|
| 15 Aug 2011 11:52 PM |
I'm hopefully gonna be able to make one of these weekly (or more often, depending on its success). These are meant to be understandable explanations into some of the most confusing things in the world, and to provide a little understanding of concepts that could be useful in explaining things like the Big Bang.
This first challenge is one that puzzled physicists for awhile, and it's called Schrödinger's cat. Here's the story behind it.
Back in the 30s, there was this popular theory of physics known as the Copenhagen interpretation. Basically, it said that everything, down the smallest particles of every atom, could be measured, but in a special way: in probability. That's because at such a small scale, it's impossible to know for sure where something like an electron truly is (to learn more about this, look up "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). So, we can only say where an electron probably is.
This theory works fine on the small scale: physically speaking, it doesn't matter where an electron is, because it is so light and so fast-moving (this leads to some cool things like "Surface Tension", where electrons spend more time with one atom than others). In fact, it's so fast that electrons are said to exist in an "electron cloud", where the electron probably is.
If you want to do the experiment yourself, turn off the lights in your room, and shake your hand wildly in front of your computer screen. See how your fingers make a grayish "cloud"? That's what an electron cloud is. It's a zone where an electron (in your case a finger) probably is. But if you instantly froze your hand at any given moment and looked at a zone in your "cloud", you're not sure if you're gonna have a finger there. You could say that your finger is there 50% of the time.
Like I said, this theory is fine on the small scale. But let's say you bring it to the big scale. Then you get weird things going on. It doesn't matter if you have an electron in three hundred places at once, but what about a cat?
So that leads to a little idea a physician called Schrödinger and our old buddy Einstein came up with. You put a cat in a box that's completely (utterly) isolated from the rest of the world. Inside the box is a radioactive atom and a Geiger counter (radioactivity detector). The Geiger counter, if activated (if it detects radioativity), is connected to a hammer, that will swing down onto a container of poison, that would kill the cat. You then put a lid on the box so you can't see what's going on inside.
Well, the thing is, there's a chance that the radioactive atom will give off a particle that will activate the Geiger counter (and kill the cat), and there's a chance the atom won't (and the cat lives).
Remember how I said before that an electron cloud shows all the places an electron could be? Well, scientists basically say that the electron is in all of those places at once, because they can't be sure. The electron could be at point A or B, but scientists just say the electron is at point A AND B.
Here's the cool part: because the cat could be dead or alive, and there's no way to know until you lift the lid, then scientists must say that the cat is both dead AND alive.
That's right. Modern science makes says that with our special little box, the cat is alive and dead. You can guess why it confused people at first. But nowadays, we accept it: Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive.
Yes, this is hard to understand, but it's a complex subject. Post on the group wall and on this thread your thoughts, or if you have any questions, which I'll answer ASAP. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 15 Aug 2011 11:57 PM |
inb4amros rage
Nice post, anyhow |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:01 AM |
i read from top to bottom.
this was interesting |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:03 AM |
@CT: Thanks. You get it? @Yojoe: Same as CT. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:07 AM |
| @toxic: For the group "Atheists of Roblox". |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:15 AM |
| I'm sorry but the rules clearly states no religion |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:16 AM |
@toxic:
We're not talking about religion. It's just a religious group, which is allowed. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Adrical
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8205 |
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:17 AM |
| I think I understand after reading it 3 times |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:19 AM |
| @Adrical: Anything you don't get? Quantum mechanics is inherently illogical, but opens your eyes once you really get it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Adrical
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8205 |
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:21 AM |
| So if I put my fingers infront of my laptop screen and start shaking them, this theory thing is saying that my fingers are both at the blur and where they actually are? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:27 AM |
Not exactly, it's that under the Copenhagen interpretation, "existing" (or being at a certain point) isn't a yes-no thing. It's a percentage thing. So, 5% of the time, a finger is at a certain point in the blur, 5% of the time it's on another point, and so on and so forth.
Now, this way of measuring is more useful for things where you have no idea where something definitely is. In these cases, you just say there's a "zone" where it could be. Electrons are the prime and most common example. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
squidboi2
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2009 |
| Total Posts: 52336 |
|
| |
|
TDFall
|
  |
| Joined: 07 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 16218 |
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:36 AM |
If you want to do the experiment yourself, turn off the lights in your room, and shake your hand wildly in front of your computer screen. See how your fingers make a grayish "cloud"? That's what an electron cloud is. It's a zone where an electron (in your case a finger) probably is. But if you instantly froze your hand at any given moment and looked at a zone in your "cloud", you're not sure if you're gonna have a finger there. You could say that your finger is there 50% of the time.
-- This has nothing to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or anything you're discussing. I don't know where you got this from. It only has to do with the frame rate that your brain processes images. Because of this passage being invalidated, I apply this to some other questionable sections and hold up this entire article under suspicion.
Also I found this, which was interesting:
"In 1957, Hugh Everett formulated the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not single out observation as a special process. In the many-worlds interpretation, both alive and dead states of the cat persist after the box is opened, but are decoherent from each other. In other words, when the box is opened, the observer and the already-split cat split into an observer looking at a box with a dead cat, and an observer looking at a box with a live cat. But since the dead and alive states are decoherent, there is no effective communication or interaction between them."
And personally, I believe that the UP will be disproved someday by a very fast computer, as have nearly all major scientific theories. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:38 AM |
| Newtons law of gravity. Pshh i proved that wrong years ago.. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:42 AM |
@TDFall: Glad to have some debate on this.
The hand analogy gives you an idea of what I mean when I say an electron cloud. Of course this is a rudimentary analogy, but nonetheless conveys the idea.
The Uncertainty Principle is not a question of computation. It has to do with the fact that observing something changes it.
Besides, even a supercomputer couldn't "save an atom", because the data in it would take up an entire building's worth of supercomputers. It's too much information anyways. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
z5151
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 25684 |
|
| |
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:44 AM |
"It only has to do with the frame rate that your brain processes images."
My brain has a max frame rate of 300 FPS. Hbu? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:45 AM |
| Besides, the hand analogy is less about Uncertainty than it is about the general concept of the Copenhagen interpretation. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:46 AM |
Do you realize how much storage space you would need, TD? Armachedes is correct in that. Ah, this is one of my favorite tests. This Cat experiment has intrigued me for a long while. I'm confused as to what the question is your asking here though, arm? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:47 AM |
@z:
Err... no. Schrodinger's cat is accepted to be true by physicists, just like the Copenhagen interpretation is true for Quantum mechanics.
This being said, Occam's razor eliminates Copenhagen interpretation for classical (aka newtonian, aka "normal") mechanics. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
z5151
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 25684 |
|
| |
|
z5151
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 25684 |
|
| |
|
|
| 16 Aug 2011 12:51 AM |
@z: This is a project that I'm doing as a way of bringing debate to Atheists of ROBLOX. It's also a sponsor for the group.
Not to be offensive, but you're no authority on theoretical physics, z. Keep in mind that the physics you learn in school have different rules than these physics. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
z5151
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 25684 |
|
| |
|