First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Schrodinger's Cat
Posted 10/31/09 , edited 11/1/09
( looked but i couldn't find any threads on this delete/lock if duplicat )

I wanted to know Crunchroll's thought on the Shrodinger theory

Link if your not sure what it is or need a refresher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrodingers_cat
2634 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Still Wandering
Offline
Posted 10/31/09
Hmmm... quantum mechanics( ̄~ ̄;)ウーン・・・
Not your typical plebeian topic, lol nice choice!
114162 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 10/31/09
i think its interesting though isnt this better in the extended discussion section?
Posted 10/31/09
Not really looking for anything super detailed just hobo joes general thought of it
(( I doubt i have the mental ability to carry out a detailed convo about it anyway ))
Posted 10/31/09 , edited 10/31/09
~Moved to Extended Discussion
I thought it would be more appropriate here. More "challenging minds" than in General Discussion.
We learned it a while ago in school. Could never understand it no matter how hard I tired. Definite "mind fuck" so to speak.
9988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/1/09
Well, the preface to my Quantum Mechanics textbook said that the best we can hope for is to do Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the math). To understand and explain it would be a fruitless exercise and would blow the minds of most Physics profs out there. (Yes, we're talking about 3rd Year University Level Physics here.)

The general agreement regarding Schœdinger's Problem is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, until someone opens the box (or smells death) and makes an observation. Hope this helps a bit...
Posted 11/1/09 , edited 11/1/09

scorpionhax wrote:
Well, the preface to my Quantum Mechanics textbook said that the best we can hope for is to do Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the math). To understand and explain it would be a fruitless exercise and would blow the minds of most Physics profs out there. (Yes, we're talking about 3rd Year University Level Physics here.)

The general agreement regarding Schœdinger's Problem is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, until someone opens the box (or smells death) and makes an observation. Hope this helps a bit...

That's only because while most people don't understand the concept of infinity, even quantum mechanics failed to create an "infinity machine" using mathematics.

I think the Schœdinger's Cat Theory has philosophy written all over it. In a sense that while most people always identify themselves as the observers of the cat, few of them ever considered themselves as the cat being observed. Therefore the theory itself is but a situation whereas we can't really prove one's existence, like infinity for example, until we ourselves achieved the same existence by creating our own proofs;by us creating an equation for infinity using quantum mechanics.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 11/1/09

DomFortress wrote:


scorpionhax wrote:
Well, the preface to my Quantum Mechanics textbook said that the best we can hope for is to do Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the math). To understand and explain it would be a fruitless exercise and would blow the minds of most Physics profs out there. (Yes, we're talking about 3rd Year University Level Physics here.)

The general agreement regarding Schœdinger's Problem is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, until someone opens the box (or smells death) and makes an observation. Hope this helps a bit...

That's only because while most people don't understand the concept of infinity, even quantum mechanics failed to create an "infinity machine" using mathematics.

I think the Schœdinger's Cat Theory has philosophy written all over it. In a sense that while most people always identify themselves as the observers of the cat, few of them ever considered themselves as the cat being observed. Therefore the theory itself is but a situation whereas we can't really prove one's existence, like infinity for example, until we ourselves achieved the same existence by creating our own proofs;by us creating an equation for infinity using quantum mechanics.


Um Dom, if we were the cat being observed that would mean we'd know the mystery. It'd be like in Plato's Allegory of the Cave in 'The Republic' in which someone came back from discovering the source of the shadows and told us about it. We might believe him any better than if we just contemplated themselves. Certainly more is brought to the table but the puzzle is nowhere near closer to completion.

Certainly many of us can accept quantum physics but understanding it is an entirely different story. Whether or not it would be beneficial to fully understand anything in particular in life is something we'll have to somehow answer for every particular field of study. For example, it may not be entirely beneficial to fully understand quantum physics but we'd learn so much more if we understood the full historical context of all significant events in the past.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/1/09

DomFortress wrote:


scorpionhax wrote:
Well, the preface to my Quantum Mechanics textbook said that the best we can hope for is to do Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the math). To understand and explain it would be a fruitless exercise and would blow the minds of most Physics profs out there. (Yes, we're talking about 3rd Year University Level Physics here.)

The general agreement regarding Schœdinger's Problem is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, until someone opens the box (or smells death) and makes an observation. Hope this helps a bit...

That's only because while most people don't understand the concept of infinity, even quantum mechanics failed to create an "infinity machine" using mathematics.

