The Cat Is Not Alive And Dead
By Bill Jones. Schrodinger’s Cat is said to be alive and dead at the same time, and this classic paradox is a result of Quantum mechanics. This thought caused Schrodinger some difficulty. Quantum Mechanics will cause this difficulty. In 1935 Schrodinger suggested that a cat be placed in a box with a poison that could be released at a random time with a probability of 0.5 in some given time period. If the poison is released the cat will then die. Then after the time period is up, it is impossible to know if the cat is alive or dead without opening the box for observation. Before observation it must be said that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time – because of the laws of Quantum Mechanics.
The mathematics of the Quantum theory has been shown to be unusually accurate in predicting results and or measurements in the very small atomic world. The actual maximum physical size for the mathematics usefulness is not known.
There was no injury to the cat in the Schrodinger paradox. No experiments were ever intended. The paradox is just a word problem. We are writing this paper to show that the paradox may be solved by an experiment - without injury or harm. We describe an experiment that will allow us to show that a person (substitution for the cat) may be put into Schrodinger’s box and we can show the persons state without opening the box. The purpose of the substitution will be described.
We suggest a new experiment that could actually be carried out. The results of the experiment will show that it is not necessary to open the box for observation to see if the object of interest is alive or dead. In this experiment the object of interest is not a cat, but is changed to a person. The person has a dog that will also be used in the experiment. The person is referred to as the owner of the dog. The dog will be used to indicate if the owner (representing the cat) is alive or dead.
The transmission of thought or intention has been shown to occur between a dog’s owner and the dog. The thoughts are likely to be specific thoughts that would affect the dog. Transmission of certain intentions has been shown to occur between an animal and the animal’s owner.
The information or thoughts transmitted would be limited by the interests and intelligence of the animal. While cats have the same abilities as dogs there are no known tests of cats that are applicable to our experiment. It has been verified by the owners of cats that the animal cannot be found when the owner intends to take the cat to a Veterinarian. Surveys of Veterinarians show this to be common but this is only hearsay and not scientific evidence. It is said that the cat will hide because it is able to detect the intention of the owner. This is thought to be caused by the consciousness of the owner. The intentions of the owner are known by the cat because it is also conscious and understands the intentions of the owner.
The basis of the suggested experiment is that consciousness is a wave function and gives human and animals the capacity to understand the thoughts or intentions of others. While the experiment is shown to occur in a particular fashion it could be modified in details. The experiment shows proof that consciousness will allow the subject in the box to be found alive or dead, and is not alive and dead at the same time.
A dog could have been used in Schrodinger’s paradox. It is questioned as to why Schrodinger picked a cat. It is believed that in 1935 cats were not thought to be quite as desirable as a dog. In 1935 few people owned a cat or dog because of the expense. Those that could afford an animal would often choose a dog since they are attentive to the owner.
The Experiment
The experiment will show that Schrodinger’s cat can be known to be alive or dead by substitution of a person in the cats place. While a cat could be used in the experiment there is no scientific experiment available that show the same results that exists between a dog and its owner. It is known that there is a conscious connection between a cat and its owner but it has not been shown scientifically. The basis of the experiment is the consciousconnection between the owner and the animal.
There would be some preparation required for the experiment; the preparation is explained as follows. The owner of the dog has a meal and we will assume it to be lunch. The owner eats his meal at some random time between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. When a random time signal occurs the owner will begin his meal. When the owner is finished with the meal the dog will then be fed by an automatic feeder. The dog’s food will appear only when the owner completes the meal. The dog learns that food appears only when the owner completes lunch. This ability to learn that food will be available upon lunch completion would require an unknown amount of time. It would depend on variables such as a particular dog, and such things as the breed, age and even the affection between the owner and the dog.
When it is clear that the dog understands that it will be fed upon the owner’s meal completion the experiment can begin. In the experiment we will use a steel room for the person – as a substitute for the box. The owner will go into the room at 11:00 a.m. The dog will be on the outside of the room. A feeding mechanism will be available that will feed the dog. The dog will be shown that the owner is in the room and a trial run should occur before the full experiment is started. That is to say, before the experiment begins the door to the room should be left open such that the dog sees that the owner is in the room. This open door pre-test may require several days. When the dog is comfortable with the surroundings and understands that food is available when the owner finishes lunch - the test may begin.
At the beginning of the experiment the owner will enter the room at 11:00 a.m. The door will be closed. Lunch is available on a table in the room. At a random time before 1:00 p.m. a signal to begin lunch is given to the owner. The dog is in comfortable surroundings with no one present. Hidden observers will see the dog and the dog’s owner. When lunch is complete the dog will go to the food bowl because it knows that the owner has completed the meal because of consciousness. Food will then automatically drop into the bowl within a certain time period – say two minutes. The owner will have lunch for some number of days – say a maximum of one week. As long as the dog goes to the bowl for food it is known that the owner is alive. At some random lunch time during the week the owner will find an object in his meal container that represents the poison of the Schrodinger’s experiment. The probability of the object appearing would be unity to show the experimental results. This signal to not eat lunch means that the owner is theoretically dead and that the dog will not go to the food bowl since the owner is unable to have lunch. The observers receive the same signal that the owner receives, and see that the dog does not go to the food bowl because the dog knows the owner has not eaten lunch. It is then clear that the owner is theoretically dead.
