Jump to content

Schrodinger's cat


Designer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Schrodinger's cat

 

How to create a Temporal Divergence

 

John Titor style.

 

Schrodinger's cat.

 

Here is a link to Schrodinger's cat experiment.

 

Cat Experiment

 

Schrodinger's cat experiment has either the

 

cat alive or dead but not both. But I

 

disagree since it can be both; you just

 

have to add the idea of temporal divergence

 

as stated by John Titor. So you got one

 

live cat in one new time line and another

 

dead cat in the divergent time line. So

 

in other words now you have two time lines.

 

My problem thus far is since you now have

 

two cats from one thus you get the conservation

 

of mass problem again. But maybe that

 

won't be a problem since maybe the quantum

 

particles jump between the two cat the live

 

one and dead one all the time since where

 

they are is just a probability.

 

If my theory is right and there are no real

 

paradoxes with one cat alive and the same

 

cat dead at the same time since it is just

 

a matter of divergence.

 

From this analysis if true then Quantum

 

Mechanics make time travel possible since

 

by doing this experiment creates two time

 

line with a divergence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

Schrodinger's cat experiment has either the

cat alive or dead but not both. But I

 

disagree since it can be both; you just

 

have to add the idea of temporal divergence

 

as stated by John Titor. So you got one

 

live cat in one new time line and another

 

dead cat in the divergent time line. So

 

in other words now you have two time lines.

As John Titor told us many times, he was not a scientist. Moreover, none of Titor's claims about "temporal divergence" nor "multiple timelines" rise to the level of veridical science. I am not saying they are not true. What I am saying is more damaging than that, which is: They cannot be falsified, which means they are not formulated in such a way that you could ever verify if they are true at all. In the absence of a proper theory which can be falsified, science is very clear on what you do: You cannot support the claim as even viable until such time as it is formulated in such a way that it is falsifiable.

 

Just a friendly piece of advice: While we encourage lively debate and creative thinking, as Eliakim has discussed in another thread, it is generally not a good idea to adopt internet lore (e.g. pseudoscientific claims of John Titor) in your arguments as if they are scientifically proven. Of course, you are free to think and write whatever you want. Just consider this some guidance from someone who is interested in making sure your thoughts adhere to a viable scientific methodology. That will increase your credibility and ensure your discussions with others do not stray into fantasyland. ;)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

In 1957, Hugh Everett formulated the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

Here is wiki explanation of Hugh Everett conclusion of Schrödinger's cat.

 

To get the full explanation and conclusion visit this link half way down to

 

many-worlds interpretation & consistent histories in dealing with Schrödinger's cat.

 

Link:

 

Hugh Everett

 

This is basically what I was trying to get across having a live and dead cat

 

in two time line in parallel simultaneously.

 

Have a good read.

 

Thx.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

Designer :

 

You brought up an interesting concept to contemplate. Something that could be considered is the "sameness" of "a" cat in different time lines. The way I see it, is that even though we may have started out with "a" cat, through the process of traversing the time lines, in essence, no longer is "a" cat ---> the "same" cat.

 

Think of it this way...IF I was to clone myself here on this Earth, the clone of myself, even if exactly the same at the moment of creation, will immediately begin to diversify, or become different than the original.

 

Standing in the same room, the clone is subjected to different frequencies of energy, than I, who is positioned elsewhere in the room. Perhaps, the clone is standing closer to an electrical box, thus, his essence, those components that make him what he is, will vibrate ( react ) differently than mine.

 

With different time lines, there would be differences, maybe minuscule, maybe not; However, each time line has a varied frequency signature, different enough to proclaim that the cat is no longer the "same" cat.

 

If either of us did indeed travel back in time, within "this" dimension of time, even if it is merely a fraction of a second, we are not exactly the same person. To define what those differences might be ? That is one humdinger of a question...since there are ( to put it mildly )numerous factors(forces) to be considered.

 

To consider that someone departs from one dimension of time, and arrives within another, although everything may "seem" to be similar, there would be inherent differences from a definition of frequency. Although that someone may be thought of AS the same individual, really, isn't, and "can" exist simultaneously within a single dimension of time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

KerrTexas's postulate is why I like the Calabi-Yau hypothesis. While the VARIATION may be infinite (much like junk DNA has been shown to be), the "many-worlds" are finite and, therefore, manageable without creating paradox. Even though it is still incredibly complex, it is perceptible. Newton definitely needed that perceptibility to create calculus. We also need that perceptability (as Calabi and Yau did) to come up with the mathematics to describe a seven-fold manifold within a four-dimensional one(still a closed-loop, massive-space dynamic); allowing quantum entanglement to create slightly different realities (including time-dilation) in each of the seven "universes" that interact with the "local" one.

 

I had a dream lately (perhaps brought on by this "weird" worldview) that spanned several hours in the dream; and brought me back in time to a very specific point in my past. Just as we would have all these massive thoughts running through our brain if we were to suddenly find ourselves in an actual parallel timeline, mine was in overdrive as to how to take advantage of "this particular past" to make some kind of difference there. I found myself, first, trying to convince the people there that I was, indeed, from the future. In the course of things, I eventually did (wasting most of my time there), only to make stupid suggestions as to how to benefit from my information and knowledge of the future. Of course, the dream state had much to do with that, but I also could see that "my information" was also entangled in a way that was of no benefit in this time frame. As the dreamstate progressed, small changes became big problems and future/past became "blurred". I "saw" my old house where I grew up, but it also had futuristic features to it that were confusing. While talking to my "young" older sister, I simply could not convince her that I was, indeed, her brother--but fifty years older. I tried desparately to warn her of future events, but she would have none of it. Paradox was impossible because, in reality, it was all really the same world--but with variations. I hated waking up shorthly after, because it was a fun world--simply for its variation. This one was more blah because of its familiarity.

