Schrödinger's Cat
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- No cats were harmed in the making of this video.
Tweet it - bit.ly/qJZry7
Facebook it - on. rfgo9J
minutephysics is now on Google+ - bit.ly/qzEwc6
And facebook - / minutephysics
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
In this episode we discuss Schrödinger's cat, quantum entanglement, and our perception of reality.
Music by Nathaniel Schroeder
youtube: bit.ly/pakJLE
myspace: mysp.ac/qtmZQj
German translation by www.youtube.com...
Created by Henry Reich Created by Henry Reich
Schrödinger takes his cat to the vet and the vet says, "Mr. Schrödinger, I have good news and bad news."
Shrödinger, “Did he go into a superposition again?”
Yesn't
did you mean "Mr. Schrodinger, i have aladeen news and aladeen news"?
'observing' some data would tells us the entanglement and hence the cat's future. Does that mean someone already decided the cat was going to die?
I've heard that one TARS. Give it to me straight.
In some universe, A cat is putting schrodinger in a box and calling it Cat's schrodinger experiment
lmao
🔥💥🤭😂🤣
MIND...BLOWN
Some where in the multiverse I wrote this epic comment and you replied to me🤣🤣
@@sandhyavinodperkewar8167 😂
"If you do it many times you will see its 50/50" No, if you do it enough times you will be charged with animal abuse
That is why it is "imaginary"
@@yugandharjanardhan6466 The funny thing is, that the orginal comment was a joke.
@Green Lightning u missed the r/
@Green Lightning if you say so
@Green Lightning r/itswooooshwith4os
" I don't understand quantum mechanics and you also don't understand quantum mechanics and after this lecture we all won't understand quantum mechanics"- Richard Feynman during a lecture
It's a relief that I'm not the only one who doesn't understand this whole thing
@@mauiicecream5611 count me with you bro
its pretty damn simple if ur on acid
and tbf im a quantum Physics
major at nait
Me: Is the cat alive or dead?
Schrödinger: Yes
Schrödinger invented this meme
😂😂😂
THIS WAS CLEVER OMG
😂😂👏👏
Me 15 seconds:😁😁😂😂 clever
Me now: Okay just wanna say that I love cats so😭😭😭😭😭😭
Schrödinger's smiley:
: ( :
🤣🤣
Underrated
It's smile and sad at the same time
@@bimakn yes
Woah
Did you feel smarter or dumber watching this video?
Me: Yes
Haha...😂
(My last 2 brain cells leave mid video) i feel smarter.
I feel like all of humanity has gotten dumber. Schrodinger was pointing out how stupid this example was, as nobody actually needs to observe the cat for it to actually be alive or dead. The state is determined before you look, you just don't know before you look. So can you say it is alive or dead? You can only say you don't know. Claiming that light is both an electron and a wave until you observe it and then it decides is like claiming that the cat is both alive AND dead.
@@Snowy84557 It's just a paradox, okay?
overrated
“Our curiosity kills the cat” lol nice one!
No, but like, this is where the phrase comes from...
dumbass... that's where the phrase comes from
Or that's the only thing we understand from the video 😂
@@EMILY-xc5ju no i understand the whole thing
@@bigadventureslol9987 so impressive omgggg
The cat was put in the box in 1935. It is dead.
+wjrasmussen666 But you don't know that, you can only assume based on common facts.
+cryptosguns The experiment was dated 1935. That is a fact.
wjrasmussen666 No. You don't know that the Cat is dead. Unless they announced it officially.
cryptosguns
I am officially telling you it is dead.
Lol, you just made my day
This helped me come to terms with my cat that hasn't come home in two days. He is both dead by the mouth of a coyote and alive by the chances that he has found a safe place to be at while hes gone.
Please come back Bones, we all miss you. :'(
Did….did bones come back?
@@jessswan7505 I hope so...
No he died. The op posted a video about it
@@mandymoore7218 no they didn’t
So is the cat alive?
Schrödinger: well yes, but actually no.
Random Reviewer Well no but actually yes
LOL
R u dumb thats not the point
Literally
@@xenon7447 Pretty much is.
i'm so curious so i searched this , knowing damn well i'm not gonna understand
Oh I searched before I watched this
Okay this always bothers me. the physical state of the cat is either one or the other. At the theoretical one minute mark the cat either dies or doesn't die. we just don't KNOW which one it is but one event took place and is true. if you flip a coin in the dark and then turn on the light and look at the coin, it wasn't in some magical state before the light turned on. it was laying in one side. Reality is not based around human observations guiding truth...
Your example of the coin flip is based on the same principle as this theory. When you flip a coin in the dark, it will either land on heads or tails. Before you turn the light on you don't know which path reality has gone down, being the path where the coin landed on heads or the path where it landed on tails. It is only when you turn on the light to observe the outcome can it be determined what the outcome is. Before you turn on the light, the coin could be either heads or tails, so reality is split. When you turn on the light you either see the coin on, say, heads, or you don't, forcing reality to go from 2 possible outcomes to 1 definitive one. You must also understand that this theory is meant for quantum physics, and is explained like this to make it understandable to non quantum physicisis. Search "quantum suicide" on youtube and click on the first link. It's a great video that kind of helps understand concepts like this.
imkindahungry04364 what he is trying to say is that not everything revolves around humans. Either way the thing happened whether or not you're looking at it. It's not the reality that has to choose which path it's already been chosen it's your mind that forces it
SDQuad6 so true glad I'm not the only one who thinks this subject is overated.
imkindahungry04364 I'm still lost. Even if we don't KNOW the outcome of the coin flip, the outcome is still there. There's still ONE outcome. In our heads it went from two options to one when we turned the lights on, but physically the outcome went from two options to one the minute the coin landed. I don't see how our observation did anything but satisfy our curiosity. I don't see our observation as forcing the outcome. The outcome is there whether we observed it or not.
I hope that makes sense.
pinkpoet1412
You are right. The coin doesn't have two states between landing and us observing it. However, conventional wisdom of quantum mechanics says that a quantum particle (not a coin) DOES remain in both states simultaneously until we observe it. The coin and cat are used to understand how the quantum stuff works. It is not supposed to suggest that there is a magical 'coin landed but not observed' state.
If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics.
ahhh omg i know righttt...what is thissss
+arjenbij Richard Feynman said this, he was an amazing man.
+arjenbij i have not understood it,so i have understood it................
+arjenbij You cannot understand it, but you can try ;)
Cringe.
Railroad 1:Being Alive
Railroad 2:Being Dead
Schrodinger’s Cat:*Multitrack Drifting!*
Absolute Tr4sh ok this one is truly underrated (in my opinion)
DEJA VU-
@@CoolerCookie I JUST BEEN IN DIS PLACE BEFORE
"So who's observing us to force nature to one reality?"
