Famous 'quantum' thought experiment revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date


Famous \'quantum\' thought experiment revisited

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: You seal a cat in a box along with a vial of poison gas and a trigger that will release the gas if a quantum event that has precisely a 50-50 chance of happening in the next hour occurs. Without opening the box an hour later, can you say whether the cat is alive or dead?

No is the correct answer. But not because you can't tell which it is. Rather, because it's neither. The cat is neither alive nor dead' but instead is a superposition of wave fronts -- a mingled combination of both possibilities. Only the act of opening the box and looking causes the wave front to resolve itself into one concrete reality. That's quantum mechanics: things are indeterminate until they are observed.

Suppose I look in the box first, see that the cat's alive and then close the box. You come along a few minutes later and you open the box and look, unaware that I've previously had a peek at the cat inside the box. What do you see? A living cat.

Why do the observations of a single observer create a concrete reality for everyone simultaneously? One answer is that everyone is part of the overmind or collective unconscious. So the observation made by one person is the observation made by all people -- indeed, quantum mechanics requires the overmind in order to work.

Consider the link (below) as an example. Was the Peekskill meteor impact event designed and caused by an advanced extraterrestrial agency to relay a message to humankind, or was it a purely natural event? The question may seem absurd on the surface, but upon examination ("opening the box") the astounding answer becomes clear.
Re:Famous \'quantum\' thought experiment revisited

And so if a tree was to fall in the woods, and nobody was within a 10 kilometer radius of it, would it make a sound?
Re:Famous \'quantum\' thought experiment revisited


A indeterminate theory we like very much. This borders on the concept of single temporal consciences, in indeed the fact that it is 100% certain that we do not exist, whereas it is 100% certain that we do. Is there any need for what we can't see to 'exist', the logical response is "no". Maybe we do need to see things in order for them to exist in the individual's temporal dimension.

PP, Peter J.Attwood
Re:Re:Famous \'quantum\' thought experiment revisited

The answer depends on how you define "sound"!
Re:Re:Famous \'quantum\' thought experiment revisited

Energy would be released by the falling tree with or without humans being present. Animals in the forest might perceive this energy as "sound" and it might influence their behavior. If no humans were present, there would be no human perception of the energy nor any interpretation of it. Other forms of energy are released in the forest and this changes the forest.