 

Within the context of Calabi-Yau theory, the problem (as it always has been), is accessing those seven-fold dimensions at planck length. As Machio Piku states, it would take a Type III civilization to access it, yet we can access it in our dreams (in a fashion), and perhaps in many other ways as well (intuition, perception, precognition, etc.). Since every single photon that reaches our perceptions (whole-body perceptions including light receptors in different parts of our bodies) potentially must travel upon different pathways at each and every point in space/time, our very understanding of the universe may be just matter of course since we are built to be part and parcel of this eleven-dimensional universe, and are still evolving within it.

 

As I have mentioned before, the concept of an Immortal God-Being would be able (in real time) to EXPERIENCE both a "live cat" and a "dead one". This is what the concept of "before Abraham WAS, I AM" teaches us. This is "omnipresence". Can we experience this? I believe we can. The series of videos that I posted on the other thread show how it could happen. If Calabi-Yau is shown to be a viable theory and is confirmed by the LHC, we may be much closer to it than we think, and it won't be confined to the "elites". It will be accessible to all of us.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

Michael,

 

But what collapses the wave function? Saying that time travel is possible because a temporal divergence exists prior to wave function collapse is not saying anything at all.

A great (and as yet unanswered) question in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

You may have hear the one about the lady who explained gravity by saying that the world sits on the back of a turtle. When asked what holds the turtle up she says that the turtle is standing on the back of another turtle. When pressed about what holds this and that lower turtle up she ultimately replies, "It's turtles all the way down."

 

That's the problem with the cat (or any other) wave collapse problem. The cat is in a mixed state until observed by the scientist. The issue is what observation collapses the scientists probability wave? And then what observation collapses that observer's probability wave? And so on to infinity... In the end it appears to be "turtles all the way down."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

In 1957, Hugh Everett formulated the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This is a problem with Wiki. I like Wiki very much but you have to take it with a grain of salt. Hugh Everett did not formulate the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. His 1957 paper, which partially satisfied his PhD dissertation requirement is titled "'The Relative State' Formulation of Quantum Mechanics." The paper is very short and not very rigorous - which is in part why it did not fully satisfy his dissertation requirement.

 

Bryce Dewitt, and later John Deutsch another of Wheeler's previous students, reinterpreted Everett's paper in the 1960's and 1970's. DeWitt coined the term Many-Worlds Interpretation.

 

As an aside, we now have a somewhat confusing thread going. Were talking at the same time about wave function collapse and many-worlds interpretation. These are antithetical positions. The Bohr (Copenhagen) Interpretation is that the probability wave collapses to a single state. The Many-Worlds position is that there is no wave collapse. Instead all allowed possibilities as contained in the probability wave exist in seperate non-communicating universes - but the wave never collapses.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

Ok, fair enough. Here is another, and far more important, question. Calabi-Yau states that the universe is folded into 11 dimensions. That's the current figure, anyway. Now if the universe contains 11 dimensions, does that limit every number of possible worlds to 11; or, as Everett said, are there indeed an infinite number of worlds, each as legitimate as any other. In other words, are there only 11 worlds in which the cat is either alive or dead? Let's consider, for the sake of argument, that that is the case. There are only two possibilities: a live cat and a dead one. There cannot be the same number of each if there are only 11 dimensions (i.e. 11 different ways of seeing the cat). One state must win over the other by at least one, and it would be that state which is observed. We only observe the wavefunction's collapse. Let's go ahead and say Everett was correct, there are an infinite number of dimensions and infinitely many observations possible. Taking the fact that we only observe one thing, we have to conclude that what we observe has the greatest number of upturns. It's like flipping a coin and having more heads than tails, or better yet like flipping many coins many times and always getting more heads than tails. But if you're always getting more of one than the other, that implies a finite number of worlds. In that case, who's right; Calabi-Yau or Everett?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

But if the wavefunction never collapses, what determines the observed outcome of experiments like Schrodinger's Cat or the first atomic bomb exploding at Los Alamos?

In both schools of thought on QM what determines the observed outcome is indeterministic - it is random but the most likely outcomes are based on the probability wave.

 

In Schroedinger's Cat it's a misnomer to say that the cat is half alive and half dead. It's more like >99.999999% dead and <0.000001% all other allowed possibilities contained in the probability function. It's the same for the atomic bomb. THe outcome is random but the probability that you will get a nuclear fission chain reaction is on the same order as the cat.

 

The entire premise behind the uncertainty principle is that there is no possible way for you to know, not even in principle, precisely what the outcome will be.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

From the cat problem mass is only a problem if there is only one mass from one dimension. But now if we have particles phasing in and out from other dimensions to each other then the mass in one time line can exist even though the same cat in theory is in another time line. Mass and accounting for it only becomes a problem if the mass is suppose to be the same mass with particles from the same dimension. Well I have some time travel experiments to perform tonight. I will catch every one else some place or another later. Good day. TimeCrime out.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Schrodinger's cat

 

So you're saying that multiple realities will not cause a mass conservation problem as long as minute violations of the law are allowed? That makes sense. It's possible that the different dimensions are so separated (in a relative sense) that what is only a microscopic anomaly in one translates to a large anomaly in another. For example, a virtual particle in one dimension may translate to this dimension as a large amount of mass and, while the vp may exist only for a fraction of a fraction in that dimension, it exists for a much longer time in this one. That could explaim where the 'missing' mass of the universe is. It's a nice theory.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...