Deja vu! Not really, I've read about this before, but I was unable to relate to it at that time.
While Einstein was proving that light is really a particle that interacts with atoms creating luminescence, theories that light acts as a wave still seemed to be true. So how could one be 'true' if the other were also 'true.'
The Cat Paradox was proposed to illustrate wherein conclusions derived from controlled experiments with quanta could be erroneous. I would have PETA all over me if I were to demonstrate 'the uncertainty of that which we can prove being certain.' I'll just try to explain it.
If you have an element that will die if exposed to a second element inside a box that we are unable to see through, an error in logical conclusion could occur if we presume that which we see when the box was opened actually was reality when we were unable to see inside the box. It leaves open the possibility that 'the result we saw' was 'because we opened the box.' 'That the state of the living thing was dead when exposed' 'does not determine' 'what the state may have been when the life was contained in the sealed box.' The conclusion is that the state of life inside the box is 'indeterminate.'
When I consider vacuum, if atomic structure is vacuumous, it may be exponentially more erroneous to 'draw conclusions based only on what we see and can prove.' To take it even further, that which we know about the necessity for vacuum for a light bulb, it is even logical to conclude that it was the breaking of the vacuum seal that caused 'air' to be the only ingredient needed for 'fire.'
Also, if atomic structure is vacuumous, we should also be able to logically conclude that the state is 'not indeterminate,' but 'virtually impossible to be anything other than breaking the seal caused the death' as the gas would not disperse in the vacuum (is that correct?), nor would the 'living thing breathe oxygen or any other element comprising air.' In fact, exposure to air seems to kill that life.
Hmmmmmm.
3 comments:
Interesting take. My solution is much simpler: Schrodinger was an idiot who didn't understand Heisenberg at all, or that probability waves can predict superpositions -- in fact, Uncertainty is a sliding scale of compromise -- an actual system of measurement, not some voodoo to be confused with the observer effect.
Moreover, Schrodinger was trying to apply quantum physics to the macro world. Most school kids don't make that mistake these days.
But, here comes the big downer: As we are dealing with probability waves, the cat has a 50/50 chance of being alive when the hour is up and the box is opened. I know, it's a lot less interesting to ponder. But the wave collapse so "mysteriously" occurs as soon as the box is opened, because at that point calculating probabilities is moot -- the reality is observed.
Same way you don't now how good your pocket aces are before the flop.
BTW, I think we could have some interesting discussions. I not only see time as not existing before God, or the big bang, or whatever, (Hawking's with me there) I consider it to be the prime mover. That is, time is a force, not a dimension. Dimensions are geometric entities. Time is not. Time moves in a single direction, like other forces. This barely ruffles a hair on Einstein's head. Without time, all other forces would cease to function -- time is a necessary catalyst for every reaction. It must be accounted for in about every scientific hypothesis and experiment. The biggest argument I come up against is that time would violate the second law of thermodynamics -- which is how, for example, electrons behave at the quantum level. (Otherwise they'd go crashing into their nuclei, and that would be pretty bad for everyone.) Grand unified theory, anyone? You do the math, we'll split the Nobel.
Oh, and don't get me started on pi. Here's a taste: Not only do the infinite and random decimals of pi contain every number sequence, they necessarily contain every infinite number sequence -- so not only do the decimals of pi contain the entire sequence of primes, they contain it an infinite number of times.
Infinite monkeys? Pshaw. A simple circle encodes everything which can be written, every mathematical formula, binaries for every type of media that exists, will exist, or can exist.
That magnitude of real-world, mathematically factual infinity should make up for Schrodinger's damn cat.
Who in gods name is Schrodenger?
I never heard about this guy and his cat.
Long times ago there was a man called Schrödinger, thinking about a cat that is alive and dead at the same time.
"Oh, and don't get me started on pi. Here's a taste: Not only do the infinite and random decimals of pi contain every number sequence, they necessarily contain every infinite number sequence -- so not only do the decimals of pi contain the entire sequence of primes, they contain it an infinite number of times."
There are an infinite number of irrational numbers like pi between every whole number. The thing that makes pi special is its implicitness in the circle. What about the square root of 2?
"Moreover, Schrodinger was trying to apply quantum physics to the macro world. Most school kids don't make that mistake these days."
All attempts at a GUT do this.
Post a Comment