Eminent Physicists on Schrödinger’s Cat

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
Disagreement of mental incertainty of person 1 and 2 prior to blanket remoal ,incdicates that ths superposition is not objective universal reality applying to both..

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
Consequences;

this means that there is no need for Einstein's proposed 'entanglement' to explain correlations not explained by normal quantum theory. State outcome for each particle , of the pair, is not random but determined by same or opposite 'seen this way' relative measurement of pre existing single material object without inherent veiwpoint.
2, No need to combine quantum theory and gravity. As quantum mechanics theory is not objective reality.
Fields transmitted through the environment by disturbance or deformation of it due to presence and motion of charged particles and matter. Deformation of the content of object reality space. (No inherent dimensions- all existing objects parts and particles with unmeasured separaration and orientation to every other existing objects parts and particles. ) by the presence and movement of matter at a large scale , leading to large scale deformation , is hardlly experienced at the particle scale.

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
Thinking about concealed possibilities;
Possibility, defined by Oxford languages 1. “noun
a thing that may happen or be the case.”
The Schrodinger cat thought experiment showcases the type of situation where a possibility may have been extinguished but this is not known so the now impossible is retained as a possibility, though this is incorrect. Smelling poison fumes escaping the closed box could be used as an indication that the live possibility has been extinguished.

Viewpoint or context ‘seen this way’ measurement protocol yet to be established is a different situation. The possibilities remain vital, only being extinguished when a relative viewpoint or measurement protocol is used to give a new singular observation or measurement outcome.

For a macroscopic object subsequent observation or measurement is still possible, depending on how the experiment is conducted. So to say that other possible outcomes have been extinguished is not necessarily true. It is true where only one outcome can be obtained. Such as in subatomic scale experiments or a destructive measurement protocol. At any scale is used. Application of different viewpoints or different measurements can give different outcomes.
This is relativity, an extraction from the absolute, existing, material template that embodies many possibilities. The ‘many worlds’ of possibility are not in the limited relative outcomes, but preceding them as a material. observation independent, Object reality.

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
Thus the superposition is representing different scenarios; ''cat' experiment like, unknowh to the observer an impossibility (an extinguished possibility) and the outcome that will be found ,in the first case , and the other situation is a combination of the outcome that will be found and others that won't be are still vital /active possibilitioes not yet extinguished

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
I apologize for the spelling errors and lack of clarity.
I was trying to point out two different situations both represented by a wave function.
In both cases the observer has not made a limited 'seen his way' observation or measurement product informing what is concealed, or for other reasons, not visible.
Instead of what’s there pre-observation / measurement being represented, we have possible outcomes, as far as the excluded observer is aware.
Observation independent material reality is what exists regardless of the excluded observer
Two different situations both represented by a wave function.

Includes an outcome, still considered possible from outside that has been superseded eg, live cat dies, so only dead cat is possible outcome.
All outcomes are still possible but no ‘seen this way’, relative context for production of singular outcome has been chosen.

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
Isn't quantum superposition needed to explain the outcome of various experiments, involving beam splitters? No ,they can all be explained by a wave carrier of a photon being divisible into wave and photon and separated wave. Undivided carrier wave and carried particle is the normal structure of pre-light. This helps explain the double slit experiment and also why in classical physics , speed of source or recipient does not affect speed of light transmission.

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
(http://viXra.org/abs/2311.0087) Paper uploaded to viXra today
Abstract
A brief history of theories of light is given. New terminology that will be useful in the discussion of matters to do with light or it’s precursor is given, and how it is to be applied is discussed.
Thinking about concealed possibilities comes next, considering the material reality that is concealed and what superposition actually represents. A Model with a pre-light binary with divisible photon carrier wave is presented, accounting for the outcomes of double slit apparatus experiments and experiments involving beam splitting and recombination, with an objective material solution.
Reason for the speed of ‘light’ being unaffected by speed of source and recipient
explained by using transmission as a pre-light binary model

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
Pre-light binary model shows resason for reflectance or trannsmissiun at glass block boundary. That's where in the cycle of the carrier wave the transition boundary is met.

