Interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the interpretation of Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment, emphasizing the implications of quantum mechanics (QM) and decoherence. Participants assert that the cat cannot exist in a superposition of states due to classical mechanics and the probabilistic nature of observation. The conversation highlights the distinction between mathematical probabilities and physical realities, particularly in the context of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, which posits that all possible outcomes occur in separate branches of the universe.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, specifically the concept of superposition.
  • Familiarity with decoherence and its role in quantum systems.
  • Knowledge of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics.
  • Basic grasp of classical mechanics and its differences from quantum mechanics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of decoherence in quantum mechanics.
  • Study the Many-Worlds Interpretation and its critiques.
  • Explore the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics on reality and observation.
  • Examine the differences between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics in detail.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, philosophy students, and anyone interested in the foundational questions of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
As long as no measurement takes place, yes. Not once a measurement takes place. Ask anyone who actually does QM for a living.

Why are you being so persistent? I just told you that it's wrong, and quoted an actual physicist. I don't know if it's appropriate to reproduce lectures from Hawking since he is dead (is it still not allowed?), but you know where to find it (does god play dice). He explains how we still have determinism, but not Laplace kind in QM, and that includes observations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #33
Pleonasm said:
I just told you that it's wrong, and quoted an actual physicist.

You gave no link, so I have no idea what kind of source you're quoting from. You know the rules, and you've been warned before for not adhering to that one.

Pleonasm said:
I don't know if it's appropriate to reproduce lectures from Hawkings

You don't have to reproduce them, just link to them.

Pleonasm said:
He explains, if you read the full lecture, how we still have determinism, but not Laplace kind in QM, and that includes observations.

Do you mean this lecture?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

If so, it's not a textbook or peer-reviewed paper, so it's not a valid source. Pop science articles or lectures, even by scientists, are not reliable if you want to learn the actual science. Plus, even leaving that aside, the lecture does not say what you claim it says; note that at one point, Hawking says (referring to black holes) that not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they can't be seen.

Pleonasm said:
Rory is second

Quora answers aren't valid sources either. Plus, it says nothing whatever about measurement. Note that the first response does address precisely that point--and says what I have been saying, not what you have been saying. So even if this Quora page were a valid source, it wouldn't support your claim.

This thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
23K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
7K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
8K