The Strange Science of Schrödinger’s Cat and Quantum Superposition

Want to stream more content like this… and 1,000’s of courses, documentaries & more?
👉 👉 Start Your Free Trial of Wondrium tinyurl.com/bddbj649 👈 👈
-------------------------------------------
The famous “Schrödinger’s cat” is more than a joke about the unknown. It’s a hypothetical way of understanding an idea in quantum mechanics known as superposition. This week on Wondrium, philosophy meets physics.
This video is lecture 10 from the series The Great Questions of Philosophy and Physics, presented by Steven Gimbel
Stream the full series now on Wondrium! www.Wondrium.com/KZbin
00:00 Where Physics Meets Philosophy
02:53 “Schrödinger’s Cat” and Quantum Mechanics
08:12 Quantum Mechanics Interpretations
13:18 Perspectives on the Copenhagen Interpretation
18:25 Eugene Wigner and Observation Phases
20:50 Descartes and Metaphysical Dualism
23:11 Many-Worlds Interpretation
27:12 How Observations Create Superimpositions
--------
Welcome to Wondrium on KZbin.
Here, you can enjoy a carefully curated selection of educational videos from our library of history and science series.
If you’ve ever wanted to travel back in time, wondered about the science of life, or dreamt of exploring the stars, then Wondrium will be your new favorite channel!
If you decide you’d like to learn more about what you love, check out the full experience at wondrium.com/KZbin
There, you’ll find in-depth answers to everything you’ve ever wondered, with mind-blowing surprises along the way.
Your brain is going to love this place!
-------------------------------------------
You can also read thousands of articles from the smartest experts in their fields at Wondrium Daily: www.WondriumDaily.com
And, of course, check us out on all of our social channels:
-Facebook: / wondrium
-Twitter: / wondrium
-Instagram: / wondrium
#physics #schrödinger #ThatDarnCat

[@kevincronk7981]

people talk about Schrödinger’s cat so much as something he came up with to illustrate how weird quantum physics is, but that's not the case. he came up with it to rebut the Copenhagen interpretation which states that the cat would be both alive and dead, as that is clearly absurd and not how the real world works. He and other very famous physicists like Einstein were evangelists of just about anything that wasn't the Copenhagen interpretation.

[@simesaid]

Yes. No matter which, if any, interpretation of quantum theory you subscribe to, when a video purports to 'explain' something that was intentionally designed to be inexplicable... Well, it gives one pause for thought.

[@seanmcmurphy4744]

@@simesaid I agree there are many videos purporting to "explain" or "solve" the Schrodinger's cat paradox. These are mostly just some person arguing for one of the interpretations that he happens to like. The truth is, the measurement problem - the problem of when during the observation chain from radioactive atom to our minds the superposition collapses - is unsolved. Yet.

[@sergeynovikov9424]

the thought experiment with a cat in a box is not good at all because it's absolutely impossible to isolate a cat within a box of any size from a laborant outside of it -- gravity doesn't permit to do this). the classical Schrodinger equation is not applicable here for we need to deal with gravity also.

[@seanmcmurphy4744]

@@sergeynovikov9424 It's not easy isolating a large object from decohering influences, but they are making progress. A microscopic vibrating beam consisting of millions of atoms has been put in a quantum superposition. As I understand it, creation of a quantum superposition of macroscopic size is the same problem that must be solved to build a quantum computer, and they have made progress on it. I believe the main obstacle for the small superpositions they can create today is thermal noise, but maybe for an object the size of a cat gravity would collapse the superposition, as you say.

[@sergeynovikov9424]

@@seanmcmurphy4744 the problem with the Schroedinger's cat thought experiment (as well as with the Wigner's friends experiment) is deeper -- there is a false assumtion from the very start, that a physical system, containing a complex living being, could be isolated within a container from the rest of the world outside of it and therefore can be in a coherent state of quantum uncertainty without interections with the things outside of the container. but gravity is crucially important to take into consideration in the case of living things (despite we poorly understand what life is from the point of physics at present) and therefore the classical Schroedinger equation is not applicable here at all. btw, life is a dynamical open physical system -- it's not just a bunch of atoms and molecules, as in the case of a stone -- life is _a process_ of permanent interections with its environment, which include gravitational interactions (remember Penrose's ideas of Orch OR and his interpretation of QM). it's impossible to prescribe a WF to a living thing when its consistuences are permanently changing and interactions with its environment are going.

