>> ^brain:
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Following all of the same logic, should we have socialized car insurance?


No!

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Following all of the same logic, should we have socialized car insurance?

>> ^imstellar28:
Sexism
1. Discrimination based on gender.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Moral position:
Violence against others, men or women, is wrong
Immoral position:
Violence against women, but not men, is wrong
Sexist position
Violence against women is more wrong than violence against men.
Just so you understand what you are and where you stand in the eyes of the LORD-AH


It's not immoral to think violence against the defenseless is worse than violence against the strong. It's not sexist to acknowledge biological differences.

Would you like the male/female distinctions in sports removed? Are woman-only sport's team inherently sexist?

The thought experiment with a man in her place is difficult, because a man would have been treated differently. This scenario wouldn't have played out this way.

>> ^cybrbeast:
I've always seen this experiment as flawed. People assume the act of observation that causes the cat to either be dead or alive must be done by a human. But this is not the case I think, the Geiger counter is the observer and once it observes the decay or not, the cat will either die or not, irrespective of when the box is opened.


But the geiger counter is not an "observer" as the term is accepted. It is simply an inanimate object like the collection of atoms that forms the isotope.

The geiger counter acts in a certain way when a certain set of conditions presents itself. When a radioactive particle/burst of energy travels through the gas inside the counter, the gas conducts electricity, the electricity stimulates an output such as clicks. Doesn't have to be clicks either, it could be a guage. Regardless, it is not something that observes. You may as well say that the isotyope itself is an observer because the reaction of the parts in the geiger counter is an extension of what occurs in the isotope.

Schrodingers cat is a great way of simplifying the idea of quantum mechanics, but you still need a basis of what the thought experiment is trying to convey. The cat is just a way of linking quantum mechanics to the real world, it's not particularly important. You can just put the isotope in a box, do away with the cat, hammer and geiger counter and say "we cannot know whether it has decayed or not."

That's the point - we do not know what's happening in the box, because we can't measure it. And until we can measure it, in a quantum mechanical sense, all (or both) states are true.

Yes, it's not a question of whether the cat is alive or dead, or what is the probibility of it being in one state or the other. It's the fact that until the cat is observed, it is both alive and dead simultaneously. The key is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Of course that is a ridiculous statement in the macro universe, which is what the thought experiment was illustrating.

The connection between the particle state and the cat state via the Geiger counter cyanide, etc. is just to provide a more tangible framework for the idea. The validity of the connection is irrelevant to the experiment.

For me, the point of the thought experiment is to illustrate that you cannot separate the observer and the observed....is there such a thing as unobserved existence?

It's fun to think of stuff like that....like, in what degree of phase is a wave?

Understanding this thought experiment is key to grasping the edge of Quantum Physics, which is the hardest part of actually studying Quantum Physics.

States of energy, atoms being several places at once and so on are concepts that aren't very intuitive and take a while to actually grasp.

There are, however, practical applications to this thought experiment:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Big-Bang-Theory-Schr-dinger-s-Cat

I think the creator of this video meant to contrast scientific knowledge against stupendous ignorance. Rather like Sagan's thought experiment of the immovable object and the irresistible force. What _would_ happen if these two got into the same room and Sagan brought out all his science shit to answer this trode's ignorance?

I made a reply to your post. From the bottom of my heart, none of it was meant to be rude or challenging. The sentiments and suggestions made by this video is what inspires new younger generations of einsteins and newtons to never be happy with their perceptions of things, and to always challenge them and hope for more.

I've gotten into arguments on the sift before over less than this (with utter jerks), but i hope you see that it was all from a good place.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Bah, I hate this. This movie takes some common thought experiments and twists them around so as to justify some quack New Age nonsense. The talk of dimensions here has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics. During the whole movie they give well-known physical concepts new meaning, so that they retroactively justify their unsound theories. Beneath this clip is the unspoken promise that you can be so much more than you are today, if you only buy into the crap of the movie producers and let them help you on the way in the same manner Dr. Quantum helped Ms. Flat there.

The other clip on here from the same movie is worth a watch, though. In spite of the movie's flaws, that clip actually gives a good explanation of the double slit experiment. But the conclusions they draw from it are horrendous.

Bah, I hate this. This movie takes some common thought experiments and twists them around so as to justify some quack New Age nonsense. The talk of dimensions here has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics. During the whole movie they give well-known physical concepts new meaning, so that they retroactively justify their unsound theories. Beneath this clip is the unspoken promise that you can be so much more than you are today, if you only buy into the crap of the movie producers and let them help you on the way in the same manner Dr. Quantum helped Ms. Flat there.

The other clip on here from the same movie is worth a watch, though. In spite of the movie's flaws, that clip actually gives a good explanation of the double slit experiment. But the conclusions they draw from it are horrendous.

^Exactly!

The famous Schrödinger's Cat was actually a thought experiment to show how riddiculous it is to extrapolate QM to large systems. QM is only applicable on very small scales, like the interaction between photons, electrons, hadrons, etc.

Another way to realise this could really work:
Replace the air (=light, not-dense), by something (lotsa) more dense and heavy... like water, or liquid mercury. Whether we take air, or a liquid like water or mercury, doesn't seem to me make any difference to the "theory" that such cart could never move faster (DDW) than the medium (gas or liquid) that it is in.

