what happens if we put a video camear within the box with the Schroedinger's cat ?

[wlad]

According to Quantum Mechanics, the poison can be released by the radioactive source, or not.

 

But consider that we put a video camear within the box.

 

Suppose the poison is released, and the video camera captures the image of the cat dying.

 

When we open the box, two things may occur:

 

1) 50% of chance to find the cat alive

 

2) 50% of chance to find the cat dead

 

Suppose we repeat the experiment, several times, with many different cats.

 

In 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, and when we play the video we find the cat alive too.

 

But in 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, while when we play the video we find the cat dead.

 

 

Therefore, in 50% of the cases Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

 

So... ?

 

 

[Fuzzwood]

The point about Schroedinger's cat, which was actually Schroedinger's attempt to mock this interpretation of quantum mechanics, is that he arranged the macroscopic outcome of a dead or alive cat to be dependant on a single particle being emitted or not.

[ajb]

You should think of a better experiment that just trying to actually perform Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, which as Fuzzwood points out is not really meant to be seen as an actual experiment we should study. It points to some subtleties in passing from the quantum to the macroscopic world.

 

You should track down real experiments that test wavefunction collapse. I also think that any "video camera" would count as an interaction and so we would have the act of observing. I doubt very much you could reach any paradox in this kind of way.

[Strange]

Suppose the poison is released, and the video camera captures the image of the cat dying.

 

When we open the box, two things may occur:

 

No. When you open the box the cat is dead. This has already been observed (by the camera).

 

 

But in 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, while when we play the video we find the cat dead.

 

No.

[Sensei]

1) 50% of chance to find the cat alive

 

2) 50% of chance to find the cat dead

Where did you get that 50%??

Made up by yourself...

 

 

Suppose we repeat the experiment, several times, with many different cats.

 

In 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, and when we play the video we find the cat alive too.

 

But in 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, while when we play the video we find the cat dead.

 

 

Therefore, in 50% of the cases Quantum Mechanics is wrong.

 

So... ?

 

Nobody is saying about 50% probability in case of any radioactive isotope...

 

Are you familiar with calculation of decay rate using half-life?

 

[latex]I = I_0 * 2^{-\frac{t}{t_1/2}}[/latex]

 

I₀ - initial quantity of radioactive isotope (or unstable particles)

I - current quantity of radioactive isotope

t - current time

t_1/2 - half life time

 

[John Cuthber]

Where did you get that 50%??

Made up by yourself...

 

 

 

Nobody is saying about 50% probability in case of any radioactive isotope...

 

Are you familiar with calculation of decay rate using half-life?

 

[latex]I = I_0 * 2^{-\frac{t}{t_1/2}}[/latex]

 

I₀ - initial quantity of radioactive isotope (or unstable particles)

I - current quantity of radioactive isotope

t - current time

t_1/2 - half life time

 

Are you familiar with the so called "Schroedinger's cat" experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

 

[Delta1212]

You should think of a better experiment that just trying to actually perform Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, which as Fuzzwood points out is not really meant to be seen as an actual experiment we should study. It points to some subtleties in passing from the quantum to the macroscopic world.

 

You should track down real experiments that test wavefunction collapse. I also think that any "video camera" would count as an interaction and so we would have the act of observing. I doubt very much you could reach any paradox in this kind of way.

Actually, if the video camera is in the box, it'd also be part of the same "superposition" as the cat. So you have a box with a cat that is simultaneously alive and dead, and a video camera that simultaneously has a recording of a car dying and a cat not dying. When you open the box, the wave function collapses and you either have a live car that was recorded being alive the whole time by the video camera, or a dead cat that was recorded dying by the video camera.

 

And, of course, the whole thing is still silly and impossible to actually perform as a practical experiment.

[Enthalpy]

The whole story about Schrö's cat is nonsense.

Why go on with that stupid story in 2014?

[swansont]

 

In 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, and when we play the video we find the cat alive too.

 

But in 50% of the cases, we open the box and we find the cat alive, while when we play the video we find the cat dead.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Do not post any more of this tripe in the physics section. Post it in speculations, or not at all.

 

You can't use a thought experiment to disprove a theory, other than showing that it somehow fails to be mathematically self consistent. You can only disprove a theory with a physical experiment. All you've sone here is disprove a straw man of QM, based on your lack of understanding of it. This does not rise to the level of discussion required, even in speculations.

 

Moved. (Also, do not respond to this mod note)

[Ten oz]

Schroedinger's cat in a box was a thought expirement. No point trying to out think it.