(Untitled)

[petrichor_fizz]

Oh dear oh dear, I got very very drunk on Friday. Lots of vomit, woke up naked on friend's sofa, etc etc. Went to York on Sat, though, that was mostly fun...

ANYWAY. Here's what I don't get about Schrödinger's cat, okay? The cat is only 'both dead and alive' in subjective terms - in terms of the observer. I mean, from the cat's point of view, it's

Comments

[petrichor_fizz]

So essentially there's no such thing as objective reality without the act of observation? I... really don't understand that concept. Or have I missed the point entirely?

See, this is why I'm a Lit student.

[petrichor_fizz]

Oh, lord. Right, I'll read the thing and sort it out in my head.

[nigeltde]

I mean, from the cat's point of view, it's either one or the other - and surely, in objective terms that's also true? Yeah, the observer doesn't know which it is, but that doesn't mean that an objective reality does not exist.
The point is that the objective reality only becomes when the cat is observed to be alive or dead. Some say, like queenzulu demonstrates, that the waveforms collapse and some say that the infinite alternate universes thing happens. But the other point is that the collapsing waveform paradigm, which I understand is the dominant way of thinking about quantum physics and probability, is problematised by the introduction of a cat, which can itself be thought of as an observer. Schrodinger was trying to demonstrate a paradox in the conceptualisation of quantum physics when you move from microscopic particles microscopic particles (it's a radioactive atom that kills the cat) to macroscopic entities. It's confusing and I don't really get it but it's also awesome.

The Wikipedia article has entertaining if rather

[petrichor_fizz]

It's analysing the beginning of 'We Need to Talk about Kevin' in terms of reference, clause structure etc. There was a choice of several questions, but this one allows me to revise what I've "learned", and is more literary than a lot of the others. Also involves less independent research, and I don't have time for that really. I'm actually quite interested in it as a subject (I love etymology, for example), but you would not BELIEVE how badly organised the module is. It's ridiculous.

In other news, I STILL don't understand this cat thing, but thanks for trying to explain it to me... not my bag, obviously.

[t_eyla]

I might be completely off in this, but I think the point is - as a variation of what queenzulu said - that even though you know that either a or b are the case, you cannot predict whether a or b is the case until you've observed the outcome.

That was a big deal back then when quantum physics was only being discovered. It's not so much nowadays, but it's still awesome, when you think about it :).

[petrichor_fizz]

Oy veh. This is clearly not my area (I don't have an area, unless it's a kind of play area with sandcastles and buckets and spades). I'll... keep trying to crack it, I guess. I hate not understanding things.

[emeriin]

That reminds me of that utterly terrifying/depressing strip of Garfield done for Halloween where he realises that Odie and Jon are gone, he's actually dead/starving to death and the house has been abandoned for ages. In his mind he's alive and everything's fine but in the actual reality he's dying and alone.

[petrichor_fizz]

Okay, that sounds horrifically disturbing; got link?

[emeriin]

Of course I do and here's the site I found it on;

http://garfieldisdead.ytmnd.com/

[petrichor_fizz]

Sweet Lord. That was what I needed to see at half two on a Sunday morning.

Have you seen this? It's fantastically stupid; the first... ooh... three times I saw it I cried laughing.