• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Schrödinger's Cat

A

Anonymous

Guest
Could someone please explain to me, preferably in words of one syllable the concept behind the theoretical experiment of Schrodingers cat. I found myself having to explain it to someone today and whilst I get the main gist of the experiment, I found it hard trying to explain to a third pary what it was all about and what it was meant to prove.
So, could someone please provide an explanation which would be understandable to the layman.
 
I have used this highly unscientific analogy-

If you approach a group of teenage girls with a camera, you are unlikely to be able to take a photo of them acting naturally because they will preen, pout, walk off, blush, giggle and so on.

So, if looking at photos of teenage girls is how people learned how they behave when unobserved, the overall impression might be innaccurate.

IF you could approach the girls unawares, you MIGHT get a natural and unposed photo- BUT the girls might just have rumbled you and be posing in a 'natural' style.

So the act of photographing the girls changes their behaviour in unpredictable ways which must be taken into account when forming any theory about how teenagers behave when unobserved.
 
Where's the bit about locking them in a box, and you'll never know if they suffocated or not?:eek!!!!:
 
The box business is about the moment of observation. When you open the box the cat hasn't either died or not- it's the act of observing the cat which makes this happen.

I think the cat analogy is a little poor, meself.
I do understand the theory but thinking about poisoning pussycats didn't help me any.
 
I prefer the old "Is the glass half empty or half full" for the answer is very obviously both and it's only the individuals perception of the glass that makes them think otherwise.
Same goes for the cat in the box, until you take the lid off the box and actually check the cat for signs of life then you can't say whether or not it's dead.
 
River_Styx said:
I prefer the old "Is the glass half empty or half full" for the answer is very obviously both and it's only the individuals perception of the glass that makes them think otherwise.
Click to expand...

If it starts empty and you put water in it, then it is half full.
If it starts full and you pour water out, then it is half empty.
 
Inverurie Jones said:
If it starts empty and you put water in it, then it is half full.
If it starts full and you pour water out, then it is half empty.
Click to expand...

Not if you come across a glass in the pub and it's got stuff in it....But hey, I'm thinking outside the box here people.
 
Glasses starting empty...

You would think so, wouldn't you?

If you come across a glass in pub and the liquid within is at the halfway mark, I think it's likely to be half empty while someone, somewhere is now half full.
 
Re: Glasses starting empty...

Inverurie Jones said:
You would think so, wouldn't you?

If you come across a glass in pub and the liquid within is at the halfway mark, I think it's likely to be half empty while someone, somewhere is now half full.
Click to expand...


So you're a half empty person eh?

Explains quite a bit actually.

Either way the glass is still half empty and half full at the same time so it really doesn't matter if you tip some out or fill it up the end result is always the same. Half empty and half full at the same time.
 
I'm a half full person, actually, but my brain insists that the starting condition of the glass determines 'half full' or 'half empty'.
If you have an empty glass and fill it halfway up, then the task of filling it is half completed, thus it is half full. The same goes for empty; if you have drunk half of the contents of a full glass, then it is halfway to being empty.
 
Inverurie Jones said:
I'm a half full person, actually, but my brain insists that the starting condition of the glass determines 'half full' or 'half empty'.
If you have an empty glass and fill it halfway up, then the task of filling it is half completed, thus it is half full. The same goes for empty; if you have drunk half of the contents of a full glass, then it is halfway to being empty.
Click to expand...


But the space inside the glass remains the same so it's half full and half empty.


:snore:
 
Depends on how your brain works...are zebra crossings black with white stripes or white with black stripes?
 
Ah but if you put a cat and half a pint of beer in a closed box, is the cat drunk?
 
Inverurie Jones said:
Depends on how your brain works...are zebra crossings black with white stripes or white with black stripes?
Click to expand...


Welcome to my world.
 
Wow, I'm impressed! There were actually two or three sensible replies to my question before the whole thing descended into an abyss of bollocks:D
Thankyou though Escargot. Your analogy was a good way of explaining.
 