[@wmstuckey]

Hey Steven, I'm a physics professor just down the road from you at Elizabethtown College. Let me add an explanation of quantum superposition via Schrodinger's Cat using quantum information theory. What people fail to mention when talking about quantum superposition using Schrodinger's Cat is the difference between a classical bit of information (like a computer bit being on or off) and a quantum bit of information (a qubit). Both bits produce one of two outcomes when queried (measured), but a classical bit has only one measurement possible while a qubit can be measured in many different ways (infinitely many, actually), each with two possible outcomes. For example, when you pass an electron through an inhomogeneous magnetic field, the electron is either deflected towards the North magnetic pole ("up") or towards the South magnetic pole ("down"). You can orient the N-S magnetic field in any direction you like and the electrons will still give one of those two outcomes, so electron spin is a qubit with two outcomes of spin "up" and spin "down" relative the the N-S magnetic field. Now suppose you pass electrons through a N-S magnetic field oriented vertically and then send those that were deflected "up" (literally up in this case) to a N-S magnetic field oriented horizontally. What do you expect to find? Well since the electrons have vertical spin up and spin is a vector (picture an arrow pointing upward here), then you probably expect the electron to pass straight through the horizontal magnetic field, i.e., they won't be deflected left or right at all ("up" or "down" relative to the horizontal N-S field). That's because the electron's spin vector (arrow) points up which means it doesn't point side-to-side (left of right) at all, so your horizontal spin measurement of a vertical spin up electron should seemingly yield a result of zero horizontal spin. But what you find instead is that 50% of the vertical spin up electrons are deflected left ("up" towards North pole) and 50% are deflected right ("down" towards South pole). True, 50% left plus 50% right *averages* to zero, but that's not what you expect from the measurement of a vector quantity in ordinary classical mechanics. [Aside: Quantum mechanics gives the classically expected results on average over the discrete or quantum measurement outcomes.] This is quantum superposition, a vertical spin up electron is a quantum superposition of 50% horizontal spin left and 50% horizontal spin right and we write that as |V+> = |H+> + |H-> (divided by root 2 for normalization, but I don't need that to make my point). The point here is the horizontal spin measurement of the quantum state |V+> produces each of its two "up"-"down" (left-right) results in 50-50 fashion. This is exactly what you hear people say about Schrodinger's Cat, i.e., you open the box and find the cat is dead with 50% probability or find the cat is alive with 50% probability. With that information alone, Schrodinger's Cat could be a classical bit or a qubit. If Schrodinger's Cat is a qubit, then there must be a measurement of the cat-box system like the vertical spin measurement of the state |V+> that produces |V+>, i.e., |H+> + |H->, with 100% certainty. We know the measurement "open the box" producing "Live Cat"-"Dead Cat" results in 50-50 fashion is analogous to the horizontal spin measurement of |V+>, so what is the measurement of the cat-box system corresponding to |Live Cat> + |Dead Cat> with 100% certainty in analogy with the vertical spin measurement of the state |V+> that produces |V+> with 100% certainty? And what does its outcome mean physically? If you can't articulate that measurement and outcome of the cat-box system, and every possible measurement between that measurement and the "open the box" measurement, then the cat-box system is just a classical bit ... like opening a box to find a ball or no ball. No quantum superposition there 🙂 To read more about the quantum information approach to entanglement for the "general reader," see "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" due out in June 2024 with Oxford UP. Steven, Dr. Silberstein (coauthor and philosophy professor at Elizabethtown College) and I will gladly give a talk at Gettysburg College whenever it suits.

[@Milan0Thapa]

That ending though

[@DocSeville]

Bravo! Very well done and the ending was classic!!!!!

[@athulshaji1754]

Excellent lecture.

