Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment
Date	Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:38:12 -0600
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	25
Message-ID	<5720C0C4.5060007@comcast.net> (permalink)
References	<571FC38D.2000701@comcast.net> <d0b6fee3-1917-4160-8544-ebc4113e73f6@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Injection-Info	mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ba1e2a899132d15169c30f820eb6257c"; logging-data="8343"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dE808pAy4fds7PJH6ikU5"
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
In-Reply-To	<d0b6fee3-1917-4160-8544-ebc4113e73f6@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock	sha1:6CTpl0CcUFq0EjfmueC04GKOnW0=
Xref	csiph.com sci.physics:573684

Show key headers only | View raw

On 4/26/16 5:18 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 12:37:53 PM UTC-7, Mike Fontenot wrote:

>> Schrodinger clearly believed that human consciousness was required
>> to collapse the wave function into either the "live cat" state or "dead cat"
>> state.  Penrose doesn't (see "Shadows of the Mind").  He suspects that
>> as the "measuring device" is made more complicated than a "quantum-sized"
>> object, at some degree of complexity, it would cause an actual physical
>> collapse of the wave function of the combined "radioactive atom plus
>> measuring device system".  I suspect Penrose, not Schrodinger, is correct.
>>

>
>    You miss the point. *Until you open the box* the milk is in a superposition of spoiled/not spoiled.
>

No, the point IS that there is a difference of opinion (between Penrose 
and Schrodinger in this case) about WHEN collapse occurs in the cat 
experiment, and WHAT causes the collapse to occur.  (But I was wrong 
that my modified experiment would allow us to distinguish between the 
two alternative times of collapse ... it doesn't.)

-- Mike Fontenot

Thread

Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-04-26 13:37 -0600
  Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 16:18 -0700
    Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-04-27 07:38 -0600
    Re: The milk was obviously spoiled (or not) for some time. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-01 13:58 -0700
  Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-04-27 07:28 -0600
  Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0500
    Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-27 16:56 -0400
  Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2016-04-28 14:31 -0700
    Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 08:18 -0600
      Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2016-04-29 21:26 -0700
        Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 08:00 -0600
  Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:56 -0700
    Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-29 13:02 -0700
    Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-29 13:59 -0700
      Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 14:27 -0700
        Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-29 18:30 -0700
        Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-01 14:03 -0700

csiph-web