SCHRÖDINGER'S CAT EXPLAINED

Every time someone talks about multi universes I remember this:
John Oliver (comedian/tv-host) interviews Stephen Hawking (Physicist)

John: Does that mean that there is a universe where I am smarter than you?


Stephen: Yes. And also a universe where you are funny.
John: a universe where I am dating Charlize Theron?
Stephen: No!

Why question the obvious?

Oh ya... well, try explaining that to Schrödinger's cat. 😅🤣😂

You can have something that is alive and also dead. Just because we don't know if it's alive or dead, doesn't mean it's both. It is either one or the other. Obviously, I'm not much of a sciencey person. Common sense rules over weird theories for me

Thank You so much.

This makes no sense. Why would you assume a particle has multiple states? Just because you can't observe a state, doesn't mean it's not 100% true. In your mind it could be in multiple states, but it's actually in one state. When you observe it, you see it's true state that already existed.

I'm calling the RSPCA!

It's not that difficult

Call me crazy, insane, completely f*cking BONKERS if you will but I believe that there is only one universe.

I use this to prove smart people thought themselves stupid. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and or chooses what state to be in the minute you look at it. The cat is dead and died the minute it passed away and has nothing to do with you witnessing it. If you can't understand it, it is because you haven't figured it out yet. and the theory was created to prove how ridicules the theory is and everyone totally ran with it.

If a tree falls in a forest...

Makes no sense 😕

People always think that it's a real thing that can be done... The Schrodinger's cat is literally just a "Oh, so you're telling that if i-”

Subscribed! I just watched many other videos on this subject that left me scratching my head. This one help me understand the absurdity that is quantum mechanics. Thank you!

I have a theory. If I grant you millions of dollars to research wacky "theory" which might or might not exist, You are gonna find a lot of these "theories" aren't you?

The cat is real and alive. The individual doing the experiment is not.

The particle ‘chooses?’

this AWAYS leads to 'there could be a world where <just fill in any ridiculous crap>'

This is the stupidest most pointless theory ever.
why not just make a little window in the box so you can see the cat?
why say 'the cat is alive and dead', why not 'we don't know'?
why do you you have to use a poor little cat for this?
why not a cockroach? we don't care about them

Is this basically just saying, we don't know what state something is in until we observe it via any of our senses?

Theres a world where i exist with 1 less skin cell. Another for 2 less.

For all of those, there's one where i exist with one less hair. 2 less hair. And so on

Its not on a macro level, like "did we go to the moon". It's at smaller levels

Five people were in a box at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean and for four days nobody on earth knew if they were DEAD OR ALIVE.
At 8 AM EDT Sunday, June 18, 2023, five people submerged in the Titan on a mission to view the wreck of the Titanic. One hour and 45 minutes later, communications with the submersible were lost.
Four days later it was learned that they died the instant communications were lost, when on Thursday, June 22, 11.48 am ET when Titan debris was discovered. The five were dead.
The Titan Sub disaster is a real-world example of Schrodinger's Cat.

So every time you sit down to take a shit, the universe splits to create a new universe where you decide to shit on the floor instead. Multiply that by every shit you've taken, every shit every other person has taken and every choice you've ever made times every choice every person ever has ever made and you've got more universes than there are numbers.

Is this possibly Schroedinger's bullshit?

So if this theory is true. Does that mean we never really die? For example if we choose to eat food that is poisonous without knowing we die. But the other option we choose not to eat it and we wont die. Am i concious of both choices? So concious in both worlds as 2 individuals, or as...one?!?! So conjuring and interesting at the same time.

Nope the poor kitty is dead and doomed to die the box for a really really long time

Seems as though the alternate universes only exist in the observers mind though. While unknowing, you can imagine the cat alive or dead. How you imagine it does not alter the reality of what's in the box.

And these people get paid for dreaming this shit up.

Another Universe:
The cat is breakdancing

Thank you

So what is meant by "state"? I understand that for the cat it means life or death. But the narrator states that, "Quantum theory says that until a particle is measured and observed, it actually exists in all the states it could possibly be in, simultaneously." What are the possible states being referenced???

Stupid theory. Stupid area of study. Fake and gay.

The illustration (Schrodinger's Cat Theory) is nonsense. Science is observable or it's not science. If you can't observe it, then leave sleeping cats lie.

Bruh, does this theory prove that there is another earth? since our planet can be a particle of universe.

We didn't go to the moon.

I still don't understand how opening the box determines the cats Fate. Why can't we see it in the superposition?

Particles can only travel at the speed of light, so they cant be everywhere at once. A particle can naturally decay without being measured, but it cannot be in two states at the same time. At any given instant in time, the particle can only be in one definite state, either as a particle or a decay product. The process of decay involves the particle transitioning from one state to another over a certain period of time, during which it cannot be in both states simultaneously. The experiment was only conceptual thought experiment, not to be taken literally.

Nope, this is stupid. The cat is either dead or alive, one or the other, not both. Doesn’t matter if we see it.

That’s like saying if I killed a dude in a dark alley he’s still alive cause you didn’t see it. I shot him in the face 10 times, blew up his head with a C4, and finished the job with an RPG. He’s dead. Whether you saw it or not.