[@MrMontreal2]

Great lecture. And cool ending 😀

[@gregorynicholls9991]

We are also a part of nature,our observation of the object is also nature interacting with nature,why be surprised by an effect/change ? I think most great minds forget that we are also nature quantomly generated to interact with the rest of nature the way we do.

[@jamestagge3429]

one more one more time.............any thoughts?..............The conditions of the Schroedinger’s Cat thought experiment remain exactly the same but for the poison in the vile which would be replaced with an acid, the fumes of which would still be lethal to the cat, and a mechanism on the floor of the box which were the cat to lie/fall down for having died from the acid fumes, would cause the vile to tip over. If broken, its contents would spill onto the floor of the box and eat through to the outside. In this then, there would be no observer opening the box but rather a chain of interdependent, deterministic events which would at their end, in effect, be “reaching out” to the observer after the fact. In other words, the acid leaking from the box would only be possible were the cat dead and only dead. No dead cat, no leaking acid, no odor to alarm the observer that he might turn to see. To illuminate further, that necessary for the Schroedinger version of this scheme is that there be no consequence of events of the cat’s state as either alive or dead or even potentially one or the other. The cat’s state as alive or dead is the end of the sequence of events contained within the box. In my version in which the cat’s state is nested within a line of other deterministic events, those subsequent to the cat’s state cannot be realized materially unless the cat were dead and only dead. The observer would not have looked to see the acid on the ground at all but for the process having in a sense “reached out” to alert him to its presence (the odor of the acid). If, as might be claimed that his observation of the dripping acid would cause the wave form to collapse and the condition of the acid dripping to manifest then how could it have been manifest already that it might capture his attention that he might turn to observe it to then cause the wave form to collapse so that it could be dripping to alert him which it was and had to be in the first place? This argument makes no sense and defies the same brand or current of logic by which the experiment was initially defined. Here the acid on the ground (the cat being dead) is the cause of the observation and not the effect as the state of the cat in the box (Schroedinger’s version) after it is opened that the cat might be observed. Additionally, it might be claimed that during the time the acid was eating through the bottom of the box that the cat would be in superposition and dead and alive at once and that the subsequent hole created by the acid would cause the wave form to collapse and the cat to then be dead or alive. However, this would then demonstrate that the original proposition as per Schroedinger was in error in the manner those of the Copenhagen school accepted it as a means of understanding superposition (of composite entities). It should be clear that there could not be the acid on the ground “and” the acid not having eaten through the box in the same manner that the hammer in the box in the original Schroedinger version had both fallen to break the vile and not. I would think that there is no reason to expound on that understanding. As stated above, the means by which the wave form would collapse in the original version of the thought experiment was solely that the box was opened and the cat observed. This other claim then that the wave form would collapse merely because a hole was burned into the bottom of the box by the acid such that it could escape but insufficient for the observer to see the cat inside via this hole could not be true without contradicting the original understanding. It cannot be both. Were the experiment to take place, rather than in a box, under an open bottom dome which blocked the observation of the cat until it was lifted, would the cat be in superposition? Resolving this would answer the questions posed above. If observation is required to collapse the wave form then anyone trying to refute my scenario must compose some work-around this possible logical contradiction.

[@va2601]

Very good explanation of the interpretations.

[@mexxaali05730]

This is explained so well

[@jamestagge3429]

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.

[@franciscojose6496]

Always unique channel pure information

[@SenaiAdulis]

Very informative but can anyone tell me why multiple cameras are required for a single person lecture? The different angles and constant turning to face a another lens seem excessive. Come to think of it…couldn’t you superposition yourself to speak to all three cameras at once and then chose one when I collapse the wave function?

[@MrGiovannisassano]

9:40 even on or if the measurable quantities that is still available "information" to the just the plank scale thought of the interaction of the existence of the thought experiment. Not just a standard measurement by itself. Fixing the main reason for the math is the paradox to the equation!

[@MrGiovannisassano]

16:27 and then not becoming the operator change that system is not interacting but interacting with that system while being the operator change the system so the uptown and the crossing to the cat is dead. Anytime you don't know if the cat hits the button itself that is in this system while being alive. The operating Observer then can statement of its alive and died otherwise no.

