Print

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

[Neruz]

I really, really hope 'neither' was a joke.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Yes, it was. I don't know schroedinger enough to make anything more than vague references and jokes, sometimes cat-related.

[Realmfighter]

Can i ask another uninformed question?

If the Schroedinger cat experiment still work with the cat observing itself implying we can't trust the cats observations, how can we trust the person who opens the box's observation?

[andrea]

and that is because cat doesn't work.
put a particle in the box instead of the cat, and then it should work better.

[Realmfighter]

Also, why would we and all living creatures essentially define the universe? We would we, beings made out of cells, which are made out of partials have any different effect on physics that a solitary partial?

[Neruz]

Can i ask another uninformed question?

If the Schroedinger cat experiment still work with the cat observing itself implying we can't trust the cats observations, how can we trust the person who opens the box's observation?

The Schrodingers Cat thought experiment is an example of why Quantum Mechanics is rediculous and illogical.

[Starver]

Can i ask another uninformed question?

If the Schroedinger cat experiment still work with the cat observing itself implying we can't trust the cats observations, how can we trust the person who opens the box's observation?

It's a superposition of a live cat observing itself as alive and a dead cat that might have observed the release of the poison.

Just like in the old Quantum Immortality situation, for every instance that one might have died, there exists a version that did not.

I never really saw the Cat idea as a deal-breaker for the idea of quantumness.  (Though I happen to still think it's a fully deterministic universe, just most of the workings hidden below Planck levels, despite hearing about experiments that supposedly refute that as an idea.)


BTW, I realised[1] I was putting more heat than light into my explanations, on Friday.  Am quitting that line of exposition.

[1] Darn, why does my Portable Firefox keep forgetting it's supposed to be using UK English dictionaries and highlight perfectly good (UK) spellings.

[Micro102]

Ok question for all you hardcore physics guys.


Do you believe that everything can be predicted with math, as long as you have enough information?

[Muz]

Ok question for all you hardcore physics guys.


Do you believe that everything can be predicted with math, as long as you have enough information?

Information is the easy part. Calculating it all is the hard part. Oh yeah, math can figure out what happens when a nuclear weapon hits my house, but I'd need a pretty fricking big computer and some smart people to actually calculate it.

In engineering, you just tend to make some huge assumptions... "Assume that whatever current here is 10 mA." "Calculate the momentum of a plane hitting a building.. but to make things simple, you just assume it as a sphere." "Assume that consonants in speech as random noise."

In short, technically yes, but practically no. In reality, who really cares?

[Micro102]

Dont forget i am also talking aboutt he brain, can it also be predicted with math?

[ChairmanPoo]

Dont forget i am also talking aboutt he brain, can it also be predicted with math?

Yo dawg.

Could you draw us some square circles?

 No?

Then why are you asking physicists, of all people, to define how the brain works, using math? Don't you think they are pretty unrelated subjects?

Mind you, this is  not to say that maths don't play greater or lesser roles in models of the nervous system of different levels, but what you are doing is asking people who know about subject A to give  you an explanation on the workings of subject B, but adhering themselves strictly to subject C. Maybe I am wrong (and my apologies if I am), but it seems to me that you are angling for some kind of anti-science strawman.

[alway]

Ok question for all you hardcore physics guys.


Do you believe that everything can be predicted with math, as long as you have enough information?

Information is the easy part. Calculating it all is the hard part. Oh yeah, math can figure out what happens when a nuclear weapon hits my house, but I'd need a pretty fricking big computer and some smart people to actually calculate it.

In engineering, you just tend to make some huge assumptions... "Assume that whatever current here is 10 mA." "Calculate the momentum of a plane hitting a building.. but to make things simple, you just assume it as a sphere." "Assume that consonants in speech as random noise."

In short, technically yes, but practically no. In reality, who really cares?

Actually... You got it mixed up; we can calculate it, albiet it would take longer than actually observing it in almost every case, the problem is the starting information. Due to the Uncertainty principle, we can not know both position and velocity of a particle, and as such can only speak in probabilities when it comes to the actual calculations.

As for the brain, theoretically, yes, it is no different than any other clump of matter. The problem is it is A: very complex, and B: the uncertainty principle keeps us from knowing exactly what happens. However, I think what you are getting to is "are brains predictable?" and the answer to that is yes. Neurons are large enough that uncertainty shouldn't affect their macroscopic (or at least macroscopic when compared to individual particles) properties and outcomes too much. If they were unpredictable, quite frankly the brain would not work. Making descisions in the brain does not magically supercede the laws of physics, despite what classical philosophy would have you believe. Complexity != unpredictability

[Sean Mirrsen]

A brain is just a supercomplex CPU, where individual neurons are equally likely to act as logic gates or memory units. It can be predicted, but it would have to be very thoroughly scanned first.

[Micro102]

Ok then, since everything can be predicted, ignoring our capability to do so or not, then everything is predetermined....chalk one up for destiny being true.

[andrea]

everything macroscopic. That tiny electron is still going to play hide and seek with us... hateful electrons!