There are several ways that experiment could be done. It is thought that the owner being in the room would be a good way to begin the experiment. The owner’s action after a statistically random signal is an important variable. It might be desirable to begin the experiment in another time period. Scientist having experience with animals would have suggestions for this experiment. For example, the owner of the dog could respond to the random signal by getting ready to leave the closed room instead of having lunch. The owner would put on a coat and gather materials such as a computer and working materials. The dog’s owner will then show intentions to leave the room. The dog would come to the door to greet the owner knowing that the owner was ready to come out of the room. If the owner has received a signal to not leave (being theoretically poisoned) then the dog will not come to greet the owner.
The use of consciousness would impress some of those who believe that Schrodinger’s paradox is infallible. Those that do know of the results of using consciousness would understand the results.
The owner of the dog is placed in a small room because the owner would be at ease but the dog might be concerned being placed in a small closed room. This could cause a problem in the experiment. The dog would be at ease in an open area knowing that the owner is in the closed room. .
We then show that Schrodinger’s paradox is overcome by the use of consciousness in an actual experiment. It could be said that consciousness may be a part of Quantum mechanics or Quantum Mechanics is a part of consciousness, and Consciousness may be fundamental.
There was no injury to the cat in the Schrodinger paradox. No experiments were ever intended. The paradox is just a word problem. We are writing this paper to show that the paradox may be solved by an experiment - without injury or harm. We describe an experiment that will allow us to show that a person (substitution for the cat) may be put into Schrodinger’s box and we can show the persons state without opening the box. The purpose of the substitution will be described.
We suggest a new experiment that could actually be carried out. The results of the experiment will show that it is not necessary to open the box for observation to see if the object of interest is alive or dead. In this experiment the object of interest is not a cat, but is changed to a person. The person has a dog that will also be used in the experiment. The person is referred to as the owner of the dog. The dog will be used to indicate if the owner (representing the cat) is alive or dead.
The transmission of thought or intention has been shown to occur between a dog’s owner and the dog. The thoughts are likely to be specific thoughts that would affect the dog. Transmission of certain intentions has been shown to occur between an animal and the animal’s owner.
The basis of the suggested experiment is that consciousness is a wave function and gives human and animals the capacity to understand the thoughts or intentions of others. While the experiment is shown to occur in a particular fashion it could be modified in details. The experiment shows proof that consciousness will allow the subject in the box to be found alive or dead, and is not alive and dead at the same time.
A dog could have been used in Schrodinger’s paradox. It is questioned as to why Schrodinger picked a cat. It is believed that in 1935 cats were not thought to be quite as desirable as a dog. In 1935 few people owned a cat or dog because of the expense. Those that could afford an animal would often choose a dog since they are attentive to the owner.
The Experiment
The experiment will show that Schrodinger’s cat can be known to be alive or dead by substitution of a person in the cats place. While a cat could be used in the experiment there is no scientific experiment available that show the same results that exists between a dog and its owner. It is known that there is a conscious connection between a cat and its owner but it has not been shown scientifically. The basis of the experiment is the consciousconnection between the owner and the animal.
When it is clear that the dog understands that it will be fed upon the owner’s meal completion the experiment can begin. In the experiment we will use a steel room for the person – as a substitute for the box. The owner will go into the room at 11:00 a.m. The dog will be on the outside of the room. A feeding mechanism will be available that will feed the dog. The dog will be shown that the owner is in the room and a trial run should occur before the full experiment is started. That is to say, before the experiment begins the door to the room should be left open such that the dog sees that the owner is in the room. This open door pre-test may require several days. When the dog is comfortable with the surroundings and understands that food is available when the owner finishes lunch - the test may begin.
There are several ways that experiment could be done. It is thought that the owner being in the room would be a good way to begin the experiment. The owner’s action after a statistically random signal is an important variable. It might be desirable to begin the experiment in another time period. Scientist having experience with animals would have suggestions for this experiment. For example, the owner of the dog could respond to the random signal by getting ready to leave the closed room instead of having lunch. The owner would put on a coat and gather materials such as a computer and working materials. The dog’s owner will then show intentions to leave the room. The dog would come to the door to greet the owner knowing that the owner was ready to come out of the room. If the owner has received a signal to not leave (being theoretically poisoned) then the dog will not come to greet the owner.
The use of consciousness would impress some of those who believe that Schrodinger’s paradox is infallible. Those that do know of the results of using consciousness would understand the results.
We then show that Schrodinger’s paradox is overcome by the use of consciousness in an actual experiment. It could be said that consciousness may be a part of Quantum mechanics or Quantum Mechanics is a part of consciousness, and Consciousness may be fundamental.
Comments
Post a Comment