I think the Schœdinger's Cat Theory has philosophy written all over it. In a sense that while most people always identify themselves as the observers of the cat, few of them ever considered themselves as the cat being observed. Therefore the theory itself is but a situation whereas we can't really prove one's existence, like infinity for example, until we ourselves achieved the same existence by creating our own proofs;by us creating an equation for infinity using quantum mechanics.


This makes no sense, please clear yourself up.
Posted 11/1/09

crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


scorpionhax wrote:
Well, the preface to my Quantum Mechanics textbook said that the best we can hope for is to do Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the math). To understand and explain it would be a fruitless exercise and would blow the minds of most Physics profs out there. (Yes, we're talking about 3rd Year University Level Physics here.)

The general agreement regarding Schœdinger's Problem is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, until someone opens the box (or smells death) and makes an observation. Hope this helps a bit...

That's only because while most people don't understand the concept of infinity, even quantum mechanics failed to create an "infinity machine" using mathematics.

I think the Schœdinger's Cat Theory has philosophy written all over it. In a sense that while most people always identify themselves as the observers of the cat, few of them ever considered themselves as the cat being observed. Therefore the theory itself is but a situation whereas we can't really prove one's existence, like infinity for example, until we ourselves achieved the same existence by creating our own proofs;by us creating an equation for infinity using quantum mechanics.


Um Dom, if we were the cat being observed that would mean we'd know the mystery. It'd be like in Plato's Allegory of the Cave in 'The Republic' in which someone came back from discovering the source of the shadows and told us about it. We might believe him any better than if we just contemplated themselves. Certainly more is brought to the table but the puzzle is nowhere near closer to completion.

Certainly many of us can accept quantum physics but understanding it is an entirely different story. Whether or not it would be beneficial to fully understand anything in particular in life is something we'll have to somehow answer for every particular field of study. For example, it may not be entirely beneficial to fully understand quantum physics but we'd learn so much more if we understood the full historical context of all significant events in the past.


leviathan343 wrote:
This makes no sense, please clear yourself up.

Certainly.

Let's begin by us revisiting the famous theory of special relativity, which Albert Einstein was based on when he gave us the mass-energy equivalence, aka E = mc2 which translates into energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable in plain English. What this means is that the mathematical equation known as mass-energy equivalence, is the quantum mechanical representation of the existence that's "energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable".

Now, the special relativity theory also has this consequence know as relativity of simultaneity, that two events, while simultaneous for some observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion. Therefore while I can understand the concept of infinity philosophically speaking, in order for me to proof the existence of infinity mathematically, thereby we can have a mechanical equivalent of infinity, much like how we gone from "energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable" to E = mc2 and got us the atom bomb. Is going to take infinite time for this infinity machine to arrive at infinite results, as long as the machine fulfills and bases itself on the philosophical principle of infinity.

I was pondering the possibility of a functional black hole engine, when I stomped upon the nature of the black hole itself; an infinite gravitational force that can trap even light while brings space time continuum to event horizon. An end to all things as we know it that takes infinity in order for us to arrive that point, philosophically speaking of course. But take it from me, to mathematically proof infinity itself is as easily as to philosophically explain this: =

So if anyone has an idea on how to formulate the mathematical equivalent of an equal sign, please let me know. Cause I'm stomped.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 11/2/09

DomFortress wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


scorpionhax wrote:
Well, the preface to my Quantum Mechanics textbook said that the best we can hope for is to do Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the math). To understand and explain it would be a fruitless exercise and would blow the minds of most Physics profs out there. (Yes, we're talking about 3rd Year University Level Physics here.)

The general agreement regarding Schœdinger's Problem is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, until someone opens the box (or smells death) and makes an observation. Hope this helps a bit...

That's only because while most people don't understand the concept of infinity, even quantum mechanics failed to create an "infinity machine" using mathematics.

I think the Schœdinger's Cat Theory has philosophy written all over it. In a sense that while most people always identify themselves as the observers of the cat, few of them ever considered themselves as the cat being observed. Therefore the theory itself is but a situation whereas we can't really prove one's existence, like infinity for example, until we ourselves achieved the same existence by creating our own proofs;by us creating an equation for infinity using quantum mechanics.


Um Dom, if we were the cat being observed that would mean we'd know the mystery. It'd be like in Plato's Allegory of the Cave in 'The Republic' in which someone came back from discovering the source of the shadows and told us about it. We might believe him any better than if we just contemplated themselves. Certainly more is brought to the table but the puzzle is nowhere near closer to completion.

