Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment

From	Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment
Date	2016-04-29 08:18 -0600
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<57236D49.40902@comcast.net> (permalink)
References	<571FC38D.2000701@comcast.net> <45079ff3-6166-4fd1-8976-27150b5a1030@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/28/16 3:31 PM, Timo wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 5:37:53 AM UTC+10, 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.
>
> Schroedinger didn't believe in collapse of the wavefunction, so why would he
> have believed that human consciousness was required?
>

"The collapse of the wave function" simply refers to the fact that we 
humans never directly observe superpositions of different states of a 
single object ... we never observe a simultaneously live and dead cat, 
or a single photon that ends up simultaneously in two different spots on 
a photographic plate.  Yet many experimental outcomes demand that a 
superposition of states has existed before the observation.  The only 
"there IS no collapse" interpretation is the "many worlds" 
interpretation (which Schrodinger didn't endorse, at least at the time 
he wrote the "cat" paper), which says that we humans never observe a 
superposition because when we make an observation, we ourselves become 
part of the superposition (and each instance of ourselves sees only one 
state of the cat).

-- 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