The universe is a simulation being observed by the video gods (game players). Some of us are avatars and some are just placeholder AI automatons. You already know how to determine which one you are!
Allah
I think we are observing us...?
@@RJohnson2024 how to determine which one am i?
@@ike2938 well you for example are an AI just you aren't an AI
watching this video made me feel dumber than i already am
That was it's only purpose.
You are not alone...
Now, watch it again on mushrooms.
All I could think about letvthem both die already
@@Ditto.007 that’s aged well, it’s only a couple weeks in
i have never taken a physics class in my life but i feel like even if i had this would still make absolutely no sense to me
Same lol
DONT WORRY, I TOOK PHYSICS, ITS STILL DOESNT MAKE SENSE@@Fox_Mccloud11
I take Physics and after repeating for a few times I understood it a bit
What if he puts the cat in a transparent box???
This question is stupid really
@@aryankhullar7101 This whole theory is stupid really
@@austinhenning2844 nie
@@austinhenning2844 this is to help explain quantum mechanics. When talking about quantum physics, you can never assume the outcome or state something is in because simply observing changes it's behavior. This is more on a micro scale when we talk about matter and waves. Look up the double slit experiment and you'll see what I'm talking about.
@@austinhenning2844 "the whole theory is stupid really"
I wonder what the chances of you being an American are. I say that because, as an American myself, people that think like you are far too numerous and you're holding the rest of us back.
“It exists in all possible states until observed.”
God, it all makes sense now!
Thank you random guy
Does it tho
No it doesn't
@@jamesgodden7760 "possible state"
It's not that simple
The part where the narrator says "our curiosity kills the cat" is so shocklingly clever that I had to research whether Schrodinger's thought experiment was the actual origin of the old saying. (It's not)
Your comment is 5 years old but I also did this exact thing
actually its the other way around
@@louiev4525 The cat's curiosity kills us? I don't follow.
Yes I thought the same
Schrödinger's cat walked into a bar. And it didn't.
Whoa! °-°
my mind is blown like a grenade in a super position
*MINDBLOWN*
Tapmemer ...wat u trying to say
Nonsense! I did neither... until someone saw me.
Bon Jovi - Wanted Dead or Alive
Physicists - Wanted Dead AND Alive???
rofl
not only physicists though! non-duality has been an idea for centuries probably even millennia. To be dead is to be alive, and vice versa!
😂
Molun Yes, most things don't make sense. I.e. Einstein's theory of relativity, it says that a guy who is travelling at half the speed of light will experience things slower than usual but his brain is functioning slower too so he doesn't notice anything but the outside is moving relative to him so he sees the outsidd slower and vice versa if you were outside. Let's just say you got to the speed of light, in this case time won't pass at all, but then the guy will then get off the vehicle and time will resume. But for the people outside time is still continuing. So that guy will have travelled into the future, but for him time resumes at the time when everyone else's time is continuous, then at the time he thinks time outside stops people's time is resuming so if he travelled for 1 min then time outside would stop for 1 min and during that time time has passed 0 mins, but the outside has passed 1 min already then at that time the guy goes out of the vehicle the time is 0min but the people outside sees the time he gets out as 1min... You get the point right? So are there two guys who co-exist?
OR this is some weird time warp thing?
So basically this is like the old question: Does the game load only what we see or does it load the entire world at once
This makes so much more sense than anything else
@@Ankylosaurus_mangiventrisexactly that's why i think we are living in a simulation.
why does it make me think if the "if a tree falls in the forrst with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Ravenswood LPS reminded me of that also. Of course it makes a sound. Reality doesn't cease to exist when we stop observing it.
it doesn't make a sound because sound is a way to perceive vibration, if there is no one to hear it, there is only vibration :^)
Dang. I replied this to someone else. I hope no one thinks I copied you... But yeah, I thought that too
Unless I’m missing something, it’s the same (and better) metaphor for this thought experiment.
Well for me it does make a sound, its just that nothing else there is to recieve it
The "Schrodinger's Cat" thought experiment was used to emphasize how stupid it was to try and disprove quantum theory by applying it to non-quantum objects. Schrodinger was showing how idiotic it was to argue that a cat should behave the same as, say, an electron and then arguing that it was the quantum physicists that were doing it wrong.
This isn't intended to be taken literally, but it does describe quantum behavior. The intention was to call attention to the stupidity of some of the time's critics.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
Regardless, it is still a sick and evil concept.
@@sarahallenhumboldt2638 what
@@sarahallenhumboldt2638 its a thought experiment, chill
@@tubbycustard8866 😂
So that's why they say "Curiosity kills the cat"! I didn't know that 'till I watched this video
I know right!! lol
But it doesn't always kill the cat right?
I thought the full saying was "curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought it back"
i think they literally just means that cats are dumb curious assholes. like my cat would be totally down to stay the entire night outside rightnow even though he would freeze. cats are more curious than smart. also dont over think shit.
A tree falls in a forest
And doesn’t.
Was it heard?
Only unless you observe it will you find out.
I don't see how this makes sense at all. The only difference is that we can't see the cat. Otherwise it's the same as if it were in a transparent box. One outcome or another will happen regardless of us watching it and that's it.
***** Good point. No-one ever contemplates that the box might be transparent.
You are missing the point. The point is that we cannot know the outcome unless we see it, if we don't know the outcome then all possible events are happening and only the act of seeing it proves which event is the real one. Similar concept can be applied to the universe.
ISLAM4LIFE interesting! However, why should we excluding the effect of cat's consciousness on the outcome being observed. As long as it is alive in the box, it knows that it is alive right?
Krishna Chaitanya
because its a gedankenexperiment, a model concept designed to make the superposition easier to understand, it was never ment to be logical
Krishna Chaitanya The cat would know whether it is alive or not because it can observe itself, but the experiment is about the person outside of the box. They do not know if the cat is alive or not, so all possible events are happening until when he sees the inside of the box, then what he observes brings that event to reality, and all of the other possible events then did not happen. The act of observing brings things to life, therefore us humans must also be observed in order for us to be alive when we are alone and there is no one observing us.
when I drop my phone I just leave it on its screen there and be like,
It is not broken yet...
If you want to know what shrodingers cat is all about, look it up on wikipedia. This video fails to mention that this is an analogy for things the scientist observed on a quantum level
+Bear Grylls The second He actually does state that it's a "thought experiment", but I can totally see how some idiot could overlook that since MinutePhysics didn't make it super clear that this is just an analogy as you said.