[@MrGiovannisassano]

21:00 finally got the understanding of what I mean. Cuz it's information ove substance of the existence of form to function.

[@cheem1981]

Why is nobody talking about the unicorn on the left shoulder, am I the only one who saw it

[@kevincronk7981]

the description of quantum mechanics as a placeholder (despite Einstein being wrong about that particular alternative) seems very fitting, as quantum mechanics started as simply something that somehow worked to explain how the color of light emitted by an oven at different temperatures changed, after other methods failed. the guy who came up with it was certain it couldn't be inherently true, and thought it was just a mathematical hack and the true mechanisms would be eventually discovered. the theory has come a long way since then though.

[@scottgreen3807]

Ok I read the book Quantum Reality, it’s old and the progression of discussion is the same. I’ve also consulted with AI, and that rendures nothing when asking about superposition in a broader sense. I didn’t read the last ten pages because as of today fourty years latter we are still stuck there. What’s new?

[@deedunn1989]

So if I put myself inside a box and have a friend shoot randomly at it. Will I be both alive and dead until he looks inside?

[@johnathanfindlay9112]

The measurement problem of physics in space is the point between quantum physics and relativity with the emergence of time and space at a Planck length. The cat is not the only one in the Box... You are in the box we call the universe where from the view of sub Planck (quantum physics) perspective. It's not a philosophical result it's a literal one that is confused by a bad interpretation of the physical, not mathematical properties of the universe. But if people prefer the current interpretation I am easy.

[@vinceypma8962]

Schrödinger's daughter (supposedly) said, "He hated cats."

[@joegeorge3889]

I knew it

[@MrGiovannisassano]

23:09 or the statement of "I see I see said the blind man to the flea" but only knowing that the flea was there cuz it bit the blind man.

[@MrGiovannisassano]

14:30 the reality of it comes to the fact that we have changed in choosing are considered choice of thought and then information is now the cat to time. Hopefully you can understand that.

[@xspotbox4400]

The mind is energy and it's working at the speed of light. But our thoughts are way slower than that, so energy required for conscious thought is mostly noise and only self aware result should be considered as superposition collapse. Meaning there are no other worlds, what is missing is what it takes for the only world to exists.

[@markcampbell7577]

Shrodingers cat is seen when we apply a strong magnetic field to a pure sample of a molecule. When we remove the magnetic field we can see all of cats lie down. As the protons spin flip back to their normal electronic condition. The protons release a quanta of radio frequency light. The local electronic condition determines the radio frequency. Functional groups have a characteristic patterns and the total combination of the frequency is unique to a molecule. NMR or MRI imaging.

[@oremazz3754]

See this revolutionary new approach: From intuitive thoughts, the universe can be simplified as “stuff in a media” where “stuff” is all the particles resumed by the Standard Model, and the “media” is the 3D space. The first entity is circumscribed inside the quantum system as compact, i.e., particle, and the second entity is the quantum system space that oscillates between 3D and its 4th longitudinal dimension. So, the universe will be the coexistence of particles with its wavy space; this particle will exist aleatorily in 3D meanwhile its space is in 3D. These two entities solve the wave-particle duality, not one entity that assumes two rolls in a weird-convenient way, but a wavy space that can split or join or interfere with itself given to the compact particle's characteristics of wave behavior. On each new cycle, the particle will assume aleatorily a new eigenvalue so that only one eigenvalue exists in a given ephemeral moment, completely following the observations known as collapse. The oscillation frequency is so fast that it allows the particle to develop all its eigenstates in an apparent superposition form, accomplishing this way with all the math of Quantum Theory without the weirdness of multiple-superposition versus unique-collapse existence. Now, the issue that the quantum system space is temporarily out of the 3D longitudinal dimensions explains how particles can change from one eigenstate to another eigenstate without the conflict of the transition between them. Besides, this passage to its 4th longitudinal dimension explains how entangled particles interchange information without the relativistic speed limit at 3D. It also provides the zone where particle interaction (creation and destruction) occurs, accomplishing the conservation laws of momentum, energy, charge, etc.

