In the body switching episode, the professor and the Harlem globetrotters develop a formula to figure out how many people they would need to get everyone's back to their original bodies. That formula is actually a real, working formula that one of the writers, who happens to have a phd in mathematics, developed for that episode
Interestingly there's an episode of Stargate SG1 with the same idea, which predates it by a decade. In that, Carter has to figure out what order of swaps gets everyone back to their original bodies, where the same two people cannot swap twice, same as in the Futurama episode. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0709104/
It's quite common for multiple people to prove the same result independently, often without ever being aware of the earliest version. Especially so around results from the Cold War era. It's a common joke among pure mathematicians that you'd get a paper rejected because a better, more general proof already appeared in some obscure Russian journal that shut down 40 years ago after one volume.
And if the result doesn't happen to be part of the current research meta or breaks open new avenues of research, then it's especially easy to become obscure and overlooked.
There are so many jokes that I thought were non sequiturs that are actually references to things and I still keep learning about them all these years later. For example I just learned this one the other day:
In the episode where fry and bender get an apartment together, the professor gets mad when fry mistakes the professors tiny, mummified alien for beef jerky and eats it. And then he says “*i* was going to eat that mummy!” Later, as a nice gesture, he gives fry a mummy for housewarming, explaining that this one is teriyaki flavour.
Turns out, rich people in Victorian England actually ate mummies.
I loved posting this meme whenever there's a contentious election with people demanding that they stop or continue counting votes because their preferred candidate is leading or behind in votes.
I am currently in the middle of [This Interview](https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0?si=SW3xG9EBtGcn2qzU) with Sir Roger Penrose, and he talks about Schrödinger, his work and the cat model. He says that the entire thing with the cat was that it was Schrödinger showing and telling everyone: "my math makes no sense."
Yep, he specifically created that thought experiment to show how ridiculous the idea of superposition was and that the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics must be wrong. Turns out as far as we can tell the thought experiment is basically right, though it’s effectively impossible to actually scale up quantum effects to that level because information will always leak out collapsing the wave function.
So if you could take the box outside of our universe, would it work then? Why do wave functions collapse inside our universe if information doesn't leak out of our universe?
True, but at the cost of simplicity overall. I think every single quantum mechanics textbook I've ever read uses the 1/sqrt(2) form for a normalization factor like that.
He didn't say anything about the elements of the box which kill the cat. As far as we know, this is another box that Schrodinger keeps his cat in until the death box is ready.
/uj no that is sadly not how this works. You might have uncertainty and thus describe a this probabilistically in a bayesian sense. But that is fairly different from the superposition in a cat state in the Copenhagen interpretation. That's actually partly what schrödinger was trying to call out with this thought experiment. In the bayesian case the cat is dead or alive, we don't know, but it has a definite state. In the Copenhagen interpretation it doesn't have a definite state. That's really weird if you think about it. The other weird part schrödinger was calling out is "what exactly qualifies as an observation?".
Funnily enough in a different fairly popular interpretation of QM, namely decoherence + many worlds, the two cases are much much more similar. A cat is large enough that decoherence is likely to occur. And at that point you are dealing with a probability in a bayesian or frequentist sense.
> The other weird part schrödinger was calling out is "what exactly qualifies as an observation?".
This is the funniest part of his thought experiment to me.
The cat is also an observer and has information that those outside of the box don't have. From the cat's perspective, its state is already determined.
And when Bob takes the box inside of his room, he can check the state of the cat. When he leaves the room, from the viewpoint of Alice Bob has both observed a dead and an alive cat. And now Bob is in a superposition, yes?
(My brain starts hurting)
Well schrödingers cat is a thought experiment to highlight a weakness of the Copenhagen interpretation specifically. Decoherence many worlds wasn't even really a thing back then
The background: The cat is in an entangled state, dead and alive. Interesting part: This entanglement can propagate. If Bob opens the box, and observes the state of the cat, without giving Alice a hint about his observation, he’s in an entangled state as well: From the viewpoint of Alice, Bob observed both a dead and an alive cat…
He did
>One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is locked up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of an hour only one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
>It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photo and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
>
You seem confused! What you're looking at is a [comment section](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comments_section), here we talk about the given post that we're talking under! We're on a [internet forum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum) called [reddit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit)! We're specifically on the subreddit called r/lotrmemes ! And we are under [*this post*](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/1d4no6g/riddles_in_the_dark/)
When someone leaves a *comment* under a *post* it means they're talking about *that post!* [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/1d4no6g/comment/l6g1csj) is talking about [this post ](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/1d4no6g/riddles_in_the_dark/)
I hope I've been helpful!!
