Hmmm… This is something that I’ve been wondering about for a while. Unfortunately, I still don’t understand it. Why is it argued that the cat is “alive AND dead”? Isn’t it simply “alive OR dead”? True, we can’t classify it as “alive” or “dead”, but it IS one (and only one) of those possibilities, right? Why is observation so important in this case?
Wow, impressive debate skills:
- Make assertions
- Someone disagrees
- Repeat assertions
- Disagreement continues
- Give up sulkily
Not that it should matter at all, but I don’t read much pop science. I am about to get my PhD in theoretical condensed matter physics, specifically focusing on quantum phenomenon in superfluid helium. But I haven’t had a chance to read much pop science – perhaps you could recommend some good books?
Ring, I’m always trying to deepen my understanding of quantum mechanics. But you have to actually make scientific statements and back them up. (Oh, and you’re right about the “bouncing” thing – sloppy language on my part. And wrong – the electron is probably more likely to be absorbed by the metal. But it can’t go through the screen, which is the important thing.)
On a quantum scale, particles can actually be in a superposition of two different states (e.g. spin up or spin down), and interact with other particles as if they were actually in both of those states equally. Schroedinger’s Cat is a thought experiment which asks if this can be transferred to the macroscopic level. The answer is no, from a physics standpoint, because the cat can not be well-described by a wavefunction, especially not a wavefunction in a superposition of “dead” and “alive” states. So the cat is either dead or alive, irregardless of whether or not we open the box to check.
::Giraffe will now stop posting long boring physics posts, and instead visit girlfriend for a few days::