Richard Meic discussing "Cat in the Box"
with me...
 RM>>> blabing I feel that we know what the radio active substance (radium,
 RM>>> believe, was proposed for the hypothetical experiment) does to a
 RM>>> living creature, and we know how long it _should_ take for the cat to
 RM>>> die of radiation poisoning under such circumstances. So, I think it
 RM>>> would be safe to estimate when the cat should die and add another five
 RM>>> minutes, and say " well the cat is dead", and then open the box to see
 RM>>> the cat being quite dead. Besides, all one really had to do is listen
 RM>>> for the cat howling in pain to subside to conclude that the cat is in
 RM>>> fact dead,... ... then you could pull out that book called "101 Uses
 RM>>> For A Dead Cat", and have fun for few hours after the experiment.
 RM>>>  Not much uncertainty there, IMO.
 RT>> Is this meant to be serious? I hope for your sake that it isn't because
 RT>> if it is it means you've totally misunderstood what the "cat in a box"
 RT>> scenario is all about and what the discussion of this is all for
 RM> It was one point of view, you cannot expect anyone to give all their 
 RM> ideas in one single long post like Frank does.  ;)
What ideas? You've totally misunderstood the "cat in the box" scenario and 
drawn (incorrect) conclusions from your misunderstanding. All that one can 
glean from that is that you don't have a clue about the subject matter but 
think that you do.
Your point of view amounts to a discussion about apples when everyone was 
discussing sheep.
 RT>> The box is a hypothetical box. The cat is a hypothetical cat. The
 RT>> experimental hypothesis is what Einstein liked to call a "thought
 RT>> experiment". We are not interested in a treatise on how the cat dies
 RT>> within the box IF the vial of poison is released by the decay of a
 RT>> radioactive isotope. It is nothing to do with that whatsoever
 RT>> The whole point of this thought experiment is as an an analogy to what
 RT>> happens in the quantum world and to discuss the implications of
 RT>> "observing" quantum behaviour and how that behaviour is actually
 RT>> affected by our "observations" of it
 RM> It does, though.
What does, though?
 RM> The quantum world only comes into serious play on the
 RM> sub-atomic level.
Even cutting edge physicists are not sure of this so how comes you are?
 RM> The uncertainty principle involves observing matter
 RM> on the sub-atomic level, so if one was to observe (with whatever
 RM> instrument) a carbon atom one would be affecting that atom just by
 RM> observing it (ie. the only thing we could use to observe the carbon
 RM> atom is a stream of electrons, and that stream would effect the
 RM> results).
Incorrect. An atom is a system and not a quantum particle. Sub-atomic means 
_smaller_ than the atom.
The uncertainty principle says that we cannot know with finite precision both 
the position and momentum of a given sub-atomic particle simultaneously. The 
more precision we want of the position the more we have to sacrifice 
precision in its momentum and vice versa. We can get results for its position 
and momentum but both results would be only 50% accurate at most.
 RM> Simply looking at a building collapse does not affect that
 RM> building's collapse... as Shrodinger seemed to allude to.
That is because there is a different kind of looking involved. When we look 
with our eyes we are seeing the light that hits our retinas. In the 
sub-atomic realm we can't use our eyes directly so we have to use detection 
equipment. This detection equipment alters the outcome of the experiment and 
in unexpected ways (although they are not so unexpected these days as QED can 
predict the outcomes with high probability).
 RT>> If you really want to learn about this then I suggest reading something
 RT>> about it. "In Search of Schr”dinger's Cat" by John Gribben (ISBN
 RT>> 0-552-12555-5 Black Swan) is a good non-technical place to start
 RM> Read it.
Why don't I believe you Richard?
 RM> I still hold the right to let my mind think what it wishes
 RM> to, thank you.
You are indeed correct. However, if you post things that people disagree with 
in a public echo then you should expect people to speak up and explain why 
they think you are wrong. You would do no less I presume?
However, what I get from you is that you've already made up your mind and 
no-one is going to change it. Hardly an open mind.
    Relatif Tuinn
... --== IN STEREO WHERE AVAILABLE ==--
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------