[TinyTree]

So my personal opinion is that the idea that the cat exists in an undefined state is pure bunk. It was a cool idea to show that the whole notion of understanding quantum mechanics was not clear.

Basically, I think everyone, including physicists, are confused by quantum mechanics. So no one knows what they are talking about really and then start asking for crazy explanations to explain the experiment.

Here is my view at this moment- it matters not whether or not an "intelligent" agent or a "conscious mind" perceives a quantum experiment.

It only matters whether or not the "quantum interference" is embedded in some other part of the universe. If it interacts with some other part of the universe which is in a "quantumly stuck" state (this other part of the universe is integrally tied in with other parts which are all tied together), then it loses its wavelike characteristic at that time. It has nothing to do with a conscious observer, and I challenge you to point me to an experiment which somehow depends on the conscious observer looking at the results or not.

You could prove this to yourself by having a computer observe some events and then report to you if it is behaving as a wave or particle- not telling you the specifics of its position or anything, but merely the type of observation.

The hypothetical cat would never exist in a superposition of states- because it is a "quantumly stuck" object and then

[dleviwing]

TinyTree;
You are a victim of overly hyped science. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, science has been moving to a discipline of absolute measurement. This infers that if it cannot be measured, it cannot be proven to exist. Schrödinger simply was expressing this view by stating that until one observes the cat (a measurement) there exists no proof of its condition. We now have a science based solely on terms derived from our ability to measure within the limits set by probability and uncertainty. These terms are placed into equations to allow us to analyze, control, and predict the outcome of experiments. Too often these terms are interpreted as physical realities and thus reality is interpreted by means of the abstract nature of the mathematical language.(Gauge theories, QM and Relativity)

A measured quantity is referred to as a "DIMENSION" and a measured system of quantities is called a "WORLD". The improper use of these terms have created confusion not only for the casual science buff, but for many inexperienced scientist. Science authors, media, and unfortunately our academic systems seem to perpetuate the problem to increase interest and sales.

As long as you keep in mind that "energy" is a measurement; Gravity is a measurement; Charge is a measurement; Time is a measurement; and so on, you can keep your sanity and distinguish the deference between the mathematics of "Dimensions" and the realities of the "Entities". (see thread "Dimensions and Entities")

I hope this helps you ease some of the frustration of illogical logic of QM.

This is why science needs a paradigm of reality (TOE) to guide the interpretations of the math and to recognize the limits of nature so they can be included in the equations.

Best wishes;
Dave

[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by dleviwing TinyTree; This infers that if it cannot be measured, it cannot be proven to exist. Schrödinger simply was expressing this view by stating that until one observes the cat (a measurement) there exists no proof of its condition.

I think you and I apprehend the probability wave function differently. You are apprehending it as "the condition exists, but we do not know the condition until we measure it" and I apprehend it as "the condition does not exist- and the proof of its nonexistence lies in the intereference pattern of the probability wave function- until it is 'measured'".

Note- I do not think a "rational" observer is required at all, and further I agree that the scientific establishment is completely confused, all the way to the top, as to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. I don't claim to know the answer, but am claiming it is both worth discussing and there is an answer that is understandable.

The cat's state, in my interpretation, DOES exist in one of the two configurations whether not it is measured by an external agent. However, it DOES exist in one of those states because of an earlier 'measurement' wherein the probability wave function got bound into 'classical reality'.

Originally Posted by dleviwing We now have a science based solely on terms derived from our ability to measure within the limits set by probability and uncertainty.

I do not claim to be an expert, but am reading a book on quantum measurement, and I believe you are misunderstanding the way the experiments work. I would like to organize and classify these experiments at some point (perhaps in these forums? Where would we do that).

But anyway, here is one for your to ponder. You take a polarized piece of glass, like your sunglasses. This only lets through light with a specific orientation. Now if you take two pieces of polarized glass, and lay them atop each other perpendicularly, so that the orientations lie at right angles- and no light gets through. This is what you might expect- All the light going into the first piece of glass comes out "up and down" and can't make it through the "right to left" glass. We will pretend the light is on the bottom, coming through the glass.

Now rotate the top piece of glass by 45 degrees. Now SOME of the light comes through. How is this possible? Because after the "measurement" of coming through the bottom piece the light is free to have an orientation, free with a probablilistic angle ranging from straight up and down (high) to left to right (zero).

So now you can see that the light in the first experiment was actually only PROBABALISTICALLY being blocked, not certainly.

To prove this to yourself, take another piece of glass and lay it on top, with the orientation left to right. This is the same as the experiment with the two pieces of glass perpendicular, except there is an extra pane of glass in the middle angled at 45 degrees.

What happens? Is all the light blocked?

No. The light comes through, when before it was blocked utterly. This is because at the second pane of glass, at the "measurement" it has changed orientations from the first pane to be at 45 degrees. Now when it hits what used to be perpendicular, it is at a 45 degree angle, and probabilistically, some of it gets through. (1/4 I believe)

So you can see, the "measurement" of having the polarized piece of glass changes the probability wave function. Also, there is no wierd cats or outside observer required. Do you think the light stops coming through the lenses when you look away from it? No. Does it have anything to do with a rational observer? No. You could build this and leave it in your backyard, and then possibly or not go back and put your finger under where the light had been shining and see if it was warm or not.

Check out this page for further strangeness:

http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/

[dleviwing]

TinyTree;
I did not say the condition did NOT EXIST, only the PROOF of its existence lie only when it is observed or measured. We do not disagree on this matter.

To solve your dilemma of polarization, you must stop treating light as a traveling photon. The photon only represents a quantitative measure of EM energy. Light is a physical wave and it does not pass through the polarizer, it conducts through the polarizer like a sound wave striking a membrane. The wave that strikes one side of the polarizer is not the wave that exits the polarizer.

You may wish to specify the type of polarizer's. (circular or linear)

Do you think that when you view the night sky that you are seeing an object or photon that left that star billions of years ago?

A physical entity of an EM wave is longitudinal, the proprieties of the wave is transverse and thus it is often said that EM is a transverse wave.

If you indeed wish to think outside the box, make the final leap of logic.
Do not accept all that you read as truth. Question all of it and understand the thinking of those who presented it.

You are off to an excellent start.
Thanks;
Dave