[@simesaid]

It may well be that I simply don't understand the theory well enough, or indeed that I simply *don't* understand it at all, but I've never quite been able to wrap my head around the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. Why should a "measurement" (or, more accurately, an interaction) in this world induce the universe to split into all the observed worlds that are possible? In other words, what is special about _this_ world, that causes other worlds to split off from _it?_ Or, to frame the question slightly differently, why would _any_ world split? If there really is just "the world", and that world really does just "obey" the Schrodinger equation (being as it is, in this sense at least, a fully deterministic one), then wouldn't it be more coherent to simply state that there exists one "master template" world that evolves according to laws of nature governed by the Schrodinger equation, and that as every possible value within that world - from t-0 of the big bang until that of t+N of maximal entropy (the second time, not the first, of course) being reached - must already exist, why wouldn't every possible evolution of it's state come into being from _that_ world? As stated above, it's probably just my mis-reading of the concept, but the way I generally hear it presented, it's as though there's something special about _this_ world that causes other worlds to split from _it._ Rather than, say, this world splitting from _that._ Any help with clarification much appreciated, have a great day.

[@Presidentofstate]

Oh I’m going to look at the cart so hard

[@sergeynovikov9424]

the example with the measurement problem by using the thought experiment with a cat in a box is not good at all by the reason that it's really/absolutely impossible to isolate a cat within a box from a laborant outside it. the cat (so as every living thing) cannot be put in a state of quntum uncertainty. btw, life is a process -- it's not about the 'states' (nither classical nor quantum) of living things.

[@jasonbeck4507]

In the thought experiment, wouldn't the spin detector measuring the electron itself count as an observer? It must because it measures the electron state to trigger the poison machinery (or not). Any observer would need a similar measuring mechanism so how can the presence or absence of a human being to read the results of the machine's measurement make a difference? The logic that the entire apparatus is in a state superposition because it is all just atoms would also apply to a human observer, right? Or is consciousness the difference? In which case, would the cat count as an observer?

[@JTadeo128]

🤷‍♂️

[@seanmcmurphy4744]

Yeah, he's out of date. The Von Neumann - Wigner or 'consciousness causes collapse' interpretation 18:25 is obsolete; no one but pompous philosophy professors and New Age pseudoscience gurus like Deepak Chopra are pushing that theory. Bohr and other physicists emphasized that an "observation" in quantum mechanics does not require a conscious observer, the observation has occurred when the result appears on the physicist's instruments, as you say. "Observation" and wavefunction collapse also occurs constantly in nature with no one watching. All of classical physics, such as the fact that a macroscopic object is located at a particular position in space, depends on wavefunction collapse. If wavefunction collapse occured in the mind, it would mean that either all of classical physics is a mental construct, an illusion, or that the brain has some unique ability to collapse wavefunctions. It would mean everyday objects in the Universe would not have classical properties such as location, velocity and mass unless a person happened to be looking at them.

[@fullfungo]

That’s why I like the many-worlds interpretation. If you observe the result (i.e. perform a measurement), you interact with the system and thus become correlated with it (you are in a superposition itself). For example, imagine a scientist with the cat box. Then put him and the box in a bigger box. Then, it should be logical, that when you open the big box, you “collapse” the scientist and they tell you the result at random (but always correlated with the real result!) So if you were this scientist-in-a-box, you should be in a superposition yourself. This way no “collapse” occurred, as well as no contradictions, since you cannot observe “the other you”.

[@abc33155]

Yes, the spin detector would likely collapse the quantum state. But note that in the actual Schrödinger's cat thought experiment the detector is a Geiger counter, which doesn’t itself cause any collapsing of quantum states or cause in any way the radioactive decay, which happens at random. Schrödinger was likely just laughing at the idea that some scientists thought there needs to be a human observer for a collapsing to occur.

[@seanmcmurphy4744]

@@abc33155 No, the superposition in Schro's Cat is not a superposition of two spin states, its a "time superposition" that comes from the Heisenberg energy-time uncertainty relation: ∆E∆t = ħ. There is uncertainty over WHEN an unobserved radioactive nucleus decays. Before it is "observed", that is before the particle emitted by the nucleus interacts with the geiger counter, the nucleus is in a superposition of decayed and undecayed states and the emitted particle is in a superposition of existence and nonexistence. The geiger counter collapses the superposition

[@yourknightmare6068]

Thanks for hindi subtitles!!

