Is Schroedinger's cat a stupid theory?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes.

The cat is not simultaneously alive and dead. It is one or the other and we don't know until we check. That's like saying if you flip a coin and close your eyes it is simultaneously both heads and tails until you check it.

[tik 🪀✨]

It's not a theory, it's a thought experiment meant to illustrate wider concepts about quantum mechanics based on the interpretation. Your interpretation is that it is "stupid." Therefore I imagine you will never want to own a computer that can fit around your head in order to be stuck up your ass as well.

[A18]

You don't seem to understand quantum mechanics, which is far more weird than you think. The wave function collapses only upon observation.

Of course, one might say that the cat would qualify as an observer.

[John Dibble]

As mentioned, it's clear you just don't understand the idea behind Schrodinger's cat.

[minionofmidas]

Of course, one might say that the cat would qualify as an observer.

And only somebody stupid would have overlooked that, so what does that tell you about Erwin Schrödinger? Of course, Schrödinger's point was that there's something wrong with a theory that forces the conclusion that the cat is dead and alive at the same time... he just overlooked that a cat observes whether or not its dead, and thus quantum mechanics do not force that conclusion at all.

Oh, also:

[12th Doctor]

It's not a theory, it's a thought experiment meant to illustrate wider concepts about quantum mechanics based on the interpretation. Your interpretation is that it is "stupid." Therefore I imagine you will never want to own a computer that can fit around your head in order to be stuck up your ass as well.

Ditto.  BRTD... from now on it would be a good idea if you actually understood these things prior to commenting.

[jokerman]

Yes.

The cat is not simultaneously alive and dead. It is one or the other and we don't know until we check. That's like saying if you flip a coin and close your eyes it is simultaneously both heads and tails until you check it.

No, that lacks any sort of quantum variance whatsoever.  The point of Schrodinger's Cat is to magnify quantum dynamics on a macro scale.  The cat can be killed or not killed, but what determines that result is specifically the actions of a single decaying atom (which is small enough not to experience quantum decoherence).  In quantum terms, whether that atom produces radiation, subsequently setting off a Geiger counter which triggers the killing device, is completely indeterminate.

[12th Doctor]

Yes.

The cat is not simultaneously alive and dead. It is one or the other and we don't know until we check. That's like saying if you flip a coin and close your eyes it is simultaneously both heads and tails until you check it.

No, that lacks any sort of quantum variance whatsoever.  The point of Schrodinger's Cat is to magnify quantum dynamics on a macro scale.  The cat can be killed or not killed, but what determines that result is specifically the actions of a single decaying atom (which is small enough not to experience quantum decoherence).  In quantum terms, whether that atom produces radiation, subsequently setting off a Geiger counter which triggers the killing device, is completely indeterminate.

The moral of this story is the BRTD doesn't take the time to understand something before he develops a strong opinion of it.

[Bo]

No.

[muon2]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

This is a classic philosophical question about information, sensation, and knowledge. In many ways it is the same question that is posed by the problem of Schroedinger's cat.

The cat is an example of how the classic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics views events based on unknown information. The same interpretation gives an unequivocal answer to the falling tree question. The answer is no, particularly if I exclude any indirect means of measurement such as a recording.

The Copenhagen interpretation is not the only view of quantum mechanics. QM doesn't fit well with our macroscopic world since most of its effects are truly infinitesimal on our scale. Other interpretations usually deal with the cat problem by making the question irrelevant. A older view, still supported by a small number, assume a finer level of information that can be deterministic, but "hidden," and results in a definite state for the cat prior to observation. Experiments don't generally support that view, though it would be most comfortable with our macroscopic experience.

[jokerman]

I thought the deterministic view was thrown out back in the 1950s.  I know Einstein pushed pretty hard for it but if I recall correctly the actual research always led into dead ends.

Anyways, Quantum Theory is very intriguing.  Is reality precipitated upon human consciousness?  That's a very worthwhile notion.

[anvi]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The best answer I ever heard to this question was given by Coach on Cheers:
"Well, if no one was in the forest, how do we know the tree fell?"

Anyway, I think Muron is right.  I think the Schroedinger's Cat illustration gets wierd when all sorts of funny ontological consequences are inferred from it on the macro level, like the supposition that, until the wave function is broken, the cat must be considered both alive and dead.  When I think of Scroedinger's Cat, I consider it to be just a macro-level illustration of uncertainity and observational interference at the quantum level, but not one necessarily to be taken as literally as the Copenhagen Interpretation would have it.

[12th Doctor]

I thought the deterministic view was thrown out back in the 1950s.  I know Einstein pushed pretty hard for it but if I recall correctly the actual research always led into dead ends.

Anyways, Quantum Theory is very intriguing.  Is reality precipitated upon human consciousness?  That's a very worthwhile notion.

Einstein was, in many ways, the Capt. Ahab of the mechanical view of quantum mechanics (as redundant as that might sound), and as you say, as hard as he tried to figure out some sort of unified theory to explain the nature of everything, he never could.  And, as this thought experiment attempts to explain, that is because there is no such thing as certainty, or uniformity on the quantum level.  No offense to Muon or anyone else, but the people who are still fighting this battle are only doing so because of a staggering lack of imagination... the belief that the universe has to be uniformly rational.

[12th Doctor]

And I am definitely not targeting this at Muon, but alot of this goes back too scientific debates that go back to arguments over the Big Bang... if the universe is not static, if it can't be perfectly explained through some well packaged theory, then that is tantamount to admitting the existence of a God, so we must hammer away at coming up with these arrogant theories.  Not saying anything about the divine one way or the other, but that is the background of these kinds of discussions.

Anything that gives any leeway to the notion that the Universe does not describe itself is viewed with deep seated suspicions.

[jokerman]

Einstein was Jewish, that's an ample explanation.  "God does not play dice"  This isn't an anti-semitic remark, just a comparison of Cultural traditions.  Compare Spinoza to rest of the body of continental philosophy.