Can someone explain tome how this experiment works in a way that makes sense?
Thanks.
The Rev Dodgson said:
New cat thought experimentCan someone explain tome how this experiment works in a way that makes sense?
Thanks.
Err….no.
There seems to be some leap involved here that I’m not following.
It seems that putting the word ‘quantum’ in front of everything changes it…
(WTF is a ‘quantum message’???)
Last night we had a quantum barbecue, I had lots of quantum beer and now have a quantum headache…
And the quantum neighbours called the quantum police too LOL
Sorry
Quantum LOL
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
New cat thought experimentCan someone explain tome how this experiment works in a way that makes sense?
Thanks.
Err….no.
There seems to be some leap involved here that I’m not following.
Same here .
I’m hoping mollwoll will set us straight.
I see Quantum Cat Memes. Lots of them.
Quantum Cat can be in two places at once, has well has being dead or alive.
Police in Queensland are treating the stabbing deaths of two men in a house in Townsville as suspicious.
Peak Warming Man said:
Police in Queensland are treating the stabbing deaths of two men in a house in Townsville as suspicious.
It was probably the cat.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Police in Queensland are treating the stabbing deaths of two men in a house in Townsville as suspicious.
It was probably the cat.
If the cat was in two places at once, the cat might have an alibi.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Police in Queensland are treating the stabbing deaths of two men in a house in Townsville as suspicious.
It was probably the cat.
If the cat was in two places at once, the cat might have an alibi.
I was here so it wasn’t me!
Coincidentally I was revisiting the double slit experiment and its ramifications only yesterday. I just felt my brane was due for some bogglement.
I’ll have a think about these cats sometime.. maybe this time next year, maybe not..
Physicist cats..
Hahahahahha ha
First it was, is the cat in the box or not, then it was, is the cat dead or alive in the box, now, the cat in the box can be in two places at once.
Awesome.
Tau.Neutrino said:
First it was, is the cat in the box or not, then it was, is the cat dead or alive in the box, now, the cat in the box can be in two places at once.Awesome.
What will it be next ?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
First it was, is the cat in the box or not, then it was, is the cat dead or alive in the box, now, the cat in the box can be in two places at once.Awesome.
What will it be next ?
I’m going to theorize that Quantum Cats can be in different states all at the same time.
I think that’s why a lot of cats give that “WTF” look when something changes in front of them.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
First it was, is the cat in the box or not, then it was, is the cat dead or alive in the box, now, the cat in the box can be in two places at once.Awesome.
What will it be next ?
I’m going to theorize that Quantum Cats can be in different states all at the same time.
I think that’s why a lot of cats give that “WTF” look when something changes in front of them.
Perhaps the cat can be in a box on a mat and it also includes did the cat poop on the mat or not poop on the mat.
Did someone mention a cat? Where? Let me get it!
I have now read a more detailed description of this thought experiment.
It seems the key point is that the “observers” of Alice and Bob doing their quantum thing are not actually observers; they do independent models of what Alice and Bob are doing (one does Alice, one does Bob).
The “paradox” is that sometimes the modellers will come to a different conclusion to what happened to that observed by Alice and Bob.
My reaction is, well duh, what would you expect?
It is not possible, even in principle, to model anything with 100% accuracy, so why would you expect the results to be always the same.
Am I missing something?
The Rev Dodgson said:
I have now read a more detailed description of this thought experiment.It seems the key point is that the “observers” of Alice and Bob doing their quantum thing are not actually observers; they do independent models of what Alice and Bob are doing (one does Alice, one does Bob).
The “paradox” is that sometimes the modellers will come to a different conclusion to what happened to that observed by Alice and Bob.
My reaction is, well duh, what would you expect?
It is not possible, even in principle, to model anything with 100% accuracy, so why would you expect the results to be always the same.
Am I missing something?
Given the degree of accuracy (in principle) available via quantum mechanics, the discrepancy with macro observations is apparently regarded as inexplicable. By some of them.
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I have now read a more detailed description of this thought experiment.It seems the key point is that the “observers” of Alice and Bob doing their quantum thing are not actually observers; they do independent models of what Alice and Bob are doing (one does Alice, one does Bob).
The “paradox” is that sometimes the modellers will come to a different conclusion to what happened to that observed by Alice and Bob.
My reaction is, well duh, what would you expect?
It is not possible, even in principle, to model anything with 100% accuracy, so why would you expect the results to be always the same.
Am I missing something?
Given the degree of accuracy (in principle) available via quantum mechanics, the discrepancy with macro observations is apparently regarded as inexplicable. By some of them.
Shrug, well either it doesn’t work exactly the way their models assume, or they got their sums wrong, or both.
No great mystery either way.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
New cat thought experimentCan someone explain tome how this experiment works in a way that makes sense?
Thanks.
Err….no.
There seems to be some leap involved here that I’m not following.
Same here .
I’m hoping mollwoll will set us straight.
Oh, I’ve been away, just spotted this.
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:Err….no.
There seems to be some leap involved here that I’m not following.
Same here .
I’m hoping mollwoll will set us straight.
Not getting this. But the version from the magazine Nature says:
“The experiment cannot be put into practice, because it would require the cat physicists to measure all quantum properties of their friends, which includes reading their minds”.
Need I say more?
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:Err….no.
There seems to be some leap involved here that I’m not following.
Same here .
I’m hoping mollwoll will set us straight.
Oh, I’ve been away, just spotted this.
There’s a reasonably concise description of it in the New Scientist of 28 Sep, if you have access to that.
I still don’t get it.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sibeen said:Err….no.
There seems to be some leap involved here that I’m not following.
Same here .
I’m hoping mollwoll will set us straight.
Not getting this. But the version from the magazine Nature says:
“The experiment cannot be put into practice, because it would require the cat physicists to measure all quantum properties of their friends, which includes reading their minds”.
Need I say more?
Well yes.
For one thing I don’t see that reading minds has got anything to do with it.
For another, even if we replaced the people with simple machines that flipped coins and sent messages, it would still be impossible to model, even in principle, so I don’t see the point.