[@JustnCase]

The moon unobserved is in motion, until I look at it! I position it at that time. An hour later, I look, it’s positioned somewhere else! But is really in motion. I don’t need to be at the meridian at 4:20 PM. In Colorado. 9:20 am works! ❤

[@gregory817]

Is the cat's owner also in a state of superposition of being both happy that the cat is alive, and sad that the cat is dead?

[@nobullpracticality1824]

Coincidence this posted on Lion’s Gate Portal and International Cat Day? I think not.

[@smokinhalf]

Time and space confuses me. I sorrta understand about the energy and mass that they are the same convert one to the other

[@gyanprakashraj4062]

O.ooo1 LEVEL PE sabkaa..✌✌✌all teachers included

[@carolbricker4434]

Nice

[@danielbuse3639]

I shall not look at the cat! Just the comments after pausing at 1 second

[@bernardrooney105]

Does the fact I’m an observer of this video cause it to keep collapsing and creating ads?

[@MrGiovannisassano]

8:28 if someone has hit the button to make the hammer move then unless you know that the cat would definitely die from the hammer hitting the posion.

[@randallpetroelje3913]

It’s like Schrodinger’s cat. Is there a lime is it dead? It’s gone till structure? How do you to find it? How are the questions to be structured and the answers may be even more disturbing

[@scottgreen3807]

Ok how’s this then, when a value is measured, a nemuric value is ascribed as a result and the value represent a human creation like count. That’s were the confusion about it being in the mind starts, it does by your observations slash creation slash equation to numerics.

[@sedgwickmcalaster7785]

The double slit experiment

[@wtfamiactuallyright1823]

As much as I appreciate the ending, I now feel like Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. 😑

[@seabeepirate]

We’ve been getting weird results for a long time and don’t know why but we haven’t found any hidden variables so they don’t exist! Now if only we could figure out why these results are weird… I think the interpretation of bell’s inequality is probably incomplete or flat wrong. Think about how different some of the theories are and yet how much they are able to explain. If we changed one of the conclusions that is a pillar of modern physics from true to false or vice versa, what theories might be invented to describe our weird observations.

[@seabeepirate]

I feel like this is gonna be a youtube video soon. “I asked an AI to tell me how the universe works and this is what happened.”

[@seabeepirate]

Or, “Physics but with X-event modded to Y-conclusion”

[@don_hss]

Quick doubt: What if it was a conscious human instead of a cat? Would one be alive and dead at the same time even though one would still be conscious or and already know the outcome?

[@MrGiovannisassano]

27:36 his was right.

[@mikemcfadden8652]

Does the many worlds theory explain the mystery of the arrow of time? With every quantum act there is a new world created and there is no path back to the world that existed before, it has splintered into an uncountable number of new ones.

[@johnfrancis0063]

Is my cat sleeping or is she just balled up with her eyes closed ignoring me?

[@kitmoore9969]

She's thinking that if you were small enough then you'd also be dinner.

[@dukeon]

What about the cat’s consciousness?

[@mickmccrory8534]

If you put that cat in the death box 1 more time, there is a probability I may or may not call the animal control people.

[@MrGiovannisassano]

16:47 the operating system better question would be but how would have you known I would have a pen in my right inside pocket? Just conjecter the here-say to the fact ove the laws of the existence of the thought of its existence of being there with you not knowing that or did you know that it was there before the act of pulling it out?

[@bryandraughn9830]

Why wouldn't the detector just perform a measurement now?

[@scottgreen3807]

Now that I’ve listened I say this. The world when observed as a scientist does behaves in such a way as to enforce the least action principle in that it the universe reserves the right to test to see how the world should be and act by effectively testing for a correct outcome. What else would you except as a best case working model. Yes nature reserves the right to decide if a cat is dead or alive until when you get around to the experience but when the cat takes a state there will be also reason to make it as such. The math has you deceived.