Certainly many of us can accept quantum physics but understanding it is an entirely different story. Whether or not it would be beneficial to fully understand anything in particular in life is something we'll have to somehow answer for every particular field of study. For example, it may not be entirely beneficial to fully understand quantum physics but we'd learn so much more if we understood the full historical context of all significant events in the past.


leviathan343 wrote:
This makes no sense, please clear yourself up.

Certainly.

Let's begin by us revisiting the famous theory of special relativity, which Albert Einstein was based on when he gave us the mass-energy equivalence, aka E = mc2 which translates into energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable in plain English. What this means is that the mathematical equation known as mass-energy equivalence, is the quantum mechanical representation of the existence that's "energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable".

Now, the special relativity theory also has this consequence know as relativity of simultaneity, that two events, while simultaneous for some observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion. Therefore while I can understand the concept of infinity philosophically speaking, in order for me to proof the existence of infinity mathematically, thereby we can have a mechanical equivalent of infinity, much like how we gone from "energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable" to E = mc2 and got us the atom bomb. Is going to take infinite time for this infinity machine to arrive at infinite results, as long as the machine fulfills and bases itself on the philosophical principle of infinity.

I was pondering the possibility of a functional black hole engine, when I stomped upon the nature of the black hole itself; an infinite gravitational force that can trap even light while brings space time continuum to event horizon. An end to all things as we know it that takes infinity in order for us to arrive that point, philosophically speaking of course. But take it from me, to mathematically proof infinity itself is as easily as to philosophically explain this: =

So if anyone has an idea on how to formulate the mathematical equivalent of an equal sign, please let me know. Cause I'm stomped.


the "=" sign is just a transition tool, it doesn't exactly "exist" so to speak so there's no point in pondering further about other than how it's used. It just helps to explain causality and make connections and so forth.

E = mc^2 is something that some people might need to know but for others not. One thing I know for sure some people care less of an explaination of is the act of sex. Certainly there are many ways to perform it, the Karma Sutra provides example, but some people are could care less about it's exact execution, especially if they're virgin, so long as they can get along with their partner during intercourse and reach climax. So you can say we accept sex, but may not fully understand all of the mechanics that are involved and won't need to because such understanding is of little use to some of us.
Posted 11/2/09 , edited 11/2/09

crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



the "=" sign is just a transition tool, it doesn't exactly "exist" so to speak so there's no point in pondering further about other than how it's used. It just helps to explain causality and make connections and so forth.

E = mc^2 is something that some people might need to know but for others not. One thing I know for sure some people care less of an explanation of is the act of sex. Certainly there are many ways to perform it, the Karma Sutra provides example, but some people are could care less about it's exact execution, especially if they're virgin, so long as they can get along with their partner during intercourse and reach climax. So you can say we accept sex, but may not fully understand all of the mechanics that are involved and won't need to because such understanding is of little use to some of us.

Are you sure that's what the Karma Sutra was only good for? According to the general popular belief that it's "the standard work on human sexual behavior in Sanskrit literature written by the Indian scholar Mallanāga Vātsyāyana. A portion of the work consists of practical advice on sex".

And just for that, the "=" sign is such a transitional tool that it(mass) can relate(gravitationally pull) two events(space time) by identifying the transition point(event horizon). After all, that's how hermeneutics define truth based on objectivity and relativism, not general popular belief. When "One of the lessons of philosophical hermeneutics is exactly that intellectual innovation of this sort depends on—indeed, is a manifestation of—the self-renewing power of tradition, of its dynamism, and its interpretability and reinterpretability".(citation)
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 11/2/09 , edited 11/2/09

DomFortress wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



the "=" sign is just a transition tool, it doesn't exactly "exist" so to speak so there's no point in pondering further about other than how it's used. It just helps to explain causality and make connections and so forth.

E = mc^2 is something that some people might need to know but for others not. One thing I know for sure some people care less of an explanation of is the act of sex. Certainly there are many ways to perform it, the Karma Sutra provides example, but some people are could care less about it's exact execution, especially if they're virgin, so long as they can get along with their partner during intercourse and reach climax. So you can say we accept sex, but may not fully understand all of the mechanics that are involved and won't need to because such understanding is of little use to some of us.

Are you sure that's what the Karma Sutra was only good for? According to the general popular belief that it's "the standard work on human sexual behavior in Sanskrit literature written by the Indian scholar Mallanāga Vātsyāyana. A portion of the work consists of practical advice on sex".

