I'm gonna be a bit obnoxious here and ask people to please consider before sharing Schrödinger memes, and for two reasons:
-
@SnoopJ *takes psychic damage*
-
@SnoopJ I mean, I can't even say that that's wrong, but it sure as hell isn't *correct* either. Sigh.
-
@SnoopJ I mean, I can't even say that that's wrong, but it sure as hell isn't *correct* either. Sigh.
@xgranade would you say it is both right and wrong at the same time
-
@xgranade would you say it is both right and wrong at the same time
@SnoopJ god *damn* it why did I expand that cw
-
@SnoopJ god *damn* it why did I expand that cw
@xgranade resisting the urge to make a sorry/not-sorry joke here
glad I didn't undercut the (extremely correct) point of the thread by stuffing my shitposting into CWs
-
@rootwyrm I mean, that whole post is wrong? We have very good theorems that establish what conditions will allow for quantum computing, and it would take some very surprising new physics for those conditions to turn out to be impossible in practice.
@xgranade I didn't say it wasn't possible. However, it absolutely is not possible at any meaningful scale with current technology or our knowledge of physics. What we've got is idiots stapling an endless chain of half-baked qubits together and claiming this addresses fidelity is the height of absurdity. Much like the 'PhDs' claiming "AGI" is possible in a binary system with enough lossy 8x8 matrix math (just no.)
-
@xgranade I didn't say it wasn't possible. However, it absolutely is not possible at any meaningful scale with current technology or our knowledge of physics. What we've got is idiots stapling an endless chain of half-baked qubits together and claiming this addresses fidelity is the height of absurdity. Much like the 'PhDs' claiming "AGI" is possible in a binary system with enough lossy 8x8 matrix math (just no.)
@rootwyrm I mean, again, that post is completely wrong on the merits? Please don't use my replies to spread disinformation. There's a lot to criticize about QC as a research field and an industry, but we don't need to make pseudoscientific arguments to offer that criticism.
-
Here's the trick, though: quantum mechanics isn't inherently more difficult to learn than other technical fields, such as computer graphics. The big conceptual shift is in thinking of states like "the electron is here" or "the electron is there" in the same way you might think about directions.
You can understand a map in terms of north and west, but then you also have directions like northwest that are distinct from "north and west at the same time!!1!."
@xgranade I found the mathematics the hardest part, all that Eigenfunction nonsense.
I didn't know those two things, though. Shitty men in academia through time immemorial.
-
I'm gonna be a bit obnoxious here and ask people to please consider before sharing Schrödinger memes, and for two reasons:
• Schrödinger was a serial pedophile, and should not be glorified.
• Schrödinger's Cat was originally posed as a thought experiment to try and make quantum mechanics more confusing, as a form of ridicule. Its use in the field today is a kind of institutionalized gatekeeping.@xgranade I didn't know that first thing about Schrödinger which is a Big Yikes
.But the cat-in-a-box "paradox" isn't even a paradox at all, because it depends on the erroneous conflation of the macro-scale system of the cat with the quantum-scale phenomenon of radioisotopic decay.
All of the particles in the cat's body are constantly interacting with, and therefore measuring, each other, so the cat is always collapsed into a state of Alive UNTIL It Is Dead.
-
I'm gonna be a bit obnoxious here and ask people to please consider before sharing Schrödinger memes, and for two reasons:
• Schrödinger was a serial pedophile, and should not be glorified.
• Schrödinger's Cat was originally posed as a thought experiment to try and make quantum mechanics more confusing, as a form of ridicule. Its use in the field today is a kind of institutionalized gatekeeping.@xgranade
I did not know about his seediness, thank you for making me aware of that -
@xgranade I didn't know that first thing about Schrödinger which is a Big Yikes
.But the cat-in-a-box "paradox" isn't even a paradox at all, because it depends on the erroneous conflation of the macro-scale system of the cat with the quantum-scale phenomenon of radioisotopic decay.
All of the particles in the cat's body are constantly interacting with, and therefore measuring, each other, so the cat is always collapsed into a state of Alive UNTIL It Is Dead.
@dragonarchitect Yeah, that conflation of micro- and macroscopic properties is one of the big problems with the thought experiment, but I'm even willing to give that one a slight pass on that it's common to exaggerate the scale of things to make a narrative around them that helps with the thought experiment.
Where it goes truly awry, imho, is the "alive and dead at the same time" bit, which terminates thought in an apparent absurdity.
-
@dragonarchitect Yeah, that conflation of micro- and macroscopic properties is one of the big problems with the thought experiment, but I'm even willing to give that one a slight pass on that it's common to exaggerate the scale of things to make a narrative around them that helps with the thought experiment.
Where it goes truly awry, imho, is the "alive and dead at the same time" bit, which terminates thought in an apparent absurdity.
@xgranade Ahh, yeah, that's not even how superpositions even work at all in the first place. At least as far as I understand how they work.
