Slidey
But pieces of what?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 6,600
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Here's another theorem proving how most hidden variable hypotheses are impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen-Specker_theorem
Practical applications
The experiment is a purely theoretical one, and the machine proposed is not known to have been constructed. Analogous effects, however, have some practical use in quantum computing and quantum cryptography. It is possible to send light that is in a superposition of states down a fiber optic cable. Placing a wiretap in the middle of the cable which intercepts and retransmits the transmission will collapse the wavefunction (in the Copenhagen interpretation, "perform an observation") and cause the light to fall into one state or another. By performing statistical tests on the light received at the other end of the cable, one can tell whether it remains in the superposition of states or has already been observed and retransmitted. In principle, this allows the development of communication systems that cannot be tapped without the tap being noticed at the other end. This experiment can be argued to illustrate that "observation" in the Copenhagen interpretation has nothing to do with consciousness (unless some version of Panpsychism is true), in that a perfectly unconscious wiretap will cause the statistics at the end of the wire to be different.
In quantum computing, the phrase "cat state" often refers to the special entanglement of qubits where the qubits are in an equal superposition of all being 0 and all being 1, i.e.+.
but it acts deterministically when it is being observed.Riet said:Schroedingers cat is a thought experiment not an equation and it has been explained just as Einstein's Alice and Bob experiment has. Quantum Mechanics holds up and has been tested experimentally plenty of times.
Edit: Schroedinger's cat's answer depends on whether you believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation or the Copenhagen (and related) Interpretations. Either way the answer is non-deterministic.
What? Are you trying to say that part of the universe is deterministic and part isn't? Because that's logically impossible.Mojohi said:So only through observation is determinism applicable. That is what these theories acknowledge. Am i right?
Nah, einstein and bohr were actually both equally wrong, just in different ways.Slidey said:To be fair, that's the same mistake that Einstein made.
Edit: 5000th post... I feel so small and inconsequential.
no i was just saying that in terms of the excerpt. It says "This phenomenon continues until an observer interacts with it, causing the wave function to collapse and returning the photon to a deterministic state."Mojohi said:but it acts deterministically when it is being observed.
"When a photon's state is non-deterministically altered, such as interacting with a half-silvered mirror where it non-deterministically passes through or is reflected, the photon undergoes quantum superposition, whereby it takes on all possible states and can interact with itself. This phenomenon continues until an observer interacts with it, causing the wave function to collapse and returning the photon to a deterministic state."
So only through observation is determinism applicable. That is what these theories acknowledge. Am i right?
I'm so glad you have so much insight on the nature of the universe that you're completely willing to contradict not just conventional science but also rock solid mathematical theory.Mojohi said:no i was just saying that in terms of the excerpt. It says "This phenomenon continues until an observer interacts with it, causing the wave function to collapse and returning the photon to a deterministic state."
See how it says that it returns to a deterministic state when it is observed. Ive thought about all this and decided that it isnt spontaneous, it just appears spontaneous because we dont have enough understanding of the workings of sub atomic particles. Even Brian Greene doesnt seem to be able to understand his own string theory at times. Untill there is a new break through radioactivity will appear random and we will have to rely on probabilities.
I cant see why the macro scale would been any different to the micro scale.
He has a cat? cool.Riet said:Schroedingers cat...
Thanks for the suggestion, i would like to suggest you continue to delve into mathematical theory; because you appear to have very limited social skills and computers and books can be a valuable friend for you, and i am sure these absurd thought experiments which you seem to regard equal to the bible have about as much substance as the emporers new clothes. All theories will evolve as evidence builds and im sorry to say this, but it will take more then some isolated experiments and theories to discredit determinism.Slidey said:I'm so glad you have so much insight on the nature of the universe that you're completely willing to contradict not just conventional science but also rock solid mathematical theory.
I'd strongly suggest you avoid any courses in engineering, science, or IT, by the way. I believe an arts major would be quite suitable for your intellect, especially any in which postmodernism features prominently.
you're an idiotMojohi said:Thanks for the suggestion, i would like to suggest you continue to delve into mathematical theory; because you appear to have very limited social skills and computers and books can be a valuable friend for you, and i am sure these absurd thought experiments which you seem to regard equal to the bible have about as much substance as the emporers new clothes. All theories will evolve as evidence builds and im sorry to say this, but it will take more then some isolated experiments and theories to discredit determinism.
Less intellectual? Oh surely not. The obvious point I'm making is that arts students think in a different way to engineering and science students.TacoTerrorist said:^ I think it's presumptuous and somewhat offensive that you think Arts students are less intellectual than Engineering etc students. Not everyone is interested in mathematics or science.
It's funny because you juxtapose poor sentence structure and dialogue flow with an acutely obvious lack of scientific awareness.Mojohi said:Thanks for the suggestion, i would like to suggest you continue to delve into mathematical theory; because you appear to have very limited social skills and computers and books can be a valuable friend for you, and i am sure these absurd thought experiments which you seem to regard equal to the bible have about as much substance as the emporers new clothes. All theories will evolve as evidence builds and im sorry to say this, but it will take more then some isolated experiments and theories to discredit determinism.
Yeah what gives?u-borat said:did a lot of posts get deleted? this thread was on 610ish like a week ago? :S