Okay, here's a thread to expound on anything and everything you *almost* get...but not *quite*. Perhaps another member can elaborate?

Here goes...

I saw this article in the paper just now about the "String Theory." I don't get it. At all. That's not the point...but ala stream of consciousness it reminded me of this:

If you put a cat in a cardboard box and close the box so you can't see in. Then, you take a gun and shoot it at the box (don't laugh, this is how it was explained to me) and the cat had a 1 in 5 chance of being shot, than, according to this quantum theory (its called the paradox of Schrodinger's Cat) the cat is actually 20% dead. Not has a 20% chance of being dead, but is actually 20% dead. I almost get it...

It's usually explained using a cat, but it's called Schrodinger's Cat theory. It has to do with quantum mechanics, which explains that a thing does not exist in a given state until it is observed. It's just a thought experiment that shows how quantum theory contradicts our normal observations of reality.

Well, Schroedinger's Cat paradox is a little different.

Basically, you put a cat in the box, among with a canister of poisonous gas. You set up a machine attached to the canister, that has a nucleus that has a 50% chance of decaying in hone hour. If it decays, and emits a particle, then the machine breaks the canister and the cat dies.

Because of the nucleus particles properties, it is said to be both decayed and undecayed in one hour (since we cannot observe it) - that follows from the superposition principle. Therefore, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. As soon as you open the box, the cat's state reverts to either dead or alive.

The bullet analogy is not necessarily valid, since it doesn't deal with quantum mechanics.

Beeble, I remembered what it was called and edited my post, but I think you read it before I did that, and I didn't see your response until after

So its half dead until you look at it? and then its state of existence changes once again?

What does this have to do with poinson gas? I never heard that before. I'm not following your use of nucleas? Do you mean the nucleas of an atom (since I think you're referring to half-life but can't be sure) or do you mean the can itself can falls apart and the machine breaks what?

I get what Beeble said in much the same way a tree falls in the forest and if it makes a sound or not is only determined if someone is tere to hear it. That's what I understood on a fundamental level, its the elaboration and how it fits in to quantum physics that was never clearly explained to me.

I am doing quantum Physics in my Physics class right now. Unbelievably complicated, really.

If a tree falls and theres no one to hear it, it made a sound. End of discussion.

It's not half dead; it's both alive and dead, from the quantum physics perspective.

From our perspective, it is either alive or dead.

No it didn't.

lECTER has spoken.

I've never understood the paradox of how a typical woman is always right when it comes to arguments with her spouse, yet when she's out and about around others is often asking for help or advice on things.

This might be tied into quantum physics as well.

A typical woman has the quantum ability to know which fights to pick ;-)

Uh-huh. You can view it as such. If we put Archie Gates into a box with a canister of poisonous gas. Sealed the box, and then aimed a gun at it...what it would really boil down to, is that we're aiming a gun at the box, and you're sealed inside with poisonous gas. So in light of the quatum paradox, made comprehensively easy by the signorine of the world, you are both dead and death, or either dead or dead. Regardless...you're wrong. :wink:

You obviously have not yet learned the art of knowing which fights to pick.

Maybe you're just not a typical woman?

A woman is always right if she chooses to argue. A woman has no clue as to what to do if she requires help on the subject.

Such is like and us men must learn to live with it, or find ways around it.

I decided to find ways around it. I have convinced my woman to argue that she is always wrong. Though thats a contradiction in itself, I am in no hurry to point it out to her.

The tree does make a noise lecter .. it does. I was there.

If you were there it totally contradicts the statement you fool!

KJ

But if I was there and nobody knew I was and I forgot it too, was I really there?

hunh !? Hunh!?

Touche!

bABA = Nobody?

please read my above statement.

But mine is far more plausible unless you've really been taking one too many hits from the bottle of late. :idea:

Actually, my post was more of a trap. It didn't work.

I still stand by my statement. If a tree fell, a sound was made. Whether someone heard it or not is irrelevant. Making a sound and actually hearing it are 2 independant things.

BUT you will never know...

Not really. A tree falling in the woods certainly makes vibrations. But a "sound" is a combination of those vibrations and our perception of them as they pass through the air and enter our ears, which interpret them into signals in our brain.

For example, a tree hitting something in space vibrates as well, but without the air to conduct those vibrations to our ears, there is no sound.

If you shot into a box, Whether someone looks in to see if the cat is dead or not is irrelevant. A dead cat vs. actually seeing a dead cat are 2 independant things.

So have I figured out teh cat paradox using the language of the falling tree...or do we still need to bring in the half-life of a molecule and guys in boxes?

Anyone else got a concept they almost (or at least 1/2 way) understand that they would love for fellow members to elaborate on?

yes .... but thats not the point. The point is, the only thing thats missing in this case is the fact that someone was not there to hear it, not that there isn't any air, as you mentioned. If a tree falls somewhere in space (God knows how) or lets say a vacuum, it did not make a sound.)

How about this:

In law, or in almost all cases, we make assumptions based upon certain known facts. To say that the tree did not make a sound because no one was there to hear it is to say a certain event did not take place because no one was there to witness it. If someone sticks his nails into a peice of wood right before dying, that this is now part of an investigation, we have the evidence that the nail marks exist, are we denying the fact that the man actually stuck his nails in because no one actually saw it??

If I burp today, I'm the only person who is aware of it. I make it a point not to bur in front of people. If I die today and no ones ever heard me burp, are we to say that bABA had never burped in his entire existance because no one was there to hear or see him burp?

wondering why you quoted me??

YOu have to rely on quantum physics, unfortunately, as there is no other theory I can think that allows an object to be in two exclusive states at the same time. The tree either made a sound or it didn't; the cat either day from a shot or it didn't; however it's BOTH dead and alive in that Schroedinger's box.

As far as a little-known theory that I wish everybody would know, I'd look at "comparative advantage" from Economics.

EDIT: I remember Schroedinger's Arafat being mentioned in passing about a month ago ;-)