Daniel Hart Whoa little buddy calm down. I never said he didn't say it was a thought experiment or an analogy. Nap time
Calm down? I was just agreeing with you bruh...
TROOF DIGGINS TAKES FAT SHITS IN A BOX>
Channel name: "minutephysics"
all this stuff lasts as a big controversy until the cat in the bunker say meow😂 while inside box
lol so far down in the comments and no one thought of the Cat's MEOW yet, lol.. good one
This presentation should have mentioned (for better understanding) that the whole reason for the superposition of states is due to a duality often observed at quantum level. At macro level such thing never happens and does't even make sense. The law of indentity prevents something from being A and B at the same time, therefore only one event can be real. But at quantum level things get more bizarre, and a particle CAN be in 2 states or places at the same time. Such duality only exists in the micro world of Quantum Mechanics and could never be observed with the naked eye, of course, but what if... the quantum state of a particle was set to have implications on the macro world we inhabit? How would that duality manifest?
Radioactive decay was initially proposed as a phenomenon used to prompt a manifestation at macro level, since it too is prone to show signs of that duality. If the radioactive decay of a particle had been consummate, it would trigger the opening of a poison flask and kill the cat; if it had not, then the flask would stay closed and the cat be alive. The possible states of the radioactive decay of a particle are able to co-exist in superposition; the life and death of a cat can NOT... When these two (micro and macro) realities are tied together, what's the outcome? Can the flask be open and closed at the same time?
That's the reason for this experiment.
Mhmm, yeah. Totally.
@@themandalorian9511 r u being sarcastic
Super late comment, but wasn’t it stated in the video that the life and death of the cat actually CAN exist in a superposition? Everything you’re saying makes sense, I got a little confused with that one segment of information. I may have misinterpreted but correct me if I’m wrong😎
@@supremevato5297 Well, the cat will be alive and dead (in theory) just until we observe it. Then the superposition collapses and it will have to be either one or the other. Some believe both outcomes still carry on, branching out into two different realities.
Sight is just one of the senses we use to gather information from our surroundings. It has no correlation to nor affects what happens universally. I'm confused as to why this even exists as a theory.
Very true.
I 100% agree.
thank you! I feel the same
without sight we'd be stupid ants bumping into each other.
+Aiden Pierce I assume we wouldn't need eyes if we didn't have them. Blindness is a disease, but collectively humanity would be an abomination if our evolution gone by your statement.
The cat saw the gun powder explode but it didn't die because the cat still has 8 lives to spare.
yep! meowy much sense.
It dies if it has only one life left
So that does make the term YOLO redundant?
Wait the cat lives in both scenarios because he has the 8 loves to spare but when he hears the bunker open he fakes his death or kills himself 8 times. But since he only kills himself 8 times he will have 1 life to spare if the bomb doesn't explode
@@davidbailey1721 Only for cats!
So how does the outcome differ on the tenth experiment, one time after the cat's 9th life? (I was an auto mechanic, and this quantum stuff feels a bit different.)
Ok but what if the cat’s blind. Then the gunpowder could explode and the cat still wouldn’t see it
What kind of monster puts a blind cat in a box with a gunpowder
jelly buko it’s for *science*
Good point
no
@@ayemanansala6342 what kind of monster puts a cat in a box with gunpowder
Could someone explain exactly how our observation forces nature to choose an outcome?
It doesn't.
Of course it doesnt. People take it too literally, that's why it doesn't make any sense.
Schrodinger used this example as a joke, to explain how absurd this
sounds. But it's actually about the electrons and neutrons orbiting an
atom, they appear and disappear randomly from their little orbit, and we
can only be sure of their position when we observe them. That's it, the
cat example is meant to be a joke, and atoms do not behave like that,
they are stable, and even if matter was made directly from the things
orbiting the atoms and not the atom itself, to associate it with a much
more bigger body, like a cat (existing and not existing), would mean
that the respective body's electrons and neutrons would ALL need to
behave exactly in the same way, which is not possible, you won't find
even 2 that orbit exactly the same, nevermind the billions and billions
that would make a cat.
Damn, pumpkin! ur reply deserve to be in every undergraduate physics textbook.
thanks :)
QUANTUM PHYSICS BIATCH!!!
I've see this vid so many times but it just makes me think.... "science can really fuck with your mind"
hahaha
That was a great and thorough explanation and now I am even more thoroughly confused
Silly solipsism. I leave my cat in the box for 1000 years it still has a 50 percent probability of being alive until i check on him? What awesome power I have!
U would be having awsome powers even if the cat dies.I mean you would have lived a 1000 years
Subin Krishna I'm Methuselah, Nice to meet you...
***** Methuselah didn't make it to 1000 years either. He was only nine hundred and something....tragic too. Such a young man..
***** There is no spoon. Just follow the Nocturnal Chicken March.
Your interpretation is solipsistic. But, the collapse of the quantum wave function isn't really that. Take for example random number generators. When we observe them they become less random. This is the observer effect in a real world example. This effect also happens in relativity. Depending on your position w.r.t the event you are observing your perspective on the event will change. As for god being a higher dimensional observer, hmmh, there's nothing in physics to prevent that. The universe could just be a simulation on a god computer. However human consciousness probably could not be programmed in this computer simulation since it causes the collapse of the quantum wave function. It would have to arise from the simulation itself, as if it developed awareness of itself. But perhaps it's not a simulation and is real. Since the universe is flat it wouldn't need a creator to come into existence. Nevertheless since this universe is so refined and specific it would need a creator unless it's existence was merely probabilistic because there is a multiverse of other possible universe permutations out here, ie. alternate universes. Personally I subscribe to the OR theory of consciousness so that means we affect and are affected by events at a quantum level imperceptibly.
So you're basically saying our very observation controls the fate of the cat? That's so stupid. It's either dead or alive. Us not knowing the answer doesn't change the truth. If reality says it's dead, then it's dead. No matter if we think it's alive. If it's alive, it's alive. We don't need knowledge of that, to prove it's alive. It just is.
bullshit. This gedankenexperiment only says us, that you can't use quantum physics for objects in the macrocosm and that you can't predict experiments which contain quantum objects.
but if that's your superposition then that would also include
giving a damn for the cat :)
You don't belong in this comment section your comment is stupid. How can you say reality is that the cat is dead until you don't observe
because that isn't what happens you put the cat in the box it just no longer exists its an analogy
quantum Mechanics simply state that particles when unobserved are in multiple states. when it is measure it collapses into one state
the cat was an analogy Schrodinger wanted to show how paradoxical the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is.
