Comments on: Flash Forward Gets Schrödinger’s Cat a Little Wrong

By: Karl Withakay

Karl Withakay — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:10:41 +0000

What were you hoping for?

By: man

man — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:00:01 +0000

Don’t answer then bitch.

By: man

man — Mon, 09 May 2011 01:35:17 +0000

I cordially accept your deconstruction of my argument! Reading my argument back now I do accept that I was too hasty in my reply to read it back and realise my errors. I do however want to point out that I do understand the thought experiment and do understand that the events described on the show were completely deterministic rather than down to quantum probability. I just meant that shortening the thought experiment down was the right thing to do in the show, rather than having a longer more detailed discussion – after all he was only trying to bed her! Anyway, I apologise for hastily coming to my conclusion without properly thinking about it. I love FlashForward for the reason that it makes the viewer actually consider more than just the storyline – it has an extra element that allows viewers to get involved with the physics of the events unfolding rather than just overly dramatised rubbish that could be written by a six year old (like lost – the worst program ever to intrude my living room). I can’t believe I spelled “you’re” wrong either haha

By: Reply to a Comment on My Schrödinger’s Cat Post « Cordial Deconstruction

Reply to a Comment on My Schrödinger’s Cat Post « Cordial Deconstruction — Sun, 01 May 2011 17:58:01 +0000

[...] comments Karl Withakay on Flash Forward Gets Schrödinger…your wrong on Flash Forward Gets Schrödinger…jedivulcan on Deconstruction Review of [...]

By: Karl Withakay

Karl Withakay — Sun, 01 May 2011 17:46:03 +0000

It would appear to be you who has completely missed the point and demonstrated your ignorance on the topic. By substituting a poisoned sardine for the decay of a radioactive isotope, quantum probability has been eliminated from the thought experiment and has been replaced by a regular non-quantum, deterministic event.

Further, when the physicist states that the observer gets to choose whether the cat is alive or dead, that is not quantum physics and the collapse of the quantum waveform, it’s a philosophy of a post modernist subjective reality, dependant on the perception and will of the observer. In quantum mechanics, the observation of the cat in the original thought experiment collapses the quantum waveform and solidifies the current state of the cat; it does not choose which state the cat is in, which is what the physicist in the TV show said.

The writers completely misunderstood the thought experiment, and got it wrong on two key points. They replaced a quantum probability with a deterministic event, and then gave the observer a choice in the end state of the cat rather than the observation only being a choice to create the end state of the cat with no ability to choose what that end state was.

It is acceptable to boil a scientific concept like quantum probability and decoherence down to a form the average TV viewer can understand, but only if it remains relatively accurate in the key points.

I have not wasted my time at all, and if you have wasted you time is not my fault. It would seem that I have either read more physics than you, or I have at least better understood and appreciated the nuances of what I have read. It also seems that you either failed to pay attention while reading my post, or you were unable to understand they key points of my post. If by reading this reply you better understand the key points as to why the writers got the thought experiment wrong, then you have not wasted your time at all either.

And by the way, you’ve spelled your name wrong if your intention was to say “you’re wrong” rather than talk about a wrong that I posses. I normally don’t quibble about simple spelling mistakes, but I would think if someone takes the time to compose a 181 word statement claiming someone is wrong on a matter of quantum physics, that they would take time to make sure they haven’t confused “your” with “you’re”. Such a mistake hardly adds to your credibility.

Your comment has been Cordially Deconstructed.

By: your wrong

your wrong — Sun, 01 May 2011 04:35:40 +0000

Ok, you seem to have completely missed the point here. The point of Schrodinger’s cat is precisely about quantum probability, which you have stated, and you seem to have a knowledge of this thought experiment and what it means. The thing that is really getting to me is the fact that the point is still being made in almost exactly the same way, but you are quibbling over the fact that it is not explained fully and mentioned the radioactive isotopes and the Copenhagen interpretation. Surely a 10 minute conversation about this thought experiment would waste time in the programme and really doesn’t matter. The nitty gritty stuff is for scientists, not for people just watching some action on television. Don’t get me wrong I love reading physics as much as any studious person, but it really doesn’t matter in the slightest that he didn’t go into every single little detail regarding the experiment. Stop wasting your time complaining and read more physics, you’re obviously interested in it. Not only that but you’ve wasted my time having to correct your ignorance.

By: Deconstruction Review of Fringe, Episode 3, Season 3, The Plateau « Cordial Deconstruction

Fri, 08 Oct 2010 03:14:36 +0000

[...] best way to defeat a super mentat like Milo would be to use a random, unpredictable event like the radioactive decay of a particle to choose your strategy. Since such an event is not precisely predictable, Milo would never see [...]

By: Off to Europe… « Cordial Deconstruction

Off to Europe… « Cordial Deconstruction — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:32:35 +0000

[...] Flash Forward Gets Schrödinger’s Cat a Little Wrong [...]

By: Amnesia

Amnesia — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:57:39 +0000

Maybe that is why he did not mention that it was Schrödinger’s cat and simply said a cat. But yeah he says “Quantum physics says” that was not very smart, thought neither seemed the girl, so I guess that might have been his reason to not mind being not so very accurate.

I just went back to the episode and he does mention Schrödinger’s cat at first..

Simon: Are you aware of the Double Slit Experiment? ?
Camille: Well, there was that one time in college…
Simon: What about Schrödinger’s cat?
Camille: No, I’m not that kinky.

yeah bad move from the show’s writers..
And the common thing between the 2 experiments is the uncertainty principle, so I’m guessing that is what caused the flash-forwards..

By: cordialdeconstruction

cordialdeconstruction — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:33:58 +0000

Sure, he was looking for an excuse to hold her hand, but without the quantum state, it’s not Schrödinger’s cat. The Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment was devised to show what Schrödinger saw as a flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics when applied on a macroscopic level, and he devised a way to make a make a macroscopic effect from a quantum state. His point was that the cat isn’t both alive and dead. Since the state on the cat was dependent on the quantum state of the isotope and according to the Copenhagen interpretation the isotope was both decayed and not decayed until the quantum waveform was collapsed by observation, the cat must be both alive and dead until observed, which Schrödinger considered absurd. He considered this to mean that there was a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics since the cat was clearly alive or dead independent of observation.

Without the quantum state, it’s just not a quantum superposition, but only a superposition of non-quantum probabilities, and superposition of non-quantum probabilities is exactly what Schrödinger was pointing out as absurd. With a poisoned sardine, the state of the cat is dependent on a choice by the cat of whether to eat the sardine or not and has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or observation at all.