[@theldun1]

Wait a week then open the box. if the cat died when you pushed the button he will be rotting. I really don't think things decay in super positions.......

[@roysebastien4598]

what about if, when you open the box, the cat as survive the poison???

[@Wondrium]

That still solves the experiment as it's whether the cat is alive or dead, not specifically that the poison killed it. Although its survivability through the subsequent tests to find out why it's impervious to poison might take a hit.

[@goestovbhudi8716]

@@Wondrium Wh ... ? If, by some chance, the cat dies of natural causes during the experiment then the quantum state of the particle is irrelevant. You may as well not have anything else in the box except a terminally ill cat which has a 50:50 chance of dying in the next hour.

[@relaxingnature2617]

The solution is to ask the cat before, during and after ..the cat knows the secret

[@jeffm3283]

Never trust a scientist around your household pets. They're like cartoonists in that way, or astronauts

[@DanDan-xj8ox]

took me 15mins to wonder why I'm watching this bc I don't have a clue.

[@michaelk2987]

Isn’t the cat also the observer .

[@kcinkg]

Albert is correct.

[@MrGiovannisassano]

10:30 as too the statement of "God" he gave the shape of the existence to the laws that/of what govern themselves when it comes to the fact ove the laws to protect their own rules and regulations. And not even "God" can change them... He done so to free up his mind/body so that he can have more time to himself and injoy his knowledged work. Cuz even "God" 's design was a lot of work to do and not have any real free time with himself just too have time for himself... But this can be said to be just conjecter & here-say to each their own I say.

[@johnfrancis0063]

Anyways, we only live in the past. Everything in the future is decided within nanoseconds or less of what we perceive as the present.

[@jeffnolan7392]

As a cat lover for life, I have to point out that the thought experiment would be more viable if it were a rat. A rat and a cat can be depended upon to act the same way inside the box, and the thought of the rat dying would be acceptable to anyone, but in Japan, they think Schrodinger should be hanged for trying to hurt a cat... think about it.

[@parthabanerjee1234]

As a catlover, I agree with you about sparing the cat the dillema. But I am against putting a rat also. I prefer Schroedinger's chicken. If it is dead, at least we can eat it and can give some of it to the cat.

[@mariog2k08]

Cats eventually die. If it helps, imagine after your cat is dead that subsequent experiments will yield an almost 50/50 chance that your cat is alive in perpetuity. Although this would require leveraging the quantum stink factor which rarely yields the desired outcome when applied at scale.

[@josephriley4356]

Physicists hate getting philosophical while they're working.

[@CyberwizardProductions]

you lock stuff into a temporary structure when you measure it. you have to, or you can't measure it. So if course you'[re never going to see it in chaotic flux. That doesn't mean it stays there AFTER you measure it. it's like taking a photo - you see one small slice of time and reality - and that's all you can see. You can't measure energy with any physical tools, no matter how hard scientsts keep trying, either. It isn't physical. I find it funny that all the learned brains are still trying to define the energy realm in terms of the physical realm.

[@Monyka24]

If instead of a cat we were to put God inside the box, then what? I am agnostic, however could that mean that God exist to does who interact with Him?

[@qinoqino7643]

👁️✝️🛐👁️⚖️🍞🕯️💧🌡️😠🌋🌪️👀👂🙏⏳,. The crap of "it's relative"

[@cmleibenguth]

Dualism goes back way further if you look into Eastern philosophy

[@tylerhulsey982]

You don’t even need to look eastward to find it way back in the past

[@gamesmore6583]

The cat is an observer. If alive the cat knows it. If dead it might or might not know that. If cat's have an afterlife it probably would know it is dead.

[@JamesWylde]

I was really enjoying this video, then after 4 rounds of mid roll ads and then it just cuts off at the end I ended up having to downvote it.

[@noControl556]

Superposition is just a made up term for "we don't know". Yea you don't know the outcome of a measurement until you measure it. If I have a piece of wood and don't know how long it is, it isn't in a superposition of every possible length, the length is just unknown until measured. Schrodinger's whole point was to mock how stupid the concept of superposition was.

