I saw a T-shirt the other day with the logo "Schroedinger's Cat is Dead" emblazoned on it. I didn't understand. My initial thought was that it was a reference to some geek-sheik US Cartoon or 70's sitcom, but I couldn't envision a long-running joke that would satisfy that, and Shroedinger is too complicated a name for US entertainment. Wikipedia assured me of the ill-founded nature of my reasoning; it was Schroedinger the physicist, an Einstein peer who formulated some major parts of Quantum Mechanics.
So how is this of interest to this blog? In what way does it add to the mapped history of this rhetoric? Well, it made me think about Quantum Mechanics, but some of my thoughts on science resurfaced. The paradox, or dilemma Schroedinger's cat poses is thus;
"A Cat is placed in a sealed box, a mechanism triggered upon the decay of a nucleus, terminates the cat. The chance of the nucleus decaying is 50%."
Without getting into detail, the point-for-thought is based around the concept of a 'superposition' (which, I believe, Schroedinger proposed); the notion that where a wavefunction will hit a certain surface cannot be predicted, only presumed; the presumption is indicated by a 'chance of hitting a certain place', and before that the wavefunction is in a multiplicity of states. Thus, the chance of the cat being alive when the box is opened is 50%, but most importantly, before the box is opened the cat is seen as in a superposition - both dead and alive (I would've presumed the cat dead; in my experience, putting cats in sealed boxes almost seals their fate).
My initial thought wasn't on the concept of superposition, or on the workarounds quantum physics has offered. Rather, it highlighted the ludicrousness (ludicrousity?) of a system whereby the result is only determined upon observation. It's the atomic version of 'if a tree falls in the woods, with nobody there, does it make a sound'? This reminded me of Hawking's 'Brief History', especially sections on dark matter. Astrophysicists account for some ridiculous amount of the universe's mass by dark matter, which is only observed via its bending of timespace (I think). Which is fine. But it gives me the impression of a placeholder; it balances the equations, it keeps everything in check. But that doesn't mean it's correct.
My thought here is not concerned with a lack of constant and valid progress produced by science; place holders need to be created, and invalid work is as useful as valid work. Indeed, few would argue against the impressive progression science has made. It's just important to remember that science isn't always right. Especially so with the macro- and micro- scale sciences of astrophysics and quantum mechanics. But not only is it sometimes wrong, it is also sometimes (always?) unfinished. Like a chocolate cake without icing, it may look nice, but don't assume it to be finished. Superpositions do not necessarily exist, they may do, probably do, but we can't be sure. Not to mention Hume's grim thoughts about causality!
Interesting article about the macrorealistic implications: http://www.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-mechanics.html
So how is this of interest to this blog? In what way does it add to the mapped history of this rhetoric? Well, it made me think about Quantum Mechanics, but some of my thoughts on science resurfaced. The paradox, or dilemma Schroedinger's cat poses is thus;
"A Cat is placed in a sealed box, a mechanism triggered upon the decay of a nucleus, terminates the cat. The chance of the nucleus decaying is 50%."
Without getting into detail, the point-for-thought is based around the concept of a 'superposition' (which, I believe, Schroedinger proposed); the notion that where a wavefunction will hit a certain surface cannot be predicted, only presumed; the presumption is indicated by a 'chance of hitting a certain place', and before that the wavefunction is in a multiplicity of states. Thus, the chance of the cat being alive when the box is opened is 50%, but most importantly, before the box is opened the cat is seen as in a superposition - both dead and alive (I would've presumed the cat dead; in my experience, putting cats in sealed boxes almost seals their fate).
My initial thought wasn't on the concept of superposition, or on the workarounds quantum physics has offered. Rather, it highlighted the ludicrousness (ludicrousity?) of a system whereby the result is only determined upon observation. It's the atomic version of 'if a tree falls in the woods, with nobody there, does it make a sound'? This reminded me of Hawking's 'Brief History', especially sections on dark matter. Astrophysicists account for some ridiculous amount of the universe's mass by dark matter, which is only observed via its bending of timespace (I think). Which is fine. But it gives me the impression of a placeholder; it balances the equations, it keeps everything in check. But that doesn't mean it's correct.
My thought here is not concerned with a lack of constant and valid progress produced by science; place holders need to be created, and invalid work is as useful as valid work. Indeed, few would argue against the impressive progression science has made. It's just important to remember that science isn't always right. Especially so with the macro- and micro- scale sciences of astrophysics and quantum mechanics. But not only is it sometimes wrong, it is also sometimes (always?) unfinished. Like a chocolate cake without icing, it may look nice, but don't assume it to be finished. Superpositions do not necessarily exist, they may do, probably do, but we can't be sure. Not to mention Hume's grim thoughts about causality!
Interesting article about the macrorealistic implications: http://www.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-mechanics.html
1 comment:
Just another thing I read on this subject, apparently by Douglas Adams (For Dad (who won't have heard of him) He's a Homorous Sci-Fi auction), who wasn't worried about the cat being dead or alive, but missing!
Post a Comment