Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordZorintrhox]

I would say the two possible states of a cat are "uninterested" and "apathetic."  Possibly aloof as well.

Well yeah; Schrödinger himself said he wished he had never proposed the example ( I think...in any case, it wasn't supposed to be serious...).  Furthermore, it is one of those things that never gets the disclaimer: such a thing can't happen.  Ever.  Quantum effects just don't work that way at that scale.

@Ohaeri: I am not self promoting here, please do not take it that way.  I did post the whole train of thought back on page #4 for anyone who was confused, specifically because the fact that things past a certain size really don't have a definite state and because quantum mechanics, like so many scientific and mathematical concepts, often gets lost in a mire of jargon of 'smart'* people that already get it as a matter of fact.  Try getting a good calc student to explain to you why the chain rule works intuitively, not just how, and you'll often get a confused look.   Anyway, if you are still vague on the whole thing, it should help.  I think.

*That isn't sarcastic, only meant to highlight the difference in a discussion between people who already know and those who don't, a la in a classroom.  No value judgment implied, especially when the difference is often a poor explanation vs. a good one.

[Ohaeri]

@Ohaeri: I am not self promoting here, please do not take it that way.  I did post the whole train of thought back on page #4 for anyone who was confused, specifically because the fact that things past a certain size really don't have a definite state and because quantum mechanics, like so many scientific and mathematical concepts, often gets lost in a mire of jargon of 'smart'* people that already get it as a matter of fact.  Try getting a good calc student to explain to you why the chain rule works intuitively, not just how, and you'll often get a confused look.   Anyway, if you are still vague on the whole thing, it should help.  I think.

*That isn't sarcastic, only meant to highlight the difference in a discussion between people who already know and those who don't, a la in a classroom.  No value judgment implied, especially when the difference is often a poor explanation vs. a good one.

No worries. I'm still working my way through the thread. It all kind of makes my head hurt, so I'll try jumping to your post on p.4 and seeing if that helps.

And also, 'tis fine. People who know something often forget to employ Occam's Razor to their examples and so unknowingly introduce a lot of befuddling details to the mix. In any case, no offense taken.

EDIT: First impression: ARGH MY BRAIN!!

Second impression: This is all very interesting and I'll need some time to wrap my head around it. Usually I find that reading something and then giving it time to sink in before reading it again helps. I'll probably be back with more questions.

[Leafsnail]

I try to think about a house and bricks to help get my head around it.  Bricks aren't all like mini houses, so fundamental particles don't have to be like little normal particles.  Sorta helped me from avoiding going insane and tunneling through my ceiling.

[Virex]

It usualy helps to think of particles as a 4-dimensional wave function ("infinit" 3-d object with colour to represent the density, like a brightly coloured cloud of smoke). That way you don't get the natural "but it's a point!" response and you have something to hold on to.

[Ampersand]

I try to think about a house and bricks to help get my head around it.  Bricks aren't all like mini houses, so fundamental particles don't have to be like little normal particles.  Sorta helped me from avoiding going insane and tunneling through my ceiling.

Well, not quite accurate. A collection of bricks can still behave in the same way a brick does, provided that they are a small enough collection of bricks.

[Vlynndar]

No. 1 Qbit is like 1 Qbit. To compare it with a normal bit is to compare apples to... giraffes.

In terms of theoretical processing power.

I might just have found my new sig.

[Eidalac]

Well, the only thing that I don't get about quantum mechanics is how something can not have a definite state. In the experiment there is a definite state, it just hasn't been observed. So I get quantum theory, but when it comes to actual quantum mechanics I get very stumped very fast.

One thing to note - In many cases where this type of event is mentioned, the truth is that the particle did have a definite state, but the act of observation changed that state without leaving a way to tell what it was before.

So, for things like an electron, the classic example is that you can know where it is or where it's going, but measuring either changes the other, thus you can never know both.  This is because it's very small and very high energy (ie it moves at nearly the speed of light), so in interaction with anything else causes big changes.

When a cop uses a radar gun to track the speed of an oncoming car, the energy from the radar waves slows the car down (this is how the radar waves are speed up, which is how the gun figures the speed).  However, the net loose of the car is so tiny it's irrelevant, because the car is so much more massive than the photons in the radar wave.

The photons, on the other hand, are so small and gain so much energy from interacting with the car that strange stuff happens.  So while most of the photons are bounced back in the direction of the cop, one or two might just pop out the back end of the car and keep on going that way.  That kind of thing can just happen at the energy states photons are always in.

Now, when you get to things smaller than electrons and the like (and in some cases they and the other subatomic guys can do it as well) is when you get to the issue of not having a set state.

Of course, in general, having a non-determinable state and having no set state work out to be about the same thing; electrons are just not *quite* as weird as quarks.

[dragnar]

Not sure if this has been said, but the problem is not that the cat is alive, a rock would still count as an "observer" in quantum mechanics. The experiment does not work because with any macroscopic object(and most microscopic ones) the particals interact with each other, making quantum effects unnoticeable on any scale we can perceive.

[Ampersand]

The thought experiment was never meant to be something that could actually be done. The point was that Erwin Schrödinger thought it demonstrated a flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics; that a particle can exist in two mutually exclusive states at the same time.

It is not meant to be an accurate description of what actually happens, it is meant as a criticism.

Also; Necromancy.

[Darkone]

Please note however that the only reason this is newsworthy is that its the first one so far to resemble a regular, small microprocessor. We've been building on working designs for a couple years now, but most are massive, super-cooled towers.

[zchris13]

The cat has three states: Dead, Alive or Bloody Furious.

That's only 2.

[Jualin]

The cat has three states: Dead, Alive or Bloody Furious.

That's only 2.

That what it may seem, to the untrained eye. It is little known that cats take upon themselves the aspect of one god of blood when they are enraged. For a brief moment they are neither alive nor dead, but gods among kittens.

[kilakan]

I went to a international science research convention and they had the quantum processor on display, and running I was so fucking tempted to program it to play dwarf fortress when no one was looking.......