Its talking about scienctific measurements which are assigned values by the measurer rather than their actual, bringing a cat in the equation does make it more understandable but give rise to questions such as yours, griffith in his quantum mechanics book has explained this much more clearly
So if I were to drop a coin in a box/piggy bank, according to this it would be heads up and tails up at the same time? Until I check to see how it landed? That makes literally no fucking sense
Well.. No... Not exactly. I'm no Schrodinger, of course, and I have minimal knowledge on the subject, but I've been recently studying up on this experiment. It seems that Minute Physics didn't really go into the full details of Schrodinger's experiment. It wasn't simply poison, but rather a radioactive source that had a 50/50 chance of decaying.
If the source decayed, it'd release a hammer that was placed inside, thus breaking the flask with the poison and killing the cat, or if it didn't, the cat would remain alive.
As Schrodinger himself wrote: "In a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid."
Meaning that until we choose to view the cat's situation, the cat is simultaneously dead and alive. It's dead because the radioactive substance has decayed, or it's alive because the the substance hasn't decayed. This is known as "Superposition". It's where a particle is in every single possible location in a form of a containment unit at the same time. As long is it's unobserved, of course. Once it's observed, it'll be in one single spot. It's not specific of course. But this is where the multiverse theory (Many Worlds Theory) comes into play. It states that when a certain event occurs, the universe "splits" or "creates" other universes with different outcomes. In other words, when the particle is observed, it could be either in the middle of the container, but in another universe, in the corner of the container.
So this concept is what the Schrodinger's Cat uses as a foundation. The contents in the box are in a state of superposition. However, the only two possible outcomes are that of life and death. And our observation would force nature to choose one or the other. As such, it's been hypothesized that if we were to redo this experiment multiple times over, we'd get half of the outcomes as the cat living and half of the outcomes as the cat dying.
But I've just started researching on this topic, and that's all the information I've got. A similar example is the Double Slit Experiment. I would explain the DSE, but I'm wayyyyyy too tired for that. If you want, you can read up on it or watch other videos. It basically applies a similar Superposition+Many Worlds Theory idea. But with less cats and poison and more electrons.
Rkehm Nyht I forgot to reply a while back, I too was looking around a bit further. I can understand it now, but it still doesn't make sense, but I have a good reason for that.
The "superposition" stuff to me sounds like the "does a tree make a sound in the forest if it falls over and no one hears it" or however it goes.
Even though these two outcomes have 50/50 chances, one still has happened, until we measure it, we as humans don't know for sure, so in our _consciousness_, the cat is both dead and alive, because the two outcomes are both equally possible, we're expecting one of these two outcomes. But because it's already happened in reality, and we don't know which outcome it is yet, (and it can't be neither), the only other alternative - until measured - is to say it's "both" at the same time - simultaneously.
I believe these theories(?) apply only to the human consciousness, and not actual other "realities" or worlds created on the fly as described by MWT. If there are other worlds, it's in the same reality. If there are other realities, I'd believe they're fixed and can't be created on the fly. Only the human consciousness does that to fill the void or gap, during the delay between (knowing the possible outcomes of an event and) the event happening, and being able to measure the outcome.
Henry Hazlitt Yeah, that's true. This shit's got me fucked up hardcore. There's a book by Brian Greene, named "_The Elegant Universe_" I'm giving it a read. Quantum Physics is getting a tad bit easier to understand, but it's still like: "u wot m8?"
And yeah, I agree with you on that last paragraph. Maybe it is just a thing made up by the human mind on the fly, but who knows for sure? I personally would love for the MVT to be legit, but what do I know? I'm just a guy on RUclips looking at cat videos and Schrodinger's Cat videos.
Henry Hazlitt this is just a thought experiment. This happens on micro scale (the scales of electrons) and not on the normal scale. Schödinger only used this for explanation.
This is why I love this theory, there are those who don't believe and those who do. Either way, this theory is so deep that there is virtually no way to figure out whether it is true or not... Quantum physics is literally so mind boggling complicated that no one will ever answer this question/theory correctly during the lifespan of mankind
I use this thought experiment in a different way for decision making. For me, the longer I wait to open the box there is a hight possibility of that cat dying. So ultimately it helps me to decide pretty fast and clear.
Could quantum mechanics itself be somehow connected with consciousness? What we obsereve is nothing but a mere interpretation of our mind. Maybe quantum mechanics differs person to person. How can you be 100% certain that some body else's interpretation of reality is the same as yours? , all you can do is take theyre word for it
Mind BLOWN!
I believe iv heard this concept somewhere before, the idea that my view on what reality actually is as compared to everyone else's is called my "Phaneron".
Whose to say that my interpretation of the color Blue is actually what you perceive as the color Blue, you may see it as Red, but there is no way of describing color without comparing it to other colors, but if our color interpretation is off sync with one other then...well...*Fuck*
JTelli786 Yes I know, that was the point I was trying to get across. How do we know with complete certainty that everyones view of nature is the same without takinh their word for it. And I do think the color argument you used I heard on Vsauce, Shout out to Vsauce!! Lol ;)
SquareSquared2 Yep, i got it from Vsauce :)
Kirigaya Kazuto Mind=blown
I don't get it. Just because you didn't see something happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. The cat is either alive or dead, one or the other, regardless of whether you look or not. The universe doesn't wait for you to look before deciding the outcome for you to see. The outcome already happened before you looked. There are two possible outcomes that could have occured before you looked, and one of them happened. It's simple.
But, BEFORE you open the door, the cat is both alive AND dead IN YOUR MIND.
After you looked in the bunker, the cat is alive OR dead IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE (your mind, basically)
This is a psychological paradox.
Me262 Spatz I wouldnt se it the psychological way.
Lets assume that the parallel universe theory is right. Cause thats what the physical aspect is build on.
Ther is an infinite ammount of parallel universes. One half of them (still an infinite amount) has a bunker with a livig cat. The other halfhas a dead cat.
Lets know ignore the infinity part.
We live in a universe. But there is this exact same universe with a cat, that went the other way. Until we look which is the case, it is not determined in which of these universes we live. The cat is already dead or alive, but for the rest of the universe its both, until its been proven which universe is ours.
lolomat212
So, wait, you're saying that Schrodinger's Cat was thought up to explain the theory of parallel universes?
***** no. But it does explain it. xD
Btw Schrödinger was a physicist, so he might have really thought about it.
lolomat212
nice. yes. ^^^^^^^
I think this is the product of over thinking. If the cat dies, that's a fact and just because we don't know if it's dead or alive doesn't change anything. If the cat dies, even if we don't know, there's no longer a 50% factor, it's 100% dead.
Reading over this I don't really understand what I'm trying to say. :/ This is why I wouldn't be a good theoretical physicist.
+datgoatfilms I think the point was we wouldn't know either, unless they check.. That's why they said the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time..