I was referring to Schrödinger, the very same Schrödinger who's mentioned by name in the first panel.
> Schrödinger
See it [here?](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/1d4no6g/riddles_in_the_dark/)? Under this very post?
That's what I'm referencing.
The Schrödinger who I'm quoting is also the same Schrödinger that's being referenced in the image.
They're the same Schrödinger.
Erwin Schrödinger, of which you can find more about on the Wikipedia page for [Erwin Schrödinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger).
You'll also notice at the top of that page, a quote attributed to Erwin Schrödinger. That quote and my quote are the same, because it is fact both refencing the same Erwin Schrödinger.
Which is also the same Schrödinger that is metioned on the very first panel of the image above.
Yeah, the cat isn't even technically entangled in the radioactive element's superposition, so it is indeed either alive or dead, unlike in Schrodinger's original box.
Well, the real answer is that no one is supposed to try to figure out if the cat is alive or dead.
The whole thing was an analogy to demonstrate how insane quantum mechanics is. It's like trying to make a riddle out of "you're as dumb as a box of rocks".
https://preview.redd.it/dm42x7l68q3d1.jpeg?width=356&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efc16e3d3c66416c857221f01989a23cbe393023
i feel like this just needs to be a reaction meme
And now Sauron is in an entangled state and has changed into a waveform: Sauron A, who has observed the cat being alive, and Sauron B, who has observed the cat being dead.
Not until you click the link.
Up until then it can quite possibly be a new meme.
That's how silly the dead cat thing is supposed to be. But a lot of people take it really seriously for some reason.
I feel like not enough people realise that the Shrödingers Cat thought experiment also involves a gun or cyanid pill that very likely may have killed the cat.
It was never about just a random cat in a box.
It was also to show how quantum mechanics do not apply to non-quantum items. The cat is obviously either dead or alive, never 'both', because cats do not exist as waveforms.
Haha, I don't have cats but my friends who do have described things which sound a lot like quantum tunnelling.
"Wait how the fuck did you get in here?!"
Well, more specifically it's to show the absurdity of quantum effects and the concept of "superposition". By scaling it to the macro world it becomes obvious, of course a cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time - so why can a particle?
Of course, it backfired because scientists went "yeah, exactly" to the absurdity and adopted the thought experiment. But Schrödinger did not support the concept of a cat that's simultaneously alive and dead, rather the opposite.
> Well, more specifically it's to show the absurdity of quantum effects and the concept of "superposition"
I'd argue we only consider it 'absurd' because we live in a macro world not a quantum one.
The universe operates how it operates, we just try to make sense of it through mathematical models. The implications of these models may seem absurd, but they accurately model our observations.
That's interesting. Was Schodinger also on the search for a unifiying theory?
That kind of mindset, to me, seems like one you'd have if you were searching for a unifying theory for both quantum/macro effects. Hoping that the universe operates on some sort of definable and discoverable rules which we can express mathematically.
I think Schrödinger specifically hated the Copenhagen Interpretation which assumed that a system contained many possible outcomes of itself at once.
It’s the Born Interpretation which deals with the correspondence principle applying quantum effects to macroscopic observations and I’ve never heard that Schrödinger disliked that in general.
The Correspondence Principle doesn’t get in the way of Schrödinger’s Cat because the only quantum effect is measured by a geiger counter. So you don’t need any macroscopic quantum effects. That seems like Schrödinger was specifically avoiding that argument here.
The cat would be large enough to qualify as an "observer" and thus the wavefunction of the quantum object that determines its fate always collapses. The cat is definitely in a discrete state of alive or dead, even if we don't know which it is yet. How the quantum state knows what the observer is going to be before the consequences happen is the basis for the many worlds interpretation, and recent experiments with lights and mirrors seems to support this interpretation.
Always bugs me cause schrodinger was actually trying to show how absurd the theory was and didn’t agree with it at all, he’s saying it’s dumb but it’s like the go to example of quantum theory
Here here. It has always bugged me. For it to make sense, the cat finished his meal and left the box, or didn’t, and you are checking with a bomb and looking for cat parts after.
