I'm trying to wrap my head around this famous thought experiment.Let me know if I'm meowing up the wrong tree:As best I can tell, Herr Schrödinger is suggesting that a radioactive atom can't be in a superposition of having decayed and not decayed, because then we'd have to accept that a cat could be in a superposition of being alive and dead, and isn't that ridiculous? Where I stumble is understanding why is this ridiculous? It's plainly contrary to common sense, but I think I can get over that, so what's the problem?
the problem is getting over thatmaybe you can get over many things, who can tell? get over unicorns deciding the outcome of the experiment? you getting over something doesn't cut it
>>16993510But why should I hold common sense sacred in this case? There's not much in this sort of physics that seems intuitive. I could say that because an object feels solid to the touch that it's absurd to suggest that the particles that make it up are mostly empty space. But then I'd be called arrogant and stupid, wouldn't I?
>>16993504I thought it was just a dumb thought experiment for the normies? The message is that whatever you know about the world is wrong and you aren't just right just because you believe yourself to be right. Things only make sense to you because that's just what you are used to. Anything that is unknown to you seems like it doesn't make sense just because you didn't grow up learning it. To me it seems like some things "behave differently" until you "force them" to not behave differently. An electron goes through two holes at once in the double slit experiment unless you "force it" to assume one position in which it goes through one whole lol.
The way I always interpreted it was like, making contact with something changes its behavior to make it become "real."Naturally, nothing has a set location until you touch its general area and then it is "forced" to have a location lol.
>>16993546>The message is that whatever you know about the world is wrong and you aren't just right just because you believe yourself to be right.That's just it, though; normally I'd agree that a cat can't be both alive and dead simultaneously, but I'm willing to accept it because I don't have any good arguments to say that can't be the case. But Schrödinger seems to say that I should reject it, and I'm not sure why.
The cat can't be in two places with gravity so it's a collapsed model.
>>16993556Can you elaborate?
>>16993554> but I'm willing to accept itI don’t believe you
