Philosophy Now Forum

This is what this article is about which, previously, was considered for two particles at a time.

Here's something else to think about. The Schrödinger's cat problem asked if a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time? With quantum entanglement, can this still be the case?

Here's the article:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/spo ... -particles

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The Schrödinger's cat problem asked if a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time?

The Schrodinger's cat paradox was a piss-take by Schrodinger at his own expense. Erwin was a man with a sense of humour as well as a sense of proportion and his point was that QM was NOT a model to be taken literally.

Schrödinger's cat problem is a thought experiment that many scientists take seriously. On a very small scale, there has been some success as this Wiki article relates:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Schrödinger's cat problem is a thought experiment that many scientists take seriously.

So is the perfectly logical and mandatory conclusion from SR which states that you could traverse the entire universe in a single lifetime if only you could build a spaceship fast enough. How's that for bullshit??

Many scientists are cockheads, Phil, but thankfully not all of them are. Perhaps you could name a reputable one who buys the story of the cat which can be alive and dead at the same time.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Schrödinger's cat problem is a thought experiment that many scientists take seriously.

So is the perfectly logical and mandatory conclusion from SR which states that you could traverse the entire universe in a single lifetime if only you could build a spaceship fast enough. How's that for bullshit??

Many scientists are cockheads, Phil, but thankfully not all of them are. Perhaps you could name a reputable one who buys the story of the cat which can be alive and dead at the same time.

Depends on what you mean by reputable. Scientists who are on the cutting edge have often been the object of ridicule, e.g. Louis Pasteur and many others. In the end it'll be the experiment that'll be telling (subject to peer review of course).

PhilX

The Schrodinger's cat experiment cannot be performed, and this is not for humane considerations of animal welfare. For example you could leave the cat in the box for a week and then a forensic examination on opening the box might show that the cat died three days ago. According to QM this means that the cat was simultaneously dead and alive until such time as you opened the box but when you actually opened the box you retrospectively caused the cat to die three days ago. How fucking convenient is that? Are you sure you wanna buy this shit, Phil, because absolutely NONE of the pioneers of quantum mechanics were having a bar of it?

"The more you understand quantum mechanics, the sillier it is".....Albert Einstein.

Richard Feynman often made similar comments about QM and he is without doubt regarded as the most knowledgeable expert in the subject which physics has ever produced. He insisted that QM was a mathematical tool and nothing else.

It's documented that people who were pronounced dead, for some reason, have regained life.

It's your position that life and death is a dichotomy. But can you prove that or is that simply your belief? Maybe some experiment will demonstrate there is a third alternative, that of life and death coexisting in some being, maybe not, based on QM. Einstein didn't believe in entanglement, but experiments are showing it does exist.
What's not true today may be truthful tomorrow.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:It's documented that people who were pronounced dead, for some reason, have regained life.

Use your head, man. Dead people don't come back to life but being pronounced dead doesn't make it so.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Einstein didn't believe in entanglement,

Entanglement is not a phenomenon which requires belief and it was Einstein himself who drew attention to it. What sent a shiver down his spine about entanglement is not that it doesn't exist, because he knew bloody well that it does, but rather that entanglement proves his own theory false. Entanglement is an unambiguous falsification of SR.

It appears to me as if everything is possible due to entanglement. I take it that entanglement is a fundamental variable of consciousness via quantum vibrations in microtubules as well as a necessary carrier of information through (literally) any phase space you choose. So to speculate about your question yes, within a superposition state the entanglement is no less one than if separated by the universe.

The cat experiment was about superposition. Physicist have recently been able to put macroscale objects into superposition which lead into the multiple words theory. If I remember correctly Einstein didn't believe entanglement violated SR, although it appears he didn't like it. I think he concluded that quantum theory wasn't complete. He knew energy would not violate SR but didnt know what the mechanism of the spin up spin down conversion could be. Interestingly it did lead him into ER Bridges and the EPR paradox.

999yards wrote:. Interestingly it did lead him into ER Bridges and the EPR paradox.

The new illuminati in quantum field theory, such as Maldacena and Susskind, are firmly of the view that ER and EPR are two different manifestations of the same physics. Since both evoke the impossible ghostly spectre of superluminal information transfer it's rather remarkable that nobody thought of it earlier.

I think they should be. I'm just beginning to dig into ads/cft.