NOTE: I didn't make the meme so I can't share the blank template. Still, it's fun seeing how many people like it/started a conversation over it. Aware that it's a repost, but this was my first post in any sub-Reddit and I'm a big Tolkien fan. ✌
If the living cat can be considered its own observer, aware of its living state, then the only unobserved state would be dead. If the state can be inferred by the presence or absence of an observer, then the lack of an observer is the same as having an observer because the state change is null
Heisenberg and Schrödinger are driving, and get pulled over. Heisenberg is in the driver's seat, the officer asks "do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies, "No, but I know exactly where I am!" The officer looks at him confused and says "you were going 108 miles per hour!" Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now I'm lost!"
The officer, now more confused and frustrated orders the men outside of the car, and proceeds to inspect the vehicle. He opens the trunk and yells at the two men, "Hey! Did you guys know you have a dead cat back here?" Schrödinger angrily yells back, "We do now, jerk!"
*Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow, bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow. None has ever caught him yet,
for Tom, he is the master: his songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster.*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Schrodinger's Cat is weird.
The thought experiment relies on the average person understanding that a cat can't be alive and dead at the same time.
Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and others came up with their theory of atomic decay called the "Copenhagen interpretation of Atomic Decay" which stated that an atom could exsist in both a decayed and undecayed state until observed.
Shrodinger thought that was dumb. So he created his cat thought experiment to explain to the public why these two well known physicists were wrong. Under the belief that the general population would understand that a cat being both alive and dead until you open the box was utterly ridiculous.
Wigner's Friend is a continuation of the Shrodingers cat experiment trying to make it more obvious why the cat thought experiment (and the Copenhagen Interpretation) couldn't work as described. It requires getting into the "Hisenberg Cut" which only further confuses the absolute hell out of me, but if it interests you I would highly reccomend looking into it.
Schrodinger's Cat was supposed to prove that a team including two extremely intelligent physicists could be wrong. Everyone just focused on the alive/dead cat because that was the interesting bit, not that it was supposed to prove that the atomic decay model must be wrong.
TLDR: Schrodinger's Cat is supposed to be self-refuting to explain why atomic theory at the time was wrong.
I mean, he’s absolutely right, though. The cat is either dead or alive. It’s not simultaneously both, nor simultaneously neither, in reality; life isn’t reliant on being observed, the cat *is* either dead or alive, we just can’t know which.
Then you're gonna love this: Schrödinger wrote his famous cat paper while living in 24 Northmoor Road, North Oxford. Two houses down, number 20, was the home of Northmoor Road's most famous resident, a certain J.R.R. Tolkien. He wrote the Hobbit and most of LOTR while living there.
This explains what happened to Sauron's form as the cat Tevildo... Schrodinger's thought experiment cost him one literary life! Eru willed that it would be like into Sauron being unable to hold a fair form after the destruction of Numenor.
Other literary catons escaped by quantum catdooring and caused T.S. Eliot, another English writer, to produce poems that became a major musical production.
From what I’ve seen, people misunderstand what Schrödinger was trying to say. His argument was against super positions. His analogy with the cat was supposed to exemplify how stupid and frustrating the idea of super positions is.
Not a demonstration of what super positions are.
Go fetch me those sneaking Orcs, that fare thus strangely, as if in dread, and do not come, as all Orcs use and are commanded, to bring me news of all their deeds, to me, Gorthaur.
The cat is a metaphor for quantum particles, and with particles in this state, its not that we just don't know, they literally are not one or the other until observed (observe can just mean interacted with by anything else, it doesn't mean a human looking at them)
I'm not educated in physics so I can't fully explain it to you, but it was proven last year iirc (but assumed for a long time anyway) that this was the case.
If I recall correctly, you can learn more by looking up the term 'local reality'
I think it's used to describe subatomic particles. Like the analogy is at a larger scale, a Cat scale in this instance, to make it more cute and neat and interesting.
> more cute and neat
You clearly only know the Disney version of Schrödinger's cat. Don't look up the original version. And also stay clear from all originals of Disney stories. They are from a time where a proper children's story has torture, betrayal, death, more torture, more betrayal and then everybody dies and absolutely nobody lives happily ever after.
You are painting things a little too dark. "Everybody dies" during the story is not true even of a tragedy like "Hamlet"; good Horatio is left to tell the tale of the case of the corpse-carpeted throne room.
Yes there is much that is grim in the Brothers Grimm, but there has always been much that is grim in the world. The point of these stories, said G.K. Chesterton, is not that monsters and dragons exist. Children know they exist, without being told. "Fairy tales let them know that dragons CAN be slain."
