Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #573683

Re: Improved Schrodinger's Cat Experiment

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/26/16 1:37 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>
> It seems to me that this issue COULD have been easily resolved by
> experiment in Schrodinger's time.
> [...]
>  After a week or so, the experimenter opens the box.
> If the milk is observed to be spoiled, then clearly the collapse happened
> days ago, not just now by the conscious observation.
>

I've just realized that my modified experiment DOESN'T allow the 
observer to determine the time of collapse. Regardless of whether the 
collapse occurs immediately after the decay, or a week later when the 
observer opens the box, the process of milk spoilage begins (if it ever 
happens at all) when the atom decays and causes the refrigeration to be 
turned off. When the undecayed atom is placed in the box, the state of 
the atom is "undecayed". But immediately the state becomes a 
superposition of "decayed" and "undecayed", with the complex weighing 
factor for the "decayed" component starting out small, but growing as 
time passes. And for the "decayed" component, the spoiling process 
begins its progression immediately. Whenever the collapse occurs, if the 
resulting state is "decayed", the progression of the spoilage of the 
milk will smoothly continue on, uninterrupted by the collapse. If the 
state after the collapse is "undecayed", the decayed component of the 
superposition ceases to exist at the collapse, and the spoilage of milk 
in that component ceases to progress because it no longer exists.

-- Mike Fontenot

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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