Its an analogy. The whole point is to help you understand how superpositions work on the quantum atomic level everyone is getting stuck on the idea of the cat rather than applying what they've learned to where quantum theory can be seen.
Unless if the cat is already dead before it was placed in the bunker
I’m addicted to this channel. I never thought I would watch something like this in my freetime lol. Do Laplace’s demon next.
Or don't open the bunker for 50 years and the cat will always be dead.
+Matthew Smith except for the fact that this is just an analogy to what physicists are observing on the quantum level, and since quantum particles don't need to eat food to survive, your comment is useless
I hope you make it as a doctor as the world is over populated!
+Medstudent 187
you have no sense of humour.
You said always, but how do you know it isn't sometimes instead?
A cat without food would die much sooner trapped in a bunker.
What if the cat just took a shitload of catnip, and sees the gunpowder explode when it actually didn't?
LMAO
Please help, this comment is actually killing me 😂😂😂😂😂
You just killed me... and you didn't *gasp*
Why does there have to be something observing us? What if there isn't anything else observing us?
It makes me wonder. If us observing each other has an effect?
something has to collapse the wave functions into particles
there's an idea that says we might be living in a computer simulation. sounds crazy but check it out.
Yeah. There's a pretty good movie about it with Keanu Reeves and Lawrence Fishburne.
In that case, could the programmer please send me a bottle of Tequila and 2 fire breathing whores.
I don’t quite understand this when you think about it from the perspective of the cat. Let’s say the cat is never observed, no one ever looks in the bunker. Does the cat observing it’s own reality make it collapse?
Screw that yo! I refuse to believe the Copenhagen interpretation. Events happen whether or not they're observed. If there's ever proof otherwise, I'll believe it when I see it (see what I did there :p)
There is also God or a god, now a days we dont see him but most people believe that God or other gods exist. If your curious about me, I have faith that 1 God exist, but thats just me
Prove it, broh :p
+Bidoof like I said "I". Remember what "I" said: the key word is "I" which means "I" dont have to give you proof because it is "my" own faith so that means that "I" am not going to continue this conversation have a good day ✌️
You literally said "There is also God, or a god."
+Bidoof Reread my first comment
shit happens whether i look at it or not.
Does it? If you think it does, it's probably because someone else observed it and told you what happened. But what if NOBODY sees/hears anything? How do we know if something happened? We don't. But we also can't prove that nothing happened since we didn't see that either. So... until one of us takes a look, the reality is undecided. For example - there's a storm outside and there's a good chance it uprooted some trees. But nobody will actually know if any trees were uprooted until they look, right? Reality only becomes reality when observed. Until then, it's undecided, as far as we're concerned anyway.
Archangel591 if you look at time and cause of death it tells you what happened without anyone observing.
@@TheNoobPube The time and cause of death can't be known unless it was observed and recorded by another person. If the death was recorded on a video, the person will be either dead or alive until you watch the video. Assuming that no other person observed the person that was either dead or alive. A person can be dead or alive at the same time unless you observed. And when you observed, you will see them either alive or dead. People usually think of this Schrodinger's cat theory in their own perspective (human are self-centric) declaring that "If I don't observe it then it should not happen, but shit happens anyways" It's not only you that observe, but everyone that observes collapse the nature of reality. If one person observes then it will happen, your observation is not the only factor that determines reality.
@@brianz5011 The person is either dead, or alive. The fact about the persons state gets out when observed however, but it does not alter the state of the person. The person is not in some "middle state" waiting to get observed to choose whether it should be dead or alive. Not knowing the facts does not change the physical state of the person.
Best comment
A few days ago I thought of a man, a well-known man, who I hadn't heard about or thought about in several years. I Googled him, and found that he had passed away in February this year.
Before I Googled him he was already dead. My knowledge of his death had no impact on reality whatsoever.
Sorry, cat.
BTW, a tree fell down, and it made a noise.
Hahahaha ! Was he tree-like?
Schrodinger's cat won't make much sense if you haven't learned much physics or chemistry. You, like most commenters here, completely misunderstood the thought experiment. Google it if you want to learn how it actually works.
Maybe you're telling about the Mandela Effect.
Nooo David you're still on the top layer of this concept. Let go of what you know and think deeper. It will blow your mind.
He wasnt just dead, He was either dead or live. There was a 50 chance he was alive and a 50 chance he wasnt.
Just- just one question. Is this actually where the phrase, "curiosity killed the cat" came from??!!
wow i never realised this
No that phrase originated in 1598, Schrödinger formed this thought exercise in 1935
no
I believe that it is a shortening of the whole phrase "Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back". So it can (probably not by design) actually be used as a warning against being curious (First half) or to promote being curious (whole thing).
Futurama had an episode based on this one. Two universes were found to exists, and everything in one universe was exactly the same and at exactly the same time as the second universe. Except for the fact that whenever someone flipped a normal coin, that in one universe the outcome was "heads" and in the other universe, the outcome was "tails".
Solution: Put a camera inside the bunker.
m8, untill you look at the video on the camera, the cat is still both dead and alive
so much for the solution eh?
+Marko Rezic well shit, you got a point there
+Marko Rezic live camera feed?
+N0SkillRequired That would be the same as looking inside.
+Generic Bleach AI(Artificial Intelligence)?
1:37 but what if kitty already has answer...in another universe?
0:15
of course the Austrian with a German name prefers poisonous gas......
Bruh
Austrian and German names are basically the same, really
but for the sake of your argument, I understand
Oof.
*spicy air
minutephysics guy: Lets put a cat in a bunker with poisonous gas
PETA: Hold my beer
Fun fact: PETA puts down more animals annually compared to nature.
How do you know other people poop if you never see them poop? AM I RIGHT!? 😄😄
+Kody McGregor Two girls one cup...
No
lol, fuck you I was gonna say that too.
Is it too obvious an answer?
you poop? that's weird.
***** just like the cat, there is no way to know for sure, unless you are me... or see me
I really hate this theory. Humans are so arrogant to think their observation changes anything. Something absolute has happened in the bunker whether we check on the cat or not. Our observation doesn't have the power to force nature to do anything.
i agree but disagree... mostly agree tho... if you put a cat in a bunker with gun powder 9 times out of 10 it will be alive.. however using quantum entanglement our observations do change an outcome.... but on a molecular level.
It isn't their(our) observation; this experiment could be done with a photon, a frog, a paper with a slit, and a photo-responsive plate. Science is not necessarily intuitive; do you feel the ton(one small car) of atmospheric pressure pushing against you? Does a metal thing and a paper thing feel like different temperatures even though they have been sitting in the same room? That's the awesome part of science, it's magic but it's not supernatural!