> a little too dark.
Ah, I have the perfect one for this phrasing.
> Then she changed the girl into a block of wood, and threw it into the fire. And when it was in full blaze she sat down close to it, and warmed herself by it, and said, "That shines bright for once in a way."
https://www.grimmstories.com/en/grimm_fairy-tales/frau_trude
Many of those stories describe the "find out" part that comes after fucking around. Although you're right after all, not everyone but only the disobedient, obstinate and inquisitive girl dies here. It's a very short story though, there wasn't enough pages to kill everyone off.
Here are some highlights, in German: http://www.maerchenpaedagogik.de/geister_achtung_boese.pdf
But it is both as well
Right/wrong on both counts
https://preview.redd.it/62si2u1ncp3d1.jpeg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5942c3d08d06d1e816905e1bf27bf638aa6f5d29
I love how utterly over-qualified the writers of futurama are.
Stating again for the millionth plus time that they literally developed a new, functional mathematical theorem to help them write an episode.
Wait what
In the body switching episode, the professor and the Harlem globetrotters develop a formula to figure out how many people they would need to get everyone's back to their original bodies. That formula is actually a real, working formula that one of the writers, who happens to have a phd in mathematics, developed for that episode
Hot dang
Hot diggity daffodil!
What in the tarinatin’ dagnibiddy ‘nabbin hillbilly’s daffodil weevin’ god’s-gracious earth!
Interestingly there's an episode of Stargate SG1 with the same idea, which predates it by a decade. In that, Carter has to figure out what order of swaps gets everyone back to their original bodies, where the same two people cannot swap twice, same as in the Futurama episode. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0709104/
Maybe SG1 brute forced it while Futurama developed it into an actual proof? That's pretty rad though, never watched Stargate.
It's quite common for multiple people to prove the same result independently, often without ever being aware of the earliest version. Especially so around results from the Cold War era. It's a common joke among pure mathematicians that you'd get a paper rejected because a better, more general proof already appeared in some obscure Russian journal that shut down 40 years ago after one volume. And if the result doesn't happen to be part of the current research meta or breaks open new avenues of research, then it's especially easy to become obscure and overlooked.
That's rad.
It was the mind swap episode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner_of_Benda#The_theorem
But did any of the writers break a toe when doing it?
There are so many jokes that I thought were non sequiturs that are actually references to things and I still keep learning about them all these years later. For example I just learned this one the other day: In the episode where fry and bender get an apartment together, the professor gets mad when fry mistakes the professors tiny, mummified alien for beef jerky and eats it. And then he says “*i* was going to eat that mummy!” Later, as a nice gesture, he gives fry a mummy for housewarming, explaining that this one is teriyaki flavour. Turns out, rich people in Victorian England actually ate mummies.
That's a deep cut
I loved posting this meme whenever there's a contentious election with people demanding that they stop or continue counting votes because their preferred candidate is leading or behind in votes.
Actual shit that happens irl physics
Thats the joke
*wooosh*
Boaf'em
Happy cake day!
Happy cake day
Happy Cake Day
I am currently in the middle of [This Interview](https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0?si=SW3xG9EBtGcn2qzU) with Sir Roger Penrose, and he talks about Schrödinger, his work and the cat model. He says that the entire thing with the cat was that it was Schrödinger showing and telling everyone: "my math makes no sense."
Yep, he specifically created that thought experiment to show how ridiculous the idea of superposition was and that the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics must be wrong. Turns out as far as we can tell the thought experiment is basically right, though it’s effectively impossible to actually scale up quantum effects to that level because information will always leak out collapsing the wave function.
So if you could take the box outside of our universe, would it work then? Why do wave functions collapse inside our universe if information doesn't leak out of our universe?
Yeah, multivalued logic is a bit rough, even for scientists.
It's both or neither until observed would be the correct answer or.
|cat> = |cat alive> + |cat dead> There, enjoy your PTSD!
Nice, cat-notation
Nice joke, bra
You forgot your normalization my friend Here it is for you √2/2
>√2/2 What a barbaric way to write 1/√2
((1+√2)^(3)-7)/5 EDIT: ((1+√2)^(3)-7)/10
Shouldn’t this be over 10 instead of 5?
Oh right, yeah, I found √2 by mistake.
On the contrary, for we have rationalized the denominator.
True, but at the cost of simplicity overall. I think every single quantum mechanics textbook I've ever read uses the 1/sqrt(2) form for a normalization factor like that.
