I've written to the Physorg.com under http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-cats-hard.html!
"Quantum cats are hard to see" by
"www.physorg.com"
"Are there parallel universes? And how will we know? This is one of many fascinations people hold about quantum physics. Researchers from the universities of Calgary and Waterloo in Canada and the University of Geneva in Switzerland have published a paper this week in Physical Review Letters ..."
This is what I intend to write them: I've proven that Chrisoph Simon is wrong by "I can refer you to my own writing on Schrodinger's Cat (or Rat) and you will see that I've proven that the above author is WRONG, just like the above people say, the Schrodinger's Cat kills Schrodinger (iff. such a relation is necessary)! Cheers!" (text of mine)!
I've also tried to post this: Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat
Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment. - But they remain closed idiots! (Not also accepting ö, ridiculous!)
Computing, however, involves quantum mechanics, and the above "uninformed" attitude by the above poster, Nanobanano, is taken away by referring to anything involving a quant, a particle, any given machine, and the person is wrong, definitively! Quantum mechanics remain though only or mostly in experimental set-ups so we'll see! We refer Nanobanano to Princeton University studies of quantum mechanics and the best papers elsewhere! (Nobel prizes? I think so! You can start with Erwin Schrodinger himself, for the 1933 prize!)
OK, the posting to Physorg has again gone in. Nothing wrong again, only some irritating waiting!
There is a user there, Nanobanano, who claims that classical physics is all there is. I think this is wrong because classical physics is limited (from what I remember by my own studies! However, one is always making the definite ...
Let's hold quantum physics, quantum mechanics and classical physics separate! I'm coming back to this, but to my knowledge the merger between these 3 hasn't been achieved and classical physics remains limited, to my knowledge. Have you read about dr. Dick Bierman's experiments? To rule out quantum physics by the above argumentation makes no sense at this point because Quantum Physics is about science and not about what you can use in your daily life.
That is, some new posting to this url, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-cats-hard.html!
One can always make the definite requirement for one's conduct in Science to be one of proper procedure, and this requirement holds, regardless, but is classical physics eclipsing all there is of proper procedure in physics? I don't think so! The user, Nanobanano, is just that, very small ("nano"), tentatively!
My points are made! Cheers!
"The above people say" in the text above is only one user, Nanobanano, and he/she has possibly ignored or forgotten to refer to my writing because the argument on Schrödinger's cat or rat is MINE, of my invention! One of the turns of mine in this (short) writing is that I cut off the Copenhagen Interpretation to be only valid for direct/indirect observation! This may very well be the destruction of the Copenhagen Interpretation as well (I think it _has_ been destroyed), but as always, the future isn't for certain! Let's see what the other scientists say!
What is it that you object to? We can only know about observations.
My answer: it is common knowledge that Schrodingers cat destroys Schrodingers theory. That's what the cat was there for in the first place!
Because they INSIST that the cat is in TWO states, dead AND alive and this is now known to be dead wrong! The cat will never be both dead and alive and this is where the limits to human abilities come in! You are not all-knowing! We have to admit that the world obtains states that we have no clue of and that we need to get to definite observation to be certain of it! The "possible worlds" considerations belong to a different topic! You get it, please?
This is the answer of mine to Noumenon!
Besides, this stupid "quantum theory". If there is a used cat's "house"/box in some building. How do you know that the cat is either born yet, alive or dead? As this is 3 states, do we get a new problem? Thi-hi-hi-hi... :-) That is, the former cat is dead and they're waiting for a new one, but this cat /can/ be in a cat's mother womb, and not born yet, but pre-sold to new owners?
The "innuendo" of insisting on "contextualism"/"quantum interaction" is to be trapped in failure because what do you know of nature or reality or anything else merely from sitting there in an armchair, feelin/sensing "contextualism"/"quantum interaction": definite answer, NOTHING!
Still, most of the comments here (or _0_, zero) actually deals with the problem of cat destroying the Schrodinger's or why it should be the other way around! This is dubious, people!
Still, most of the comments here (or _0_, zero) actually doesn't deal with the problem of cat destroying the Schrodinger's or why it should be the other way around! This is dubious, people! (Excuse me for "feelin" and perhaps it's not nothing, but rather very little!)
Hey, smarta**, by (the petty) Wikipedia (but more than enough for you): Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, usually described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that might be alive or dead, depending on an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications. The Cat paradox is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).
I think the Quantum Computing relates to a quartz similar to the quartz that run the system time! Just so you are notified!
(This has been written to Facebook and to the page on the story by Physorg.com.)
No comments:
Post a Comment