Now think of the propellor blades of the cart in the liquid mercury. If the blades were not angled, the cart would reach (almost) speed of the liquid... as the balloon (or a non-angled-bladed-cart) does in air. No problem there! Right?

Now start angling the blades a bit (=positive pitch), so as the cart moves at close to liquid speed, do you think that the blades will just start "milling" through the liquid? That would take lots of power!? (like from friction in the cart set-up...). No, they will find the way af least resistence, by "cutting" through the liquid, and starting to move the cart faster than the liquid. So this will rather accelerate the cart (small effort), instead of milling through the liquid. Smart blades!? ;-)

In fact, exactly the same thing happens in air, so it is my feeling that the thought experiment with a dense liquid is more convincing.

Your milage may vary...

Worst analogy ever. Quantum experiments?

Of course everyone knows that the truth and science and math of the thought experiment is not:
(A) there is god
(B) there is no god
(C) i don't know

The correct answer is the cat is both alive and dead at the same time and the act of observing which state makes it so. Therefore, now god both exists and does not exist and the mere act of trying to observe god makes him not exist. What is you believe in quantum god?

God is neither a particle nor a wave, he is both.

MaxWilder and harlequinn, I think you two are agreement at the conceptual level while your disagreements are occurring at the semantic level.

I tend to lean towards liking MaxWilder's definitions of agnostic and atheist though. I don't think there is any evidence for or against the existence of a deity; I simply don't know if God exists. By definition that makes me agnostic. I choose not to believe (i.e. have faith) that a god exists, and since I can't say I believe in God, that seems to imply that by definition I'm also an atheist. In other words, I think being agnostic makes one an atheist as well.

However, I recognize that the meanings of the words atheist and agnostic are used in ways that tend to imply slightly different definitions.

For example, many times people use agnostic when they mean to imply that they don't care or that it doesn't matter. I've even met people who were spiritual and religious (in a personal way) who called themselves agnostic as a way to describe the level at which they were religious. They may pray, but it doesn't bother them if the truth is that no god is listening.

I've also met people who think that the word atheist implies that the person believes there is no god.

If I had to give myself a label, I'd probably use "agnostic atheist" since I think it helps clear up the misunderstandings that sometimes come up.

I get what you are trying to say Harlequinn about there really being three states, so here's another analogy that may help.

(This analogy inspired from the classic Schrodinger's cat quantum mechanics thought experiment)

Suppose there is a box, in which a cat is placed. From your point of view, you can not see, hear, or sense the cat in any way. There is a button. When the button is pressed, the cat is either killed, or not killed. The button is pressed. Before the box is opened, someone turns to you and asks, "Is the cat alive?"

You could respond, "(I believe) the cat is alive." (Response A)
or you could respond, "(I believe) the cat is dead." (Response B)
or you could respond, "(I believe) I don't know." (Response C)

These responses are analogous to:
"(I believe) there is a god." (Response A)
"(I believe) there is not a god." (Response B)
"(I believe) I don't know if there is a god." (Response C)

The problem is, the terms theist, atheist, and agnostic, do not map one to one with these different responses, because an atheist doesn't have to be agnostic, but an agnostic has to be atheist. (per dictionary not necessarily common usage definitions). It seems to me that the best way to describe these three positions is as follows:

"(I believe) there is a god." (Response A) - Theist
"(I believe) there is not a god." (Response B) - Atheist, but not Agnostic
"(I believe) I don't know." (Response C) - Agnostic and Atheist

>> ^Sketch:
Yeah, but quantum physics states that all 3 doors contain both a goat and a car until you open them.
Or something like that.


Quantum Mechanics wise it should work something like this:
(without the math sort of, more of a thought experiment)

At the beginning Bob shows you the doors to pick from. To you all three doors are in a state of superposition (it could be a goat or car).

Bob of course knows the answer so nothing neat for him.

You pick the door that you think is the car thus "measuring/observing/changing" the doors state. This coincidently affects Bob who's decision was in superposition (deciding which goat to show).

Bob makes his choice and "measures" the door by opening it, allowing you to eliminate one door.

You also know that the door you picked is no longer in superposition as you have picked it and Bob's outside influence destroys it's superposition.

The last door of course to you is still in superposition as it hasn't been opened or "measured" by you in any way.

At the beginning as they all had superposition each door had a 33% chance of being the car and 66% chance of being a goat. When you make your choice for the door Bob's knowledge destroys it's state of superposition and can now only be one thing, not either. The other door is opened as well destroying it's superposition and confirming it's fate.

The last door however, is still in superposition from your point of view. The door still has it's initial setup of 66% goat and 33% door. But, since Bob has measured the system from his point of view it has changed the states the doors were in (on the second opening).

Now that you know which door has one goat and the other door which IS a goat or car you have the last door which is in superposition. As the system changed (and no you can't start a multiple step problem in a closed system and look at the last step and call out 50/50, this is a procedural problem, breaking it up into a separate system would be akin to saying acceleration and a vector are the same thing) it altered the probabilities initially setup. One door can only be a goat or car, making it 33/33. The door that is in superposition though still has it's sate intact therefore the chance is 66/66 respectively.

But, you know you have one goat already out. So by inderect observation you can now see what the probability for each door is. The door measured by Bob has a (goat/car) 33/33 chance of being either. The door in superposition can now be updated without destroying it's state do to the other door. It's chances are now (goat/car) 33/66. I'd pick the door in superposition.

That was a little long winded hopefully I made it understandable.





Time for some cake!