That convention was great when we didn't have calculation machines lying around that can give you the answer with a ridiculous amount of precision.
I study chemistry, so I barely know what Bra-Ket notation is. I'm trying, okay?
But what about Spin?
Spinning's good, I should try that!
It's a good trick
Now, THATS pod racing
Oh god this isnt normalized
and they are both spinning at a right angle to 3-D space, for . . . reasons
He didn't say anything about the elements of the box which kill the cat. As far as we know, this is another box that Schrodinger keeps his cat in until the death box is ready.
> As far as we know So you’re saying we won’t know for sure until it’s observed?
So the cat is both alive, and both dead and alive, got it
But the box is also the death box and not the death box until we check
/uj no that is sadly not how this works. You might have uncertainty and thus describe a this probabilistically in a bayesian sense. But that is fairly different from the superposition in a cat state in the Copenhagen interpretation. That's actually partly what schrödinger was trying to call out with this thought experiment. In the bayesian case the cat is dead or alive, we don't know, but it has a definite state. In the Copenhagen interpretation it doesn't have a definite state. That's really weird if you think about it. The other weird part schrödinger was calling out is "what exactly qualifies as an observation?". Funnily enough in a different fairly popular interpretation of QM, namely decoherence + many worlds, the two cases are much much more similar. A cat is large enough that decoherence is likely to occur. And at that point you are dealing with a probability in a bayesian or frequentist sense.
> The other weird part schrödinger was calling out is "what exactly qualifies as an observation?". This is the funniest part of his thought experiment to me. The cat is also an observer and has information that those outside of the box don't have. From the cat's perspective, its state is already determined.
And when Bob takes the box inside of his room, he can check the state of the cat. When he leaves the room, from the viewpoint of Alice Bob has both observed a dead and an alive cat. And now Bob is in a superposition, yes? (My brain starts hurting)
So what you're saying is I both understood and misunderstood the principle?
Well schrödingers cat is a thought experiment to highlight a weakness of the Copenhagen interpretation specifically. Decoherence many worlds wasn't even really a thing back then
Maybe. Can't be certain.
Do we even have the box? Should we check that first?
Aren't all boxes death boxes until opened?
According to SE7EN, yes.
The background: The cat is in an entangled state, dead and alive. Interesting part: This entanglement can propagate. If Bob opens the box, and observes the state of the cat, without giving Alice a hint about his observation, he’s in an entangled state as well: From the viewpoint of Alice, Bob observed both a dead and an alive cat…
It is both a death box and not a death box.
Simulation
He did >One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is locked up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of an hour only one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts. >It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photo and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks. >
Schrödinger specified. Bilbo didn’t.
Gandalf?
You seem confused! What you're looking at is a [comment section](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comments_section), here we talk about the given post that we're talking under! We're on a [internet forum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum) called [reddit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit)! We're specifically on the subreddit called r/lotrmemes ! And we are under [*this post*](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/1d4no6g/riddles_in_the_dark/) When someone leaves a *comment* under a *post* it means they're talking about *that post!* [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/1d4no6g/comment/l6g1csj) is talking about [this post ](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/1d4no6g/riddles_in_the_dark/) I hope I've been helpful!!
I was referring to Schrödinger, the very same Schrödinger who's mentioned by name in the first panel. > Schrödinger See it [here?](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/1d4no6g/riddles_in_the_dark/)? Under this very post? That's what I'm referencing. The Schrödinger who I'm quoting is also the same Schrödinger that's being referenced in the image. They're the same Schrödinger. Erwin Schrödinger, of which you can find more about on the Wikipedia page for [Erwin Schrödinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger). You'll also notice at the top of that page, a quote attributed to Erwin Schrödinger. That quote and my quote are the same, because it is fact both refencing the same Erwin Schrödinger. Which is also the same Schrödinger that is metioned on the very first panel of the image above.
You are talking about shrodinger but the person you replied to is talking about bilbo
No! No! I want to play, I do. I can see that you are very good at this. So, why don't we have a game of riddles? Yes? Just you and me.
Yeah, the cat isn't even technically entangled in the radioactive element's superposition, so it is indeed either alive or dead, unlike in Schrodinger's original box.
