May 9, 2024: The May '24 Report is up.
News: April 23, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.13 has been released.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
That's...really freaky.I've actually read some quotes postulating that our brains are physically incapable of truly comprehending things like a-causality and discrete time.I like Feynman's comment about it: Anyone that says they understand quantum physics clearly doesn't.It's official: Quantum physics are insane.In the assumption that quantum superposition is a phase that lasts until the effects are observed. Variations of the double-slit experiment have shown that simply creating the possibility of observation is enough to collapse superposition. Even if that observation would be after the fact.What about when the quantum-level effects of a handful of atoms affected the macroscopic world, most crudely via computers doing something if sensors they are hooked up to detect something? Which is pretty much what Schrodinger's Cat is...They only do so in a statistical sense. That's the big flaw in the quantum-cat scenario.And even if I accept your premise, what about when the effects of quantum thingies affect the macroscopic world, a la the exact thought experiment we were talking about?But my bloodstream isn't big enough, that's the point. Quantum effects don't scale up to our everyday, classical-mechanics scale. And we should be thankful for that. 9 out 10 times, the answer to "what would happen if X did scale up like that?" is "the universe as we know it wouldn't exist".If your bloodstream was big enough, it wouldn't matter. Besides, the analogy is faulty--a better analogy might be comparing what happens if some weird quantum effect happens to an electron and asking why that couldn't happen to or affect a person.[snipped]Issues of scale. For example: I have no issues with individual atoms, or even small compounds, entering my bloodstream. I would not, however, like to find out what happens if an entire cat made it's way in there.
The general idea is sound. Why should individual atoms work differently than whole scads of atoms?
Take out the cat, and after an hour the flask is half shattered and half unshattered, because no one has observed the atom's decay or any of its effects. Is this essentially correct, and if not where does the flaw in my reasoning lie?
I can't remember if he said this about QP or quantum mechanics, but I think it fits either way.
Again, why should quantum-level events have no effect ever on macroscopic ones?I like Feynman's comment about it: Anyone that says they understand quantum physics clearly doesn't.It's official: Quantum physics are insane.In the assumption that quantum superposition is a phase that lasts until the effects are observed. Variations of the double-slit experiment have shown that simply creating the possibility of observation is enough to collapse superposition. Even if that observation would be after the fact.What about when the quantum-level effects of a handful of atoms affected the macroscopic world, most crudely via computers doing something if sensors they are hooked up to detect something? Which is pretty much what Schrodinger's Cat is...They only do so in a statistical sense. That's the big flaw in the quantum-cat scenario.And even if I accept your premise, what about when the effects of quantum thingies affect the macroscopic world, a la the exact thought experiment we were talking about?But my bloodstream isn't big enough, that's the point. Quantum effects don't scale up to our everyday, classical-mechanics scale. And we should be thankful for that. 9 out 10 times, the answer to "what would happen if X did scale up like that?" is "the universe as we know it wouldn't exist".If your bloodstream was big enough, it wouldn't matter. Besides, the analogy is faulty--a better analogy might be comparing what happens if some weird quantum effect happens to an electron and asking why that couldn't happen to or affect a person.[snipped]Issues of scale. For example: I have no issues with individual atoms, or even small compounds, entering my bloodstream. I would not, however, like to find out what happens if an entire cat made it's way in there.
The general idea is sound. Why should individual atoms work differently than whole scads of atoms?
Take out the cat, and after an hour the flask is half shattered and half unshattered, because no one has observed the atom's decay or any of its effects. Is this essentially correct, and if not where does the flaw in my reasoning lie?
I can't remember if he said this about QP or quantum mechanics, but I think it fits either way.
I thought that was Einstein...
Anyway, as for the cat-in-a-box thing, quantum mechanics (as the name implies) is only really usable at the subatomic level, which Schrodinger failed to take into account when creating the thought experiment.
I don't understand it very well. Feynstein was right.
Create a can, fill it with Evil, and hide it somewhere.You need to seal it, too.