As far as I understand it, a superposition is simply some state that is not strictly aligned with any arbitrarily chosen measurement axis. It can be literally anywhere in between the measured states, but we only ever measure One State.
-
@xgranade Ahh, yeah, that's not even how superpositions even work at all in the first place. At least as far as I understand how they work.
As far as I understand it, a superposition is simply some state that is not strictly aligned with any arbitrarily chosen measurement axis. It can be literally anywhere in between the measured states, but we only ever measure One State.
@dragonarchitect I'll mostly agree, modulo the word "only." But yeah, superposition is inherently only meaningful with respect to a given choice of axes (more generally, basis states).
-
@xgranade Ahh, yeah, that's not even how superpositions even work at all in the first place. At least as far as I understand how they work.
As far as I understand it, a superposition is simply some state that is not strictly aligned with any arbitrarily chosen measurement axis. It can be literally anywhere in between the measured states, but we only ever measure One State.
@xgranade While the cat is locked in the box, there's no way of knowing whether it is still alive or finally dead.
It's not simultaneously alive AND dead.
The cat is always in just one state.
You (generic 'you', the observer) just don't know what that state is until you open the box and Observe That Cat.
-
@xgranade While the cat is locked in the box, there's no way of knowing whether it is still alive or finally dead.
It's not simultaneously alive AND dead.
The cat is always in just one state.
You (generic 'you', the observer) just don't know what that state is until you open the box and Observe That Cat.
@dragonarchitect I mean, not really, no. Partly, as you point out, that's the absurdity of conflating micro- and macroscopic properties. But also, it's less that the cat is alive and dead at the same time than that "alive" and "dead" aren't the right set of directions for describing the cat.
The supposed paradox has a resolution, and it's not even that difficult a one, but the point of the thought experiment is to terminate thought at the absurdity before you get to the resolution.
-
@dragonarchitect I mean, not really, no. Partly, as you point out, that's the absurdity of conflating micro- and macroscopic properties. But also, it's less that the cat is alive and dead at the same time than that "alive" and "dead" aren't the right set of directions for describing the cat.
The supposed paradox has a resolution, and it's not even that difficult a one, but the point of the thought experiment is to terminate thought at the absurdity before you get to the resolution.
@xgranade You have a more nuanced understanding of the thought experiment than I do, then.
I am now curious.
What is the resolution that you have for it?
-
@xgranade You have a more nuanced understanding of the thought experiment than I do, then.
I am now curious.
What is the resolution that you have for it?
@dragonarchitect Just that, that "alive" and "dead" are not the right words to describe the state of the cat at that point. It's easy to believe that about an electron, but phrasing it in terms of a cat poisons us against the idea that there could be a more correct set of terms to describe that state.
-
@dragonarchitect Just that, that "alive" and "dead" are not the right words to describe the state of the cat at that point. It's easy to believe that about an electron, but phrasing it in terms of a cat poisons us against the idea that there could be a more correct set of terms to describe that state.
@dragonarchitect "Alive" and "dead" are *incredibly* complex phenomena, and even modern medicine hasn't been able to conclusively define those words. There are cases of medically "dead" patients coming back to life, not because of anything supernatural, but just because our definitions suck.
So inviting someone to think of another even more complex state than that is a nonstarter. But that apparent absurdity goes away when you ask a simpler question like "is this electron here or there."
-
@dragonarchitect "Alive" and "dead" are *incredibly* complex phenomena, and even modern medicine hasn't been able to conclusively define those words. There are cases of medically "dead" patients coming back to life, not because of anything supernatural, but just because our definitions suck.
So inviting someone to think of another even more complex state than that is a nonstarter. But that apparent absurdity goes away when you ask a simpler question like "is this electron here or there."
@dragonarchitect That's when you get to the actual resolution, which is "position is the wrong set of variables to use to describe this object. It is in a definite and certain state, but I should use a different set of variables to describe that state."
-
You're not going to understand quantum mechanics without a little bit of work, sure, but that's not unique to quantum mechanics at all! That's kind of how learning works!
The learning required to understand quantum mechanics is not terribly out of line with other fields, but memes like Schrödinger's Cat prime us to believe that it's not understandable at *all*. Which I reject.
I'm going to quote my own reply as a kind of addendum here, as there's a more general point I want to extract. Taxonomy is fucking hard, and when we're talking about living beings like humans and cats, even defining "alive" and "dead" is incredibly difficult to do in practice.
The propaganda work of Schrödinger's Cat, then, is to invite us to falsely extrapolate that complexity onto quantum mechanics.
Cassandra is only carbon now (@xgranade@wandering.shop)
@dragonarchitect@rubber.social "Alive" and "dead" are *incredibly* complex phenomena, and even modern medicine hasn't been able to conclusively define those words. There are cases of medically "dead" patients coming back to life, not because of anything supernatural, but just because our definitions suck. So inviting someone to think of another even more complex state than that is a nonstarter. But that apparent absurdity goes away when you ask a simpler question like "is this electron here or there."
The Wandering Shop (wandering.shop)