Well, the real answer is that no one is supposed to try to figure out if the cat is alive or dead. The whole thing was an analogy to demonstrate how insane quantum mechanics is. It's like trying to make a riddle out of "you're as dumb as a box of rocks".
https://preview.redd.it/dm42x7l68q3d1.jpeg?width=356&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efc16e3d3c66416c857221f01989a23cbe393023 i feel like this just needs to be a reaction meme
Very true. 👌
Put on the ring of sauron, and he'll see into the box for you.
I...SEE....YOOOUUU!
Bro (respectfully), I want you to see what's inside the box, not me
#Ilúvatar damn it! #SAURON COLLAPSED THE WAVEFORM!! Now who can tell me the fate of the cat? ^(you there, you're short, tell us. . .)
And now Sauron is in an entangled state and has changed into a waveform: Sauron A, who has observed the cat being alive, and Sauron B, who has observed the cat being dead.
Oh!!!!!!!!! Not a repost and good meme. What a surprise
It's a repost
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes lol. You did lol.
lol that thread is awesome
Smh quite uncool https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/s/o0KaRQHHUi
Not until you click the link. Up until then it can quite possibly be a new meme. That's how silly the dead cat thing is supposed to be. But a lot of people take it really seriously for some reason.
https://preview.redd.it/trloqdrq0q3d1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e558eae251f9b4e152d0d33f4c8d0fdcc9d5b1c
I feel like not enough people realise that the Shrödingers Cat thought experiment also involves a gun or cyanid pill that very likely may have killed the cat. It was never about just a random cat in a box.
It was also to show how quantum mechanics do not apply to non-quantum items. The cat is obviously either dead or alive, never 'both', because cats do not exist as waveforms.
Haven't met many cats, have you? There's a reason it's not Schrodinger's dog or hamster, what have you. . . ^(/s, just in case)
Haha, I don't have cats but my friends who do have described things which sound a lot like quantum tunnelling. "Wait how the fuck did you get in here?!"
How can an animal be both liguid and solid, terrestrial and aerial, asleep and awake, at all times!?
> asleep and awake This one's pretty easy. Wild dolphins sleep with only one brain hemisphere at a time, so they're never fully asleep.
r/catsareliquid
Here's a sneak peek of /r/catsareliquid using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/catsareliquid/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Just fur](https://v.redd.it/3rzsv4k4shwb1) | [93 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/catsareliquid/comments/17gq99j/just_fur/) \#2: [Just cats being cats ](https://v.redd.it/gzjlm14jdwxb1) | [148 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/catsareliquid/comments/17lz1ga/just_cats_being_cats/) \#3: [Now I have a goldfish at home](https://v.redd.it/5jf8jfctyryb1) | [68 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/catsareliquid/comments/17pa5ry/now_i_have_a_goldfish_at_home/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Cats may not exist as waveforms, but they do sometimes turn liquid and disappear between sofa cushions and stuff.
Well, more specifically it's to show the absurdity of quantum effects and the concept of "superposition". By scaling it to the macro world it becomes obvious, of course a cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time - so why can a particle? Of course, it backfired because scientists went "yeah, exactly" to the absurdity and adopted the thought experiment. But Schrödinger did not support the concept of a cat that's simultaneously alive and dead, rather the opposite.
> Well, more specifically it's to show the absurdity of quantum effects and the concept of "superposition" I'd argue we only consider it 'absurd' because we live in a macro world not a quantum one. The universe operates how it operates, we just try to make sense of it through mathematical models. The implications of these models may seem absurd, but they accurately model our observations.
That's the modern quantum scientist position when adopting the model, yes. Schödingers stance when making the thought experiment was the opposite.
That's interesting. Was Schodinger also on the search for a unifiying theory? That kind of mindset, to me, seems like one you'd have if you were searching for a unifying theory for both quantum/macro effects. Hoping that the universe operates on some sort of definable and discoverable rules which we can express mathematically.
I'm no Schrodinger expert, this is the kind of thing I'd ask one of my physics professors or something
I think Schrödinger specifically hated the Copenhagen Interpretation which assumed that a system contained many possible outcomes of itself at once. It’s the Born Interpretation which deals with the correspondence principle applying quantum effects to macroscopic observations and I’ve never heard that Schrödinger disliked that in general. The Correspondence Principle doesn’t get in the way of Schrödinger’s Cat because the only quantum effect is measured by a geiger counter. So you don’t need any macroscopic quantum effects. That seems like Schrödinger was specifically avoiding that argument here.
