𧔠Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:19:13 UTC No. 16305562
Um, -heh-, AKSHUALLY, Schrodinger's cat means- *gets it completely wrong*
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:22:30 UTC No. 16305566
It was a thought experiment to show that superposition is a silly interpretation.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:31:52 UTC No. 16305578
>>16305566
And here we go again. First one to get it wrong. Or are you being ironic?
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:38:32 UTC No. 16305583
>>16305578
>This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935[1] in a discussion with Albert Einstein[2] to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
You're dumb.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:42:07 UTC No. 16305628
>>16305578
Why don't you tell us what you think it means big guy
You're clearly not a physicist
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 08:01:38 UTC No. 16305631
>>16305562
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC8
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:22:10 UTC No. 16305657
>created as a critique of the quantum superposition theory
>now used as a quick guide on how it all works
I hate popsci like you wouldn't believe.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:13:42 UTC No. 16305692
how do they get it wrong?
what would be correct?
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:29:43 UTC No. 16305741
>>16305562
Admitedly I don't really know much about Schrodinger but I thought this >>16305566 was the main idea. That it isn't so much about ZOMG UNTIL YOU OPEN BOX CAT IS ALIVE AND DEAD AT SAME TOIM!!!1!! but rather that considering something alive and dead simultaneously unless observed is a silly concept in classical physics and by our normal understanding of probability. Hence showing that superposition is wacky and quantum physics fundamentally differs from classic physics.
Happy to be entirely wrong lol
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:12:22 UTC No. 16305761
>>16305741
No, you got it.
The main reason why topics related to what we now refer to as quantum mechanics took so long to become accepted was precisely because how it functions goes against logic derived from macro-scale observations.
I personally believe (and this is subjective) that the reason why examples like Schrödinger's cat are used to explain these phenomenons to the average (not very intelligent) person is to avoid them going
>wait, so if that doesn't follow the rules of reality, then my [completely idiotic belief] can also be valid!
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:12:23 UTC No. 16305762
>>16305562
Even roger penrose does this
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 13:50:27 UTC No. 16305826
>>16305659
Based fags poster
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:15:09 UTC No. 16305948
>>16305566
>>16305583
>>16305628
>>16305657
Dumb pop sci shit, get the fuck out of my board. Schrödinger coauthored the superposition formalism, so he sure as fuck didn't want to ridicule his own creation. What he criticized is precisely your dimwitted misunderstanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. Your moronic naive ontological realism which due to your debilitatingly low IQ makes you incapable of abstractly distinguishing between a mathematical formalism, its ontological implications and a gross misrepresentation in terms of classical physics intuition.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:37:34 UTC No. 16305967
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:50:14 UTC No. 16306039
>>16305948
>so he sure as fuck didn't want to ridicule his own creation.
Why am I supposed to just accept this assertion at face value? How do you know that? Did you personally know Schrödinger? Why wouldn't he be looking for holes in his own theories? Scientists do that all the time, it's a core aspect of the scientific process. They teach you this shit in middle school.
By scaling a quantum superposition up to the size of something more relatable, like a cat in a box, it becomes immediately obvious that we're definitely missing something here. There is obviously more work to be done, and that work could take centuries, possibly millennia to finish.
>What he criticized is precisely your dimwitted misunderstanding of the Copenhagen interpretation.
I don't think that's possible, unless Schrödinger was doing some research on time travel on the side back in the 30s.
Given that this thought experiment first appeared in a scientific journal, I doubt he was writing to an audience of laymen.
>Your moronic naive ontological realism which due to your debilitatingly low IQ makes you incapable of abstractly distinguishing between a mathematical formalism, its ontological implications and a gross misrepresentation in terms of classical physics intuition.
Yeah, this is nonsense. Sorry.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:03:01 UTC No. 16306050
>>16305948
Schrödinger disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The cat was made to show that it's a silly way to think about QM.
If you disagree, you are wrong.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:10:54 UTC No. 16306054
>>16306050
>Schrödinger disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Dumb and wrong.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:18:26 UTC No. 16306059
>This prevents us from accepting a "blurred model" as a reflection of reality in such a naive way. In itself it would contain nothing unclear or contradictory.
Quote from Schrödinger, talking about how the cat idea doesn't let us accept Copenhagen mechanics
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:30:06 UTC No. 16306074
>>16306059
>in such a naive way
He means naive ontological realism. Why are you talking about things without knowing the background?
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:36:57 UTC No. 16306079
>>16306074
No, this was in Die gegenwÀrtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics)
It was talking about the cat in a box, and the "blurred vision" is macroscopic superposition
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:37:37 UTC No. 16306080
>>16306074
>Why are you talking about things without knowing the background?
Are you talking to yourself? Because you're the only person in this thread that this question applies to.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:44:57 UTC No. 16306088
>>16306079
Perhaps you should read that paper instead of ignorantly citing it without understanding.
>>16306080
Go back to /pol/ with your nonsense trolling.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:47:23 UTC No. 16306090
>>16306088
I did. Have you?
Which translation did you read, or do you speak fluent enough German to translate QM articles without assistance?
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:49:08 UTC No. 16306093
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:49:35 UTC No. 16306095
>>16305566
This is correct. The point was to show that these ideas cannot be meaningfully applied to macro systems, even though they are made up of the quantum level systems.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:51:05 UTC No. 16306097
>>16306090
I've read the original.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:53:26 UTC No. 16306102
>>16306097
Why do you chose to lie on the internet? The manliest thing you can do now is say you were wrong, but instead of just doing that or taking the coward option of closing the tab and hiding your own thread, you just continue to spread your stupidity.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:54:44 UTC No. 16306106
>>16306102
Take your meds
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:46:58 UTC No. 16306142
>>16306102
Why does it upset you that I read this rather short paper?
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:52:44 UTC No. 16306148
>>16306142
>>16306097
>>16306074
>You can't scale quantum mechanics up to the level of classical mechanics because... you just can't ok??
This isn't the point Schrödinger was making you dumbass. Kys immediately.
Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:13:31 UTC No. 16306227
>>16306148
That wasn't my point either. Go talk to your strawman, dipshit. You're not talking to me, apparently.
Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 02:30:25 UTC No. 16306476
>>16305967
that cat is superposed as fuck