azeynel1@gmail.com
Oct13-08, 05:00 AM
Lubos Motl writes that "dead and alive cats have different
gravitational fields." I wasn't sure if this was a joke. Is it?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/observables-in-quantum-gravity.html
A little bit of research shows that the gravitational field
differential between dead and alive cats originated with Lubos Motl in
his 2005 post called John Baez and quantum gravity
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/09/john-baez-and-quantum-gravity.html :
# One can't imagine that gravity is classical; my simpler argument for
# the same statement is that the fate of the Schrodinger cat is decided
# probabilistically (via the radioactive atom), and because a dead cat
# creates a different gravitational field than an alive cat (imagine a
# planetary-size cat if you have problems to imagine a cat's gravitational
# field), the gravitational field can't evolve "classically" either: everything
# must be probabilistic if something is probabilistic.
About a year later Philip Dorrell includeded the quip in his blog post
intending "to write the shortest possible explanation of what is
really going on with Schroedinger's Cat."
http://www.1729.com/blog/SchroedingersCat.html
# No doubt there are significant electromagnetic effects =96 probably
# the cat has a slight electric charge on it's fur. (Changes in
# static electric field would travel at close to the speed of light.)
# Maybe the difference in gravitational field between a live and a
# dead cat is enough to correlate your wave function and the
# cat's wave function. (And we know that gravitational waves
# travel at the speed of light.)
In 2007 Q_Goest repeated a variation of the story in a physics forums
post on QM and gravity:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-154792.html
# But instead, let's put the box on a set of weight scales that
# will tell where the center of gravity of the entire box is and
# thus the location of the cat. If the cat is walking around the
# box, we know it's alive and thus gravity must prevent this
# cat from being in this state of dead/alive. If on the other
# hand, if the cat drops dead we might detect the cat falling
# to the floor by using these weight sensors which might
# registar a momentary decrease in weight as the cat's legs
# buckle, then increase in weight as the cat hits the floor.
# Gravity alone is all that's required to distinguish a live/dead cat.
But the question if Lubos Motl intended this as a joke is not
resolved. Leucipo commenting on the original post wasn't sure:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/observables-in-quantum-gravity.html
Lubos, you should refine a bit your SchrCat argument: charge, mass and
energy and preserved under collapse, so gravity does not feel it.
(Or was it suppossed to be a joke?)
Zeynel
science1.wordpress.com
gravitational fields." I wasn't sure if this was a joke. Is it?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/observables-in-quantum-gravity.html
A little bit of research shows that the gravitational field
differential between dead and alive cats originated with Lubos Motl in
his 2005 post called John Baez and quantum gravity
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/09/john-baez-and-quantum-gravity.html :
# One can't imagine that gravity is classical; my simpler argument for
# the same statement is that the fate of the Schrodinger cat is decided
# probabilistically (via the radioactive atom), and because a dead cat
# creates a different gravitational field than an alive cat (imagine a
# planetary-size cat if you have problems to imagine a cat's gravitational
# field), the gravitational field can't evolve "classically" either: everything
# must be probabilistic if something is probabilistic.
About a year later Philip Dorrell includeded the quip in his blog post
intending "to write the shortest possible explanation of what is
really going on with Schroedinger's Cat."
http://www.1729.com/blog/SchroedingersCat.html
# No doubt there are significant electromagnetic effects =96 probably
# the cat has a slight electric charge on it's fur. (Changes in
# static electric field would travel at close to the speed of light.)
# Maybe the difference in gravitational field between a live and a
# dead cat is enough to correlate your wave function and the
# cat's wave function. (And we know that gravitational waves
# travel at the speed of light.)
In 2007 Q_Goest repeated a variation of the story in a physics forums
post on QM and gravity:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-154792.html
# But instead, let's put the box on a set of weight scales that
# will tell where the center of gravity of the entire box is and
# thus the location of the cat. If the cat is walking around the
# box, we know it's alive and thus gravity must prevent this
# cat from being in this state of dead/alive. If on the other
# hand, if the cat drops dead we might detect the cat falling
# to the floor by using these weight sensors which might
# registar a momentary decrease in weight as the cat's legs
# buckle, then increase in weight as the cat hits the floor.
# Gravity alone is all that's required to distinguish a live/dead cat.
But the question if Lubos Motl intended this as a joke is not
resolved. Leucipo commenting on the original post wasn't sure:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/observables-in-quantum-gravity.html
Lubos, you should refine a bit your SchrCat argument: charge, mass and
energy and preserved under collapse, so gravity does not feel it.
(Or was it suppossed to be a joke?)
Zeynel
science1.wordpress.com