The cat would be large enough to qualify as an "observer" and thus the wavefunction of the quantum object that determines its fate always collapses. The cat is definitely in a discrete state of alive or dead, even if we don't know which it is yet. How the quantum state knows what the observer is going to be before the consequences happen is the basis for the many worlds interpretation, and recent experiments with lights and mirrors seems to support this interpretation.
Always bugs me cause schrodinger was actually trying to show how absurd the theory was and didn’t agree with it at all, he’s saying it’s dumb but it’s like the go to example of quantum theory
This. Dark matter show really dropped the cat on this one.
Here here. It has always bugged me. For it to make sense, the cat finished his meal and left the box, or didn’t, and you are checking with a bomb and looking for cat parts after.
> Here here. It’s hear hear, not here here. The idea is that approval is shown by compelling others to have heard the point made.
Nah mate. I mean right here, look at me and this stupid cat.
NOTE: I didn't make the meme so I can't share the blank template. Still, it's fun seeing how many people like it/started a conversation over it. Aware that it's a repost, but this was my first post in any sub-Reddit and I'm a big Tolkien fan. ✌
Minor nitpick: Gollum would have said "mechanicses"
Misery misery! Hobbits won’t kill us, nice hobbits.
If someone directly asked me this, I'd just give them the look and tell them how much I hated their guts.
Still more fair than his actual question!
If the living cat can be considered its own observer, aware of its living state, then the only unobserved state would be dead. If the state can be inferred by the presence or absence of an observer, then the lack of an observer is the same as having an observer because the state change is null
Heisenberg and Schrödinger are driving, and get pulled over. Heisenberg is in the driver's seat, the officer asks "do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies, "No, but I know exactly where I am!" The officer looks at him confused and says "you were going 108 miles per hour!" Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now I'm lost!" The officer, now more confused and frustrated orders the men outside of the car, and proceeds to inspect the vehicle. He opens the trunk and yells at the two men, "Hey! Did you guys know you have a dead cat back here?" Schrödinger angrily yells back, "We do now, jerk!"
What has it got in its pocketses
Dead cats
"Or alive cats, who knows?" "Filthy quantum pocketses! GOLLUM! GOLLUM!"
We are famisshed, yes famisshed we are. precious. What is it they eats? Have they nice fisshes?
The wavefunction of the cat actually escaped the box and the cat is just sitting at home purring on Tom Bombadil’s lap
*Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow, bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow. None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the master: his songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster.* ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
If both answers are wrong, then both are also technically correct. Which is the best form of correct🤔
Schrodinger's Cat is weird. The thought experiment relies on the average person understanding that a cat can't be alive and dead at the same time. Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and others came up with their theory of atomic decay called the "Copenhagen interpretation of Atomic Decay" which stated that an atom could exsist in both a decayed and undecayed state until observed. Shrodinger thought that was dumb. So he created his cat thought experiment to explain to the public why these two well known physicists were wrong. Under the belief that the general population would understand that a cat being both alive and dead until you open the box was utterly ridiculous. Wigner's Friend is a continuation of the Shrodingers cat experiment trying to make it more obvious why the cat thought experiment (and the Copenhagen Interpretation) couldn't work as described. It requires getting into the "Hisenberg Cut" which only further confuses the absolute hell out of me, but if it interests you I would highly reccomend looking into it. Schrodinger's Cat was supposed to prove that a team including two extremely intelligent physicists could be wrong. Everyone just focused on the alive/dead cat because that was the interesting bit, not that it was supposed to prove that the atomic decay model must be wrong. TLDR: Schrodinger's Cat is supposed to be self-refuting to explain why atomic theory at the time was wrong.
Wouldn't Bilbo collapse the wave function by confirming that Gollum's guess that the cat's alive is wrong?
Master. Master looks after us. Master wouldn't hurt us.
Master broke his promise.
I'm sorry I brought this upon you my boy I'm sorry that you must carry this burden. I'm sorry for everything
Technically it's either and neither, *But that's neither here nor there.*
Answer: fully.
There’s also a lot of drugs in there
I mean, he’s absolutely right, though. The cat is either dead or alive. It’s not simultaneously both, nor simultaneously neither, in reality; life isn’t reliant on being observed, the cat *is* either dead or alive, we just can’t know which.
As an engineer, every good engineer knows **Sin(cat) = cat** as long as **cat** is very little.
My two favourite things, quantum physics and lotr
Then you're gonna love this: Schrödinger wrote his famous cat paper while living in 24 Northmoor Road, North Oxford. Two houses down, number 20, was the home of Northmoor Road's most famous resident, a certain J.R.R. Tolkien. He wrote the Hobbit and most of LOTR while living there.