Guess I missed the boat on this one, but I'll stick my oar in for the sake of it (Bit of a naval conceit going on there...).

An engineer once explained to me that the glass is neither half empty or half full, but twice as big as it needed to be.

This tells us nothing about Schrodinger's cat (which, let's be honest, is dead when it stop breathing, not when someone observes that it has done so - especially for those of you who believe in an omniscient God, 'cause He'd observe the dead cat even if it were in a box.) but it does tell us a lot about engineers, and what they think passes for humour.

Once I've been to my books, I may return with an explanation of why Schrodinger's cat is still dead even if you don't believe in the Big Beardy Fella. I can't promise that will have any jokes in it, though (which, given the quality of the 'engineer' gag, is probably a good thing).

Ho-hum...
 
Ws it Douglas Adams whop mentioned Shroedinger's cat in one of his books? That there is always the possibilty that when you open the box there is no cat inside at all!?
 
I once performed that experiment and, when I opened the box, the universe changed!

...I'll get that bloody cat...
 
.... so when you put the cat, Douglas Adams, the camera, the bunch of teenagers, the zebra crossing and the beer in the box, is it half full or half empty?
 
101 said:
This tells us nothing about Schrodinger's cat (which, let's be honest, is dead when it stop breathing, not when someone observes that it has done so -
Click to expand...

I might be wrong, but I think that the point is that you cannot possibly know whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box and observe it. It's as though the observer somehow creates the reality that he/she observes. By seeing the state of the cat, a probability wave is collapsed and the universe at large is then informed of the state of the cat (through greater and greater probability waves).

This thought experiment was meant to illustrate the randomness of the universe. In the original idea, a machine is put in the box with the cat which releases a poison gas. This machine is only activated when a single radioactive atom releases a particle through decay. Once the box is closed, and the poison gas machine set, the cat is neither alive nor dead. Until, of course, you have a look and force the probability wave to collapse into one of the two options.

Does this help?
 
Cavynaut said:
I might be wrong, but I think that the point is that you cannot possibly know whether the cat is alive or dead until you open the box and observe it. It's as though the observer somehow creates the reality that he/she observes. By seeing the state of the cat, a probability wave is collapsed and the universe at large is then informed of the state of the cat (through greater and greater probability waves).

This thought experiment was meant to illustrate the randomness of the universe. In the original idea, a machine is put in the box with the cat which releases a poison gas. This machine is only activated when a single radioactive atom releases a particle through decay. Once the box is closed, and the poison gas machine set, the cat is neither alive nor dead. Until, of course, you have a look and force the probability wave to collapse into one of the two options.

Does this help?
Click to expand...


This is why my retort made mention of the standard Judeo-Christian omniscient God. He's observing every moment of probabliity at every moment of space and time. Thus, His observations define reality long before you or I or Schrodinger has opened the box and believed ourselves to have just collapsed a probability wave. The cat's dead as soon as God notices it's dead, which isn't dependant on the box being open or closed, as He can 'see through it' as it were.

As an atheist myself, who still wants to believe in a universe where the cat dies without me having to see it (not that I like dead cats or anything), I'd be grateful for any comebacks (however ropey) to this model which don't make use of the Beardy Lightning Bolt Guy.
 
I'm not just a pretty face, i've got brains me........

A live cat is placed in a box with a radioactive source, a geigar counter, a glass flask of poisonous fumes and a hammer.

Radioactive decay will take place and the hammer will fall on the flask, releasing fumes and thereby kill the cat.

*this is where I had to call my friend who's a physics teacher*

Quantam theory predicts that after an hour the box would contain a cat that is neither wholly alive or wholly dead but a mixture of the two states.

BUT, once we lift the lid of the box our act of observation resolves the problem making the cat definiately alive or dead.....

:wtf:

it's something to do with wave functions........incidentally aforementioned friends cat is called Schrodinger........
 
Cavynaut has got it pretty much summed up the way I understand it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top