Your probs right but there is actually NO proof of what you are saying
Our observation has the power to change the outcome of an experiment ... for example the way electrons move. if you look from afar when sending electrons throug a double gap they will behave like a wave and give you a intererence picture, even if you shoot the electrons individually - but if you move your point of observation extremly near onto that double gap you force those electrons to take one of the two gaps and it suddenly behaves like a particle - so it changes its behaviour in relation to our observation. So our observation HAS the power to force nature (electrons) to do something different, depending on the way we look at them.
When a quantum physicist says that something is being observed, they really mean that there is an interaction resulting in quantum entanglement that collapses the superposition. As such it is independent of whether we see it or not, however it is easier to explain in this simplified way.
"Your honour , the victim I stabbed in the heart and left to rot is clearly both dead and alive as there was no observer to witness his dead body"
Why not point out that Schrodinger intended this "thought experiment" as an illustration of the absurdity of atomic theory?
Really? I always wondered why this experiment and theory was so famous. Its rather stupid. This is how you think when you are child.
And everyone thinks they are smarter than you when you tell them that they are the ones who don't understand it lol.
This theory is about how curiosity often leads to death, and by not acting we can save the lives of innocent kittens. Geez, you people sure are stupid.
thank godness someone has already pointed this out. This video might mislead some people.
Justin Short No. It's a criticism of some of the ridiculous theories that physicists are trying to hoist on the populace which has been hijacked by the same in order to illustrate their own ridiculousness as truth.
Now, that's assuming you agree with Schrodinger. Personally, I am not qualified to say. I can only defend Schrodinger's purpose against misuse. If those who defend the theories he criticises wish to illustrate them, they should do so themselves rather than misrepresenting their own criticisms.
where I go, they tell me a diferente version of schrodinger's cat. Always
Exactly !!
TO EVERYONE READING THIS HAVE A GOOD YEAR AND I WISH U ALL THE BEST IN LIFE
This is a lot like the whole "If a tree falls in the forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound" conundrum. Just because we don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We don't force nature to make a decision by checking to see what happened. The decision was already made, we just don't know what it is.
Schrödinger came up with this idea before technology was invented. Today we could easily solve this conundrum using little cameras filming the inside of the bunker. Likewise the one about the tree falling in the forest could be solved using carefully placed microphones.
Unfortunately political correctness in the form of animal ethics protocols and forestry protection laws have made it impossible to carry out these experiments.
yes but putting cameras in the bunker is the same thing as opening the box up. Shrodinger is saying that the cat doesnt die until we confirm it. Putting cameras inside wouldnt solve anythingg
BushMania4
Hence the joke.
BushMania4
"Shrodinger is saying that the cat doesnt die until we confirm it"
Shrodinger was a moron. I assure you that if leave a cat in a bunker long enough without food or water, eventually it WILL die, irrespective of whether the keg explodes or not.
This is my 6th video trying to understand Schrodinger's cat and its more and more thoughtless than the previous.
Video: Whether the cat is alive or dead depends on perspective of each indiv......
Me : Ight Imma Head Out
To the commenters here exasperated: you've missed the point somewhat. Firstly, you need to recognize that this is trying to make an analogy of a quantum state and any time you use an analogy to describe something, you lose accuracy. Secondly, Schrödinger used this analogy to point out how ridiculous it is rather than have some grand idea.
However, the overall point that observation of an experiment at the quantum level changes the experiment so you can only really deal in probabilities (the Copenhagen interpretation) seems to hold true.
Smoke another one and ponder it some more.
it always threw me for a loop how violent the example was, lol. Like, you could've just had a lever drop a ball with 50/50 chance or something, but they went with killing a cat.
0:59 Could be blind..
Good point
BWAH HA HA! :D
It seems like the cat's outcome is independent of our forcing it. Don't the laws of logic, more specifically the law of non contradiction, state that they cannot be the same at the same time in the same sense. Assuming that the bunker is thick enough that we can't hear the explosion (if indeed it exploded), than according to this logic if we walked away and never "forced" the outcome, then the cat would exist for the rest of time stuck in the "super position". Unless you mean that they are fixed in our perception because in reality the cat experienced either an explosion in the bunker or not an explosion in the bunker and our understanding is fixed because we haven't opened the bunker to look. Again, this similar logic could be applied this way: Every tree in the forest is stuck in the super position of either having fallen down or still being still standing and until someone walks over and looks at the forest the trees are forever stuck in purgatory.
Someone please let me know If I'm making sense lol. Thanks.
Quantum logic doesn't make sense. Get used to it.
***** Are you saying that quantum logic is...illogical? lol Not sure if I can get used to that.
yup.
Peter Qin That's what I am asking though. There is already an outcome whether we open the bunker and look. The law of non-contradiction doesn't allow there to be two outcomes simultaneously. There is one even if we don't know it. Also, isn't the cat an observer as well? Surely the cat knows exactly what happened when the timer hit 00:00. It just is silly to think that events do not happen unless someone, or some human, is there to observe them. This argument sounds very much on line with the "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" inquiry. Of course it does. An observer is not forcing the outcome of a sound. That's why I think logically it does not follow that the bomb and cat are suspended in time awaiting someone to check on the outcome. The outcome happened independent of the observer.
***** but how do you know the outcome happened? Who are you to say they are not in "super position"? Do you have evidence to support your theory?! Have you ever heard the sound of a tree that was too far for you to hear the sound of it falling?! Slowly the feeling of how illogical quantum logic is will take you... Absalom. :P
Here is the answer: The peson watching us to force nature's desicion is no other than Chuck Norris. And Chuck Norris sees everything, thus meaning he is watching himself, making an infinite cycle of Chuck Norris forcing nature's desicion and thus making reality possible. Amen.
May chuck be with you.
Tom Wells Chuck is not with you.
You are with Chuck
But like, in a hypothetical situation,gun power is still extremely loud. and in a hypothetical situation, a cat would still make noise. and in the same hypothetical situation, corpses would still rot.
So basically you can find out whether the cat is alive or not even if you don't go in the bunker
This is fallacy though. Our observation of something doesn't force nature to collapse into one reality or another. How is reality not reality unless we observe it?
Exactly! The whole point of this video is to show it doesn't become reality until it is observed.
Here's something I don't know if already been expressed:
Think of extra dimensional planes, like a 4th dimension, of the single photon beam, representing itself as an interference pattern out from the extra slit.
The slit that doesn't have any photons thru it, has an extra dimensional aspect,
paralleling simultaneously with the slit that has the photon beam. Thus creating the interference patterns.