[@kitmoore9969]

Superposition is a quantum effect. Pieces of wood aren't quantum objects.

[@jeffnolan7392]

This guy has no idea what Schrodinger was trying to illustrate. There is no spin detector. There is only a cat and poison, and in thought, the cat is both alive and dead until you measure, or open the box, and expose the truth. It is to illustrate you don't and can't understand quantum states until you measure. They are unpredictable. Heisenberg threw a rock through the glass when he showed you change characteristics of particles when you measure them since the only way to measure them is through the application of magnetic fields or electromagnetic detection, so you can never actually know any quantum state you measure. This guy should either go back to school or mention that he's presenting his own views, not academic views.

[@abc33155]

Well, in the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment there is a Geiger counter, which is a detector, but it doesn’t itself cause any collapsing of quantum states or cause in any way the radioactive decay, which happens at random.

[@michaelgarrow3239]

Sorry but the detector would be measuring the state of the state of the system. So their is no in-between. And why does Shrodenger hate cats?!!!

[@jonathanbyrdmusic]

Is this quantum “woo” ? 😂

[@faith22112]

👄

[@donwald3436]

Physics used to be called natural philosophy.

[@arisps17]

You get a dog and then the usual a cat a vial of cyanide a hammer a box and of course a radioactive source connected to a Geiger counter. You leave the dog outside of the box. Why is the cat already EITHER dead or alive but not BOTH? *spoiler alert* thecollapsewasforcedbythedogcatchingthescentofthecatevenfromoutsideoftheboxakaobserving

[@ronkirkpatrickma]

Only cats deserve that fate 100%

[@edijunaedi238]

In fact, the Schrodinger's cat experiment is talking about the concept of the sixth pillar of faith of Muslims, namely faith in destiny. everything that has not been determined by Allah is all in a superposition condition when Allah determines kunpayatun then it becomes an event then humans are brought to their awareness, that is destiny. Allah is the Greatest

[@Nick-Nasti]

Sometimes science gets into its own head.

[@armandos.rodriguez6608]

Quantum Mechanics= Realty is for real or is it ????? It’s all energy or monument ,when the dance ends,the club house closes ??????? Or ??????

[@theprisonerofzenda2862]

😾📦🐈

[@jackwilliamatkins5602]

God is living in a house in Nunawading

[@markbyerly9094]

More many worlds nonsense instead of just saying “gee, I dunno.” Pride, ego…yada yada.

[@JackSanders7777]

The cat is dead, alive, neither and both. It is a thought problem with no answer. It is a proposition of the 4 sided dialectic form.

[@jessasto947]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)

[@todradmaker4297]

In quantum mechanics the existence of God is in a state of superposition until it can definitely be determined. So I guess it really puts the burden of proof on to any one claiming that God doesn't exist. Until then there is either a possible world where God exists or God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

[@todradmaker4297]

Thanks to science, I can be like a god and create whole new worlds simply by conducting a probability experiment.

[@striderQED]

Awesome, thanks for creating this, I am not afraid of no cat.

[@os10v311]

why did Schrödinger hate cats? if we have to do terrible experiments on animals, use chickens instead please, then we can eat it

[@gprang]

CopenHAYgen please.

[@skakdosmer]

No, København!

[@PaulSinghSelhi-VFX-TUTORIALS]

Jabberwocky

[@CyberwizardProductions]

always dislike the video if a subscribe, like, and click the bell nag shows up

[@FrankCoffman]

Conclusion: physics is nonsense -- well, partly nonsense.

[@parthabanerjee1234]

The many-world interpretation is the most catfriendly one. I go with it.

[@parthabanerjee1234]

@@joebaby739 , you desperately need a functional brain.

[@parthabanerjee1234]

@@joebaby739 Idiots do not understand humor.

[@rickwitten]

“The material world is interacting with the mental world”? What a load of crap. Please show your work. What is the interaction from the standpoint of the material world? The mental is doing its own thing, and the material has no way of knowing that is happening. When I look at the moon through a telescope, is the moon experiencing an interaction? Preposterous.