And just for that, the "=" sign is such a transitional tool that it(mass) can relate(gravitationally pull) two events(space time) by identifying the transition point(event horizon). After all, that's how hermeneutics define truth based on objectivity and relativism, not general popular belief. When "One of the lessons of philosophical hermeneutics is exactly that intellectual innovation of this sort depends on—indeed, is a manifestation of—the self-renewing power of tradition, of its dynamism, and its interpretability and reinterpretability".(citation)


I'm not denying the wisdom that can come from the Kama Sutra, I'm just saying humanity is not going to be extinct just because we didn't learn 'proper technique' for sex. Heck we've been doing it since the beginning of time. But if you want to know how to further extend pleasure in sex, go ahead and read it.

You make it sound like the "=" actually does something to distort time and space. It's an identifier, It doesn't take up time or space, just the symbol that represents it. Not everything that the mind can concieve may actually exist in the universe, like pink dragon-unicorns. Also actions do not "exist".

Dom, just because you find hermeneutics on the web doesn't give you the right to casually talk about it. I had to read an entire book about it from the person who originally brought the concept to light. It was not easy reading. I'm just going to say that your summary of what hermeneutics is doesn't do justice, even though that's is a blunt way of looking at it (though there's a lot of misunderstanding that I see). Go read "Truth and Method" by Gadamer, your head will explode if a professor can't help you understand the ambiguity of the book.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/2/09 , edited 11/2/09
I don’t really know what you’d expect us to say. I remember struggling with the concept for a long time. I first discovered while reading “God and the New Physics,” by Paul Davies. It went right over my head. Eventually my dad managed to explain it to me in terms that made sense, but it’s been so long I’m not really sure I remember all the implications….


There was also that funny comic:

“Hey Mr. Schrödinger, somebody sent you a package….

“I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t control my curiosity. I had to open it and…

*Sad face,* “Why would somebody send you a dead cat?”




If I get to talk to my dad again maybe I'll share his explanation. The fact is that this really is a hard topic. I don't think you're going to find much legit talk about it on Crunchy Roll or pretty much any other website.
Posted 11/2/09

crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



the "=" sign is just a transition tool, it doesn't exactly "exist" so to speak so there's no point in pondering further about other than how it's used. It just helps to explain causality and make connections and so forth.

E = mc^2 is something that some people might need to know but for others not. One thing I know for sure some people care less of an explanation of is the act of sex. Certainly there are many ways to perform it, the Karma Sutra provides example, but some people are could care less about it's exact execution, especially if they're virgin, so long as they can get along with their partner during intercourse and reach climax. So you can say we accept sex, but may not fully understand all of the mechanics that are involved and won't need to because such understanding is of little use to some of us.

Are you sure that's what the Karma Sutra was only good for? According to the general popular belief that it's "the standard work on human sexual behavior in Sanskrit literature written by the Indian scholar Mallanāga Vātsyāyana. A portion of the work consists of practical advice on sex".

And just for that, the "=" sign is such a transitional tool that it(mass) can relate(gravitationally pull) two events(space time) by identifying the transition point(event horizon). After all, that's how hermeneutics define truth based on objectivity and relativism, not general popular belief. When "One of the lessons of philosophical hermeneutics is exactly that intellectual innovation of this sort depends on—indeed, is a manifestation of—the self-renewing power of tradition, of its dynamism, and its interpretability and reinterpretability".(citation)


I'm not denying the wisdom that can come from the Kama Sutra, I'm just saying humanity is not going to be extinct just because we didn't learn 'proper technique' for sex. Heck we've been doing it since the beginning of time. But if you want to know how to further extend pleasure in sex, go ahead and read it.

You make it sound like the "=" actually does something to distort time and space. It's an identifier, It doesn't take up time or space, just the symbol that represents it. Not everything that the mind can concieve may actually exist in the universe, like pink dragon-unicorns. Also actions do not "exist".

Dom, just because you find hermeneutics on the web doesn't give you the right to casually talk about it. I had to read an entire book about it from the person who originally brought the concept to light. It was not easy reading. I'm just going to say that your summary of what hermeneutics is doesn't do justice, even though that's is a blunt way of looking at it (though there's a lot of misunderstanding that I see). Go read "Truth and Method" by Gadamer, your head will explode if a professor can't help you understand the ambiguity of the book.

That's only because you downplayed the act of sex itself, while I OTOH don't. Just like you downplayed quantum mechanics, when you don't have the answer that I seek.

I can casually talk about hermeneutics because I've been practicing it before the invention of the internet, without me ever known what it's called. Therefore the internet citation is for your convenience, not mine.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.