So when only one electron is fired at a time thru only one slit over time, those single fired electrons have a corresponding parallel extra dimensional aspect as well, providing the interference patterns.
Extra-dimensional space Eg: Tesseract - Hypercube expression;
of electron/photon beam.
Have you ever heard about the Measurement problem in quantum mechanics.... that will help you to understand this.
Nina Chan I'm familiar with the Measurement problem. But I'm also familiar with cats, and they don't operate under the rules of quantum physics.
Treadstone7177
Speaking for myself, the idea of an observer, changing the outcome of the results, seems to be on the fringe of lunacy.
Is it really a fact that Einstein finally accepted the observer hypothesis, and
went against his own thinking of "God does not play Dice with the Universe"?
To me the observer hypothesis is so New Agey. Did New Age thinking
infiltrate common sense Physics?
Is the Kabbalah now apart, or has always been intwined with the current
quantum mechanic theory models?
As crazy as the concept of the observer changing the results, Me just being a novice, thought of a crazy idea, of extra dimensional interference thru the slit without a beam. This is probably not the first time this has been thought of..
You're missing the very important / Quantum Mechanic element of having a trigger made of a Geiger counter and a radioactive element that has a 50/50 chance of emitting enough radiation to trigger the Geiger counter. The radioactive element is what sets the hole thing in the realm of Quantum Physics.
Chill everyone. Remember this is really about subatomic particles not actual cats.
Shrödinger: are you alive?
Shrödinger's cat: well yes, but actually no
Not a good explanation. He didn't bring in the quantum level part, dealing with the radioactive decay of an atom. Everything he mentioned was macroscropic.
And the idea that an intelligent agent must observe something for the "wave function to collapse" is outdated.
I like this channel but now I'm starting to feel that the makers just string a bunch of "sciencey stuff" without offering any insight.
For example, why does he say "the QM interpretation" at 00:35? When I search "quantum mechanics interpretation", the very first hit reveals that there is not just one, but a lot of them.
Moral of story: complex subjects like physics should no be presented in videos that are too short :P
RoboterHund87 Starting to? You're aware this is one of their first vids right? They were intended to get people into science and help them understand complex concepts that they may not be familiar with so they can learn more.
This whole thing is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, and this alone is enough to make some people's minds go haywire. You can't really expect this video to be perfect when it's less than 2 minutes. It's really good already, I understood a lot.
What? I don't even get whats the problem.
Either it's dead or not. It doesn't die, when we look, it might already be dead, we just don't know.
What are you talking about?!
If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Quantum physics suggest that the answer might actually be - No.
Schrodinger's Cat is the same idea, but I find the tree metaphor easier to understand.
Jamie G It made a sound. End of discussion. I don't get it. What's so wrong about it? I mean if no one hears it, and of course humans came up with the idea of 'sound', doesn't mean it makes no sound. It still does. WTF?
XxDemonitexX This problem shows the importance of the measurement instrument on the experiment. If those events (cat's death/sound of the fallen tree) were inputs for other experiments, you would want to know precisely when they happened. A simple yes/no answer would not be enough. So the measurement instrument is influencing on the variable. I wont even start talking about extreme environments like high/low temperatures, high/low preasures.
0x8055 But I don't see a problem. xD
according to quantum mechanics the cat is neither alive or dead but both at the same time, only when consciousness makes a measure it makes nature collapse, therefore consciousness determines existence
Someone please help me cause I have no idea how this works. So if the cat explodes it dies anyway right? There's no need to look for nature to do it's thing. Or am I missing something?
heres the thing, you didnt know wether it has exploded or not. so the cat is currently alive or dead. sure the cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time even if we didnt see it yet, but as long as i havent see the cat in the box ill continue to think it is alive and dead.
What do you mean "collapses to one option"? It was already chosen before you looked. That's like saying that someone either ate the cake or didn't, until someone sees one piece of the cake missing or the cake still whole.
OK this might be a dumb question but what if we just don't,
I mean we wont know if the cat is dead or alive but if the cat is dead and we don't know, it the cat is still dead.
this question seem kind of ego centric of humans to think our observation determines reality, isnt that to imply that reality couldn't exist without us. yet it did before us and will after us.
It's about a principle of quantum physics. Essentially, the idea is that everything exists everywhere all the time as a superposition on itself, and it's only when they're observed that individual pockets of space and time become something less than that infinite superposition. So essentially, you don't "effect" reality by looking at it necessarily, but you do "solidify" it into one definite state rather than an indeterminate state.
It's interesting to note that Schrodinger actually put forward his cat analogy as a tongue-in-cheek critique of quantum theory. He was suggesting that when you take the laws that govern the very small (quantum physics) and apply them to what we consider to be normal-sized things, which is what's called macroscopic (cats), then these laws begin to fall apart. He wasn't literally arguing that the cat in the box would be both alive and dead, he was in fact saying that it would be ABSURD to think that the cat were both alive and dead. If you read his original description of this thought experiment, Schrodinger actually described it as a "ridiculous case". His point was to raise questions of exactly when it is that quantum systems stop being indeterminate, and how one should define an "observer". He described the current interpretations of quantum physics as "blurred" in these regards.
MrXingor Hey thanks for the article is was very interesting, and obviously I have a pretty limited grasp on this stuff but wouldn't the behavior of electrons in this experiment indicate that the method of observation was interacting with them at some level? So doesn't how much observation determines reality in this case depend on how you classify "Determine & Observe" because if observe means just to have knowledge of in the way a "blind person"(just stick with me) might of the electrons then wouldn't it be inconsequential to the determination of a outcome.
Phil Barry Hey thanks for the explanation but this is new to me so by Superposition does that mean that at the subatomic level all things exist in every form they could exist in until observed. Because I am not arguing but ya there is like no way that I grasp that or truly understand what that means.
Stuart JSA Yep, that's exactly what it means. :)
theres factual observable evidence to prove that the observer effect is human caused, human beings are intimately connected to reality, this is a Fact.
Me : "is the cat dead or alive?"
Schrödinger : "well yes, but actually no"
ahhhh the tree falling in the forest with nobody around.. trippy
when you search up something and minutephysics has a video about it you know you're gonna understand it
I hope we figure this shit out before im dead. Its giving me a headache.
The misuse of Schrodinger's cat is getting really annoying on reddit... nobody freaking understands its context, which is meant to show the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is absurd.
He tucks it in right at the end with a "greatest unknown mysteries" line or something. But yeah, nobody knows its meant to be a critique of the Copenhagen its annoying. I suggested on one page that everyone should read the wiki-page to at least get a basic understand of things (like the part that its a critique of another scientist) before commenting, and this one dude ripped me a new asshole for suggesting Wikipedia. trololol
Can someone explain? Even if someone is looking or not, the cat's chances is still 50/50 and either event will happen. Much like our day to day lives and what not, would happen even if there was or wasn't someone looking down on us. Am I wrong?