Not true cat actually makes sound from time to time so if you woudl stand close to the box you would know wheter the cat is dead or alive, no superposition.

A solution - tilt the box. The cat will adjust and one can determine whether it's alive without affecting the observing parameter.

What if the cat is running around in the box during this test ? Are we talking cardboard box, or a vault kind of box

Best explanation yet. Thanks.

Biden caught sucking a large hairy uncut pickle of the other big guy...bigfoot

Let there be light...

I hate this theory because I do NOT want to be a serial killer or get killed by one thanks very much. Now go awy.

I thought I would try this one more time after having had a kind of debate with someone, very intelligent but in my estimation, a bit prejudiced against any contradictions proposed of the conventional notions about superposition. I have adjusted my proposition a little to include what I thought were successful counters to his critique of my idea. So, here goes……..

A quick recap of the original argument and my proposition…Schroedings cat thought experiment modified slightly to show that there is no superposition of composite entities such as the cat. There is the box, the emitter, the collector, the hammer and the vile which would normally contain the poison but in my version, acid. So, the collector would at some time release the hammer and break the vile which would release the acid whose fumes would kill the cat. He would fall to the floor and a mechanism would cause the vile to tip over and release the acid to fall to the floor and begin to eat through it. The potential observer would be paying no attention to the box, it sitting on a nearby table perhaps. Suddenly, he would be alarmed by the odor of the acid and turn to observe it on the ground. Several relevant points;

 The observer’s attention was the “effect” of the experiment concluding, not the cause as in the original version, i.e., of his detecting the odor of the acid (outside the box), that being the consequence of the cat having to be only dead.
 The observer never looked into the box.
 The acid could only be outside the box if the cat were dead and only dead, not dead and alive at the same time. Some have tried to claim that by looking at the acid, the wave form would have collapsed and the cat then would have become dead. But this is a contradiction of the experiment as originally defined. The acid could not have been there to alert the observer so he would turn to it at which the wave form would collapse and cause the cat to die and fall over that the acid would eat through the box to alert him to look which it already had to begin with. This would make no sense. The cat had to have been dead already before the observer turned to see the acid which meant that the cat was never in superposition.
 The cat’s death was an event nested in a string of other deterministic events, those subsequent, impossible unless he were dead and only dead.
 The observer did not need to look in the box to see the cat for its state was fixed, that known to be true by the presence of the acid on the ground.
Now I debated the above and certain counterpoints were made by my opponent that didn’t stand additional scrutiny.
 My opponent claimed that the cat was both dead and alive until the acid leaked (created a hole) through the box at which point the wave form collapsed. This would have meant that the original definition of the experiment to which he subscribed was in error. It was the unpredictability of the decaying matter in the emitter which created the condition of superposition, that the shedding of particles was random. So said Schroedinger. By definition then, it could only be that it was the observer’s observation of the cat by opening the box which caused the wave form to collapse. So be it. But then that the acid created a hole in the box which did “not” allow the observer to see the cat could not have cause the wave form to collapse. How then could the acid have eaten through the box, the reality of which was directly observed and whose effect in its presence alarmed the observer to turn to see “it”?
 If the claim that the mere presence of a hole in the box from the acid which did “not” allow the observation of the cat’s state was sufficient to cause the wave form to collapse were true then the original version of the thought experiment was in error in that the cat’s state was said to be a product of it having been observed by the opening of the box. When I suggested that my opponent might inform me whether or not the experiment would have worked as originally defined by Schroedinger had it taken place under an open bottom dome which though open would not permit the observer to see the cat unless it was lifted, he ran from the question. In any case, if any analysis of the reality of superposition does not require the observation of the cat to cause the wave form to collapse, it cannot be thought to be correct in its conclusions, “if” we are to remain true to the Copenhagen school’s claims as to how these wave forms function in materiality. One cannot have it both ways. Either the cat’s state is the product of direct observation or not. If the former is true then my version of the experiment shows superposition to be untrue. If the latter then I am in error.
 I have seen toys which are constructed around the double slit experiment in which the interference pattern is created. However, the observation of the open mechanism by the user does “not” cause the collapse/termination of the phenomenon. Why not?
I do believe that “if” one were to truly and honestly deconstruct my argument in the context of the definitions of the reality of superposition by all scientists and most who study this kind of thing in some measure, he will find that there is no such phenomenon. If any of you think me arrogant and wrong, it should be a very simple matter to demonstrate how and why that is the case. To date, no one can including a few graduate students in physics. I find that astonishing. I also think that whomever posted this video would only have a great deal of fun discussion my proposition and if I am wrong, proving me so. This stuff is a blast to debate. I find it odd and troubling that most people take the challenge of it as such a personal affront. Why? The proposition of superposition is not theirs.

So, what do you think? On the off chance I am correct in this (and I am “if” we are to respect the original author’s formulation), consider the physics that would fall away as a consequence such as all that nonsense about multiverses, etc.

Doesn’t make sense…

Erwin Schrödinger was driving home one night when he was pulled over by the police. The officer asked him to step out of the car while he searched the vehicle. After a while, he went to the back of the car and opened the trunk. In that moment, the officer said, "hey do you know that you've got a dead cat in here?" To which Schrödinger replies, "Well I do now".

1 Peter 5:8
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.