted or not).
-
I'm going to hate myself for asking this, but how and does the cat know it's alive.
-
Can the cat still be the initial observer if it is not alive?
-
Can the cat still be the initial observer if it is not alive?
Why not?
If I were to look inside the box, and make my observations, and then write notes for someone else to see, and then promptly keel over with a massive heart attack (or overcome by the cyanide because I failed to take adequate precautions when opening the box); then my observations are still valid, as I have documented them and passed that information on to my successor.
-
Can the cat still be the initial observer if it is not alive?
Why not?
If I were to look inside the box, and make my observations, and then write notes for someone else to see, and then promptly keel over with a massive heart attack (or overcome by the cyanide because I failed to take adequate precautions when opening the box); then my observations are still valid, as I have documented them and passed that information on to my successor.
Are you saying we should put a laptop in the box for the cat to use? [:D]
-
It is important to realize that there is only one observer and that is you.
If you die who knows what happens to the world.
If you go mad all the theories go for toss.
No one other than you is responsible for what you see and understand.
Even in a network the purpose is selfish and that is Towards Sustainable Pleasure. or TSP.