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
Feynman .asked, in one of his lectlres, Richard Feynman on Quantum Mechanics Part 1 - Photons Corpuscles of Light why it is necessary to add lots of little arrows to get the pobability anplitude. Now .the need to know where in the wave cyclr it makes sense.

marcovici alexandru

Georgina Woodward
Feynman .asked, in one of his ~~lectlres~~, lecture Richard Feynman on Quantum Mechanics Part 1 - Photons Corpuscles of Light why it is necessary to add lots of little arrows to get the ~~pobability anplitude~~. Now .the need to know where in the wave ~~cyclr~~ it makes sense.

Feynman asked, in one of his lecture, Richard Feynman on Quantum Mechanics Part 1 - Photons Corpuscles of Light why it is necessary to add lots of little arrows to get the probability amplitude. Now .the need to know where in the wave cycle it makes sense.

Georgina Woodward

marcovici alexandru
Thank you for your response . It would be extremely helpful if you could comunicate precisely how / in what way i have messed up .The link was to a talk not specificalluy the lecture
I remembered. My error sorry, I should have been more careful. l think in fact it was a lecture series given in Auckland The Sir Dougas Robb lecture series.That i should have linked to.
Feynman - Lectures From The University Of Auckland 1 Photons - Corpuscles of Light and Feynman - Lectures From The University Of Auckland 2 - Fits of Reflection and Transmission.
Feynman does not exactly ask why but expresses puzlement or the 'stupidity of the process'over why the caculation is carried out as it is. The ampltudes shown by small arrows ( physisists say amplitude ,mathematicians complex numbers) added like vectors . The total ampltude can be squared to give the probability. I meant by where in the wave cycle ,where in the wave oscilation pattern. Are you saying that is wrong or just the word cycle is unnecessary?

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
'Stupidity'in the context used is the wrong word. Irrational or unreasonaBle or unfathimable in character is better,

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
Carried photon particles are very small. Similar double slit behaviour can be seen for other sub atomic particles, even particles uprto the size of buckyballs i have heard. A similar process is likely happening for these cases too. All providing evidence that the observer independentenvironment is filled and is affecting the appearance of the observer generated space-time phenomenon. It's not usual for larger macroscopic objects though. Perhaps because deformation of the observer independent environment by gavity of the bigger , dense object prevents formation and function of a carrier wave.

Georgina Woodward

Georgina Woodward
A photon particle's effsct on the observer indeprndent,Object reality environment wil set up a photon carrier disturbance that acts wavelike. A lone electrom's disturbance of the environment causes an electron carrier to be formrd. So on for different particles for which q'uantum mechanics' behaviour has been interprted , in the history of physics . A macroscopic or larger objrct deforms the environment differenttly, due to gravity so no carrier wave is formed.

rbartlett

This video about a thought experiment (in the form of Schrodinger's cat) makes me wonder about quantum mechanics and what happens in any lab experiment. Scientists believe theories must be supported by experiments. Does their faith in the existence of objective reality mean they are classical scientists who reject quantum mechanics' statements that observers and the observed are permanently and inextricably united? In this case, scientists would unavoidably and unconsciously influence every experiment and form of mathematics. In the end, they may be unavoidably and unconsciously influencing the universe which is the home of all experiments and all mathematics.

On the nature of consciousness - what are the consequences if the basis of AI (the 1's and 0's in neural nets) are shared with human or animal brains? That is, if brains are constructed of binary digits at the most fundamental level. This type of construction would be compatible with the following scenario - ancient Greek philosophers thought atoms were indivisible but were wrong, and physicists today think electrons are indivisible but may also be wrong. Suppose everything in the universe is ultimately composed of base 2 mathematics (the electronic BITS of 1 and 0) and could thus be described by a Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. Then the universe must possess Artificial Intelligence - some prefer the term Cosmic Consciousness. Inanimate objects would have the lowest level of binary-digit activity, a single cell would own a bit more, plants would have a bit more, insects would have still more ... and so on.

« Previous Page