Shrodingers Cat (Shrodingers Human)

In the literature they are generally referred to as particles. And even allowing for the particle/wave duality, they would still have to travel in straight lines in the set-up used.
Rather like the electron beam in my oscilloscope.
 
HAL said:
In the literature they are generally referred to as particles. And even allowing for the particle/wave duality, they would still have to travel in straight lines in the set-up used.
Rather like the electron beam in my oscilloscope.
Click to expand...
There's no wave/particle duality, either. The photon doesn't even have a position operator, but takes all available paths as described in a Feynman diagram. The trajectory that you refer to is the average of all the possible paths, which reduce to the classical limit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Wu
LETA said:
This is a very outdated way of thinking about photons. In modern theories, photons don't have ballistic trajectories but rather a probability distribution.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly the point of the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment,..it's a representaion on a theoretical idea of the Copenhagen Quantum mechanics theory idea of uncertainty and probability.
 
Dr Wu said:
And that is exactly the point of the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment,..it's a representaion on a theoretical idea of the Copenhagen Quantum mechanics theory idea of uncertainty and probability.
Click to expand...
And the cat is either alive or dead not both unlike its quantum mechanics cousin. 🙀😁
 
Dundee said:
And the cat is either alive or dead not both unlike its quantum mechanics cousin. 🙀😁
Click to expand...
Yes...one either agrees with the new Quantum uncertainty idea or they use a more mainstream quantum idea ,but no one uses a Newtonian model anymore to explain the quantum reality level. Newtonian classical mechanics are great for getting us to the moon and bullet trajectories in 'regular life', but it has been shown to be not applicable to the quantum world that frames our reality underneath us all and as far as I know none of the theoretical physicists use it these days.
 
I just always saw the funny side of it. The whole at thing is based on a metophore. The at can't do what tiny particles can. Lol just thought it funny.
 
Top Bottom
Back