Schrodinger's cat

How can Schrodinger's cat possibly be true? The cat is both alive and dead until people see it? It totally ignores the idea that things still exist no matter if living creatures see them or not.

IT CANT
THATS THE POINT

It's based on dualism (specifically the reflex). I'm pretty sure it doesn't hold up in modern neuroeconomics though (due to oscillations).

Here's a good introductory book on neuroeconomics if you're interested. It's split into 4 parts.

http://teaching.ust.hk/~econ695/Neuroeconomics 01.PDF
http://teaching.ust.hk/~econ695/Neuroeconomics 02.PDF
http://teaching.ust.hk/~econ695/Neuroeconomics 03.PDF
http://teaching.ust.hk/~econ695/Neuroeconomics 04.PDF

>>3
The link is fucked up, just copy and paste the whole thing into the address bar.

It's just a story to bring excitement to particle physics for cat lovers.  The cat is a particle in simulataneous states.

So particles CAN be in simultaneous states?

Your mom can, so why not particles?

>>6

Yes and no, the particle can be in more than one states as once, until it colides with another particle (in one and only of those states that it's in). Upon collision the particle becomes one again, and immediately after, it starts travelling in multiple simultaneous states again.

In short, the particle can be in simultaneous states, but only while you're not looking. As soon as you look it becomes one particle again.

Right now this probably sounds like some convenient made up way of dealing with probability. It's not though, there have been experiments performed where two particles have been observed where there should only be one (quantum entanglement). The two particles are shown to have opposite spin and whatnot.

The massive quantum entanglement of all of the particles involved makes the superposition of the cat's states approach one-that is, it isn't really alive and dead at the same time. Either the particle decays and the cat dies, or the particle doesn't decay and the cat doesn't die. It is the geiger counter that does the "observing", not the scientist. Consciousness has nothing to do with the quantum mechanical version of "observation"

>>5
>It's just a story to bring excitement to particle physics for cat lovers

>Either the particle decays and the cat dies, or the particle doesn't decay and the cat doesn't die.

Cat lovers lol. Ya rite.

>>8

Thanks, your explanation helped!

They made up all this quantum mechanics rubbish because they don't know what's really going on at that level. It's just too complicated and opaque.

>>12
But isn't science supposed to be based on direct observable fact? Not merely "making up rubbish."

>>8
It's not though, there have been experiments performed where two particles have been observed where there should only be one (quantum entanglement).
Okay seriously, just shut the fuck up. That's not at all what quantum entanglement is.

Schrodinger's cat was a thought experiment physicists used to try to understand the nature of wavefunction collapse and how it relates to observation. They postulated that conscious observation causes wavefunction collapse, and concocted this scenario as an example of its implications. They came up with all sorts of other scenarios too; for example, suppose you were performing the double slit experiment, and you set up a device that would count photons through one slit by some automated (non-conscious) process and write it down on a piece of paper. They postulated that you would see the interference pattern until you actually looked at the piece of paper.

We've since grown smarter and now know that conscious observation (or observation at all) has nothing to do with it; for a person or device to "observe" a particle, it has to interact with it. Thus the "wavefunction collapse" is really just the ordinary time evolution of the wavefunction of the particle+observer system.