That's the endless debate you're referring to. In this explanation, by observing the cat, we "force" an event to occur in "that" timeline. Look back to the end of the video about how "someone" or "something" may be looking at us to, in a sense, force the event of us forcing the event on the cat. This would make sense as to why time traveling would be possible, such as the Grandfather paradox, but there's an opposing idea to this.
The opposing idea is that we don't actually "force" an event, and that no matter what we do, events are predetermined because, in simpler terms, we are "stuck in that timeline." This theory was brought up because someone said nobody can truly know what state an object or living creature is currently in unless we observe the actual nature. Of course, a cat can't be dead and alive simultaneously, that wouldn't logically make sense, and that was what Schrodinger was trying to say by proposing this situation.
In the end, the Schrodinger's cat theory was simply to show how quantum mechanics can't be applied to larger objects, such as the cat and box, because the laws of physics don't actually apply in some scenario. Quantum mechanics is meant for subatomic particles and their interaction with energy. The cat theory was just a way to show how silly it would be to do so. The problem with this video is that it's referring to the idea of superposition, which was not completely clarified.
***** but even that is wrong and often misunderstood. Superposition doesn't literally mean that a particle is in multiple places at once, it means that we know for certain the possibilities of where it could be, but we can't know until we look so we just assume its in all of those positions at the same time until we actually measure and find out. Think about what you're saying with observation affecting reality. You're basically saying that a photon hitting your eye somehow has the power to affect reality in some other location. The ONLY explanation for this would be entanglement, but these aren't entangled particles.
kronosx7 That's what I said. The idea of superposition is plausible for subatomic particles, but not for larger objects that we see everyday. And Schrodinger's cat was his way of saying how silly it would be to try and apply it.
kronosx7 photon hitting you eye does affect other outcomes as it obviously hit your eye and because it’s a photon it’s the end of it, so it can’t hit anything else.
Its the same as if we flunked our exam and the marks were declared but we didnt see it...
This channel: "Our curiosity Makes our marks low."
If it was a human in that box, would they be neither alive nor dead? Hell no. He'd be furious. He has his own conscious experience going on. This experiment is just in your head. Just because kitty can't tell you he's alive doesn't mean he isn't. Nature takes it's course regardless if we observe it or not...
....or the gun powder didnt explode and it just starved to death..either way its dead.
It's only in the bunker for a minute. So I doubt it would starve.
oh, by the way he explained it, it sounded like they left it in there forever.
***** That pic is fitting to your first comment (in my opinion), lol...
Its just a minute. Cats don't starve in 1 minute
Abraham Allen But my cat always acts as if it would do so.
the cat could be asleep or something and not see it explode like that
But you can't be certain whether the cat is asleep or not without observing the cat. Which then narrow the focus of Schrodinger's theory on whether the cat is awake or not. If you want to find out whether the cat sees the explosion or not you need to observe. Which also meant that the cat is asleep and not asleep at the same time until you or another person observes. The cat is just a substitution for quantum particles, so...
You just solved the question.
The bang would wake the cat up and it would see the flash for at least a millisecond and if the cat was looking away the cat would still see the flash on the walls
Why am I even reading a book about Quantum Mechanics when this video explained a full chapter in 2 minutes 😂
Am I the only one who thinks these kind of thoughts are just plain stupid? Just because you don't know if the cat is alive or dead does not make the cat both alive and dead until you see it. It just means you don't know which one it is until you see it. Our act of looking does not force natures decision, nature made up its mind well before you look you just don't know what nature's decision is yet. Maybe I'm just not "smart" enough but these ideas just seem dumb to me.
What its trying to say is unless we look at it, we'll never know. Think of it this way. if you're looking at a a stop sign and its in english, if you look away, its in spanish. theres no way of knowing the sign is in english unless we look at it.
EpicInabox I understand what they are saying but the fact they take it to the point where they say we are forcing nature's decision is silly. They are almost making it seem like we are god like and that neither circumstance will occur until we take a look when we all know that one circumstance has already we occurred. They then took it so far as to say who is forcing our decision, just a bit silly to me that's all.
Quantum uncertainty is not the uncertainty of humans to predict the outcome of an quantum experiment, because of its complexity (like i.e. in chaotic physical phenomena). It is a fundamental property of the universe. We know this because this property explains many observed phenomena, such as the Casimir effect.
I agree Matthew.
***** ok but has this been physically proven? Have we placed a particle in a vacuum and watched what happens when it is first introduced to another particle? I still call BS on this and think that what ever particle we are talking about is always in one state but because we don't know which one it is in we just say it can be in 2 states.
reality is there,
case 1: it did explode, tbe cat dies no matter whether we measure that or not, in reality the cat will be died either way.
case 2: the same
as Einstein said about the glove theory the glove is there but we dont know until we test.
I never get this. Surely I'm just a bunch of complex arrangment of atoms that can replicate, ergo me seeing the cat is no different from the bunker seeing the cat, or anything made of atoms like everything else in the world. So what makes a human or any organism so special in the world of physics that it causes the universe to collapse and make a decision. Surely the light particals hiting my eye and causing a chain reation of firing synapses does not force the universe to make a decision.
In short, you're exactly right. It's a thought experiment of how quantum systems behave, not our macroscopic scale. So exchange the cat for an atom, and the observer for, I dunno....a muon. I like muons, I like cats, they give me a fermion....whoops!
Yeah, this whole "thing" isn't exactly scientific. If it happens, it happens. We don't need to see it happen for it to happen. We'll only be seeing the outcome of what happened, if/when we decide to look.
ZacEffron the thought experiment is about atoms being in two states, and collapse when we observe them. But why when we observe them, what makes us so special?
ZacEffron I meant why do they think us seeing the atoms is different from an inanimate object seeing the atoms. If you're saying this is a proven fact that us seeing something changes a state of atoms which are proven to be in two states thats one thing but I was lead to believe this was flaw in the current mathematical models of some kind, and was expressed as this methaphor. No video ever explains what the methaphor is all about in lay man's terms. It seems to have risen in popular culture becuase it's so damn fucking weird.
Mikey Mike Mikey I am always wary of talking about quantum mechanics as it is a pure head fuck. So will preface by saying I may be wrong.
But as far as I understand, there is no difference between us seeing the atoms and an inanimate object. We "see" using photons, so in a way it's the photons that are the real observers.....I think!
Schrödinger : *I can't tell if cat is alive or not without looking in the box*
Cat : *Meow* 😼