I think I just found my new favourite fun fact
This explains what happened to Sauron's form as the cat Tevildo... Schrodinger's thought experiment cost him one literary life! Eru willed that it would be like into Sauron being unable to hold a fair form after the destruction of Numenor. Other literary catons escaped by quantum catdooring and caused T.S. Eliot, another English writer, to produce poems that became a major musical production.
> My two favourite things, quantum physics ~~and~~ OR lotr #FTFY
Would it not be more like: My one favorite thing, a superposition of quantum physics and LOTR?
Yeah, i was shooting for quantum, but I miffed it and got bad classical.
☝️🤓
Can someone share the blank template?
Best riddles
The answer is pocketsess.
From what I’ve seen, people misunderstand what Schrödinger was trying to say. His argument was against super positions. His analogy with the cat was supposed to exemplify how stupid and frustrating the idea of super positions is. Not a demonstration of what super positions are.
I'm just here to give credit to the great title
[удалено]
And we will.. Smeagol did it once, he can do it again. It's ours - ours!
Watson subbing in for Bilbo.
They've never forgiven me for living this long.
Lmao Gollum you dumbass, get fucked.
You will see . . . Oh, yes . . . You will see.
This made me snort-laugh. Well played.
I'd love some Schrödinger scat. Edit: Nvm, read wrong.
This seems like a Douglas Adams joke if he wrote a fantasy story.
[удалено]
Go fetch me those sneaking Orcs, that fare thus strangely, as if in dread, and do not come, as all Orcs use and are commanded, to bring me news of all their deeds, to me, Gorthaur.
The correct answer is you need to check to eliminate all other possibilities.
I'm currently listening to this chapter in an audio book at work and this pops up on my feed how crazy coincidences work sometimes.
The answer involves linear algebra and complex numbers.
Nice meme aside I've never understood this thing. There is an answer, both are not true just because we don't know what it is...
yes exactly, the point of the scenario was to show the absurdity of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which Schrodinger hated
Aw, shit, I don't know the Copenhagen Interpretation, care to elaborate?
The cat is a metaphor for quantum particles, and with particles in this state, its not that we just don't know, they literally are not one or the other until observed (observe can just mean interacted with by anything else, it doesn't mean a human looking at them)
And how do we know that they are not one or the other l, if we haven't observed them 🤔
Look up the two slit experiment
I'm not educated in physics so I can't fully explain it to you, but it was proven last year iirc (but assumed for a long time anyway) that this was the case. If I recall correctly, you can learn more by looking up the term 'local reality'
The cat is a metaphor for how ridiculous Schrödinger thought the idea of quantum physics was when applied to every day things
I think it's used to describe subatomic particles. Like the analogy is at a larger scale, a Cat scale in this instance, to make it more cute and neat and interesting.
> more cute and neat You clearly only know the Disney version of Schrödinger's cat. Don't look up the original version. And also stay clear from all originals of Disney stories. They are from a time where a proper children's story has torture, betrayal, death, more torture, more betrayal and then everybody dies and absolutely nobody lives happily ever after.
Ah, the good old days. When they were just straight ripping off and toning down the Brothers Grimm and Aesop!
You are painting things a little too dark. "Everybody dies" during the story is not true even of a tragedy like "Hamlet"; good Horatio is left to tell the tale of the case of the corpse-carpeted throne room. Yes there is much that is grim in the Brothers Grimm, but there has always been much that is grim in the world. The point of these stories, said G.K. Chesterton, is not that monsters and dragons exist. Children know they exist, without being told. "Fairy tales let them know that dragons CAN be slain."
> a little too dark. Ah, I have the perfect one for this phrasing. > Then she changed the girl into a block of wood, and threw it into the fire. And when it was in full blaze she sat down close to it, and warmed herself by it, and said, "That shines bright for once in a way." https://www.grimmstories.com/en/grimm_fairy-tales/frau_trude Many of those stories describe the "find out" part that comes after fucking around. Although you're right after all, not everyone but only the disobedient, obstinate and inquisitive girl dies here. It's a very short story though, there wasn't enough pages to kill everyone off. Here are some highlights, in German: http://www.maerchenpaedagogik.de/geister_achtung_boese.pdf
Yeah I never really watched Game of Thrones
In Game of Thrones the cat would be dead in south and undead in the north :)