Post by antondevey on Jul 11, 2006 20:02:33 GMT -5
what is he? To simply say "he's the personification of the thought experiment proposed by shrodinger" doesn't really hold many gravitas as an answer in my opinion. And neither does "catboy". So, I've got this little theory going... Tell me whether you think it's credible enough - It does sort of make him seem more important than every other character in millenium(theoretically).
Shrodinger's cat, in moderate detail(bit more than Erin's summary),for those who don't know what this is about(please skip the next 6 paragraphs if you've read enough books on physics to know that it is featured in EVERY SINGLE ONE): actually, better idea: I'll put the parts about shrodinger(the hellsing character =P) in bold.
So, early-ish twentieth century. Lots of developements in physics, what with General relativity(ten years earlier) and such, and the latest(and probably craziest) sub section of physics is making itself heard. That subsection is called quantum mechanics: the almost totally metaphysical, but mind wrenchingly interesting, study of atoms. It puts forward a freakishly revolutionary statement: atoms know when we're looking at them. "Observer effect" already played a part in science - for instance, measure the temperature of water and you'll be mostly right, but your measuring device will have reduced the outcome by absorbing some heat - But this didn't mean that the water knew it was being measured. So atoms were entirely different.
Don't ask me how. I've read my share of articles and books on this sort of thing, but that counts for very little. What non physicists are told is what the almighty Terry Pratchett calls "lies to children", and devotes a couple of chapters to them in the science of discworld - they are what people are told when they don't stand a chance in hell of understanding the truth. The fact is, you need a degree to understand all of it, not a forum post, not even a book, but a lifetime's worth of study. Oh, you think you can handle it? No, me neither >>
But that was the upshot. atoms know when we're looking at them... think about it. If observation really does change quantum mechanics, then it has done forever - therefore it has been observed forever, therefore... there was something observing it before us. And animals don't count(see below). Yuh. Existance of God, right there... and unless you're anti fideist(in which case I don't like you), you'll find this stupid whether you think s/he exists or not.
Shrodinger thought so too... and so came up with the cat thought experiment to prove it wrong then and there. It goes like this: put a cat in a box(a special box, with what is called chinese walls: nothing, no wave, no particle, no neutrino, can get past it) with a decaying atom that is having its decay measured by a meter, which is connected to a cannister of poisonous gas. rig it so that the cannister releases the gas when the atom decays.
Wait an hour, and the atom will do whatever it likes; and here is where the observation comes in. the decay rate of an atom is predictable, but the predictions are by no means ineffable, and according to quantum mechanics it is also influenced by(and what with the chinese walls, dependant on) observation. Note that the cat can't observe it seeing as it doesn't have neutrino microscopes on its eyelids. So... the atom is both decayed and not decayed, thus the cat is both dead and alive.
...wtf? you can't be both dead and alive... unless you're undead. being in two mutually exclusive states is called a "superposition", and you stay there until you're observed - but this is theoretical, whereas shrodinger's cat means the phrase is actually applied. Coming back to that in a minute... this proves, says shrodinger, that quantum mechanicers had spent too much time indoors. Their theories may make sense with maths and experiments so small it costs millions just to get the test samples(gold atoms - large and unconductive), but are worth diddly squat when applied to macro(bigger) principles. That was shrodinger's cat.
So he's both dead and alive - that's new[/sarcasm]. So I surmise that shrodinger is in a physical superposition on that issue, rather than being simply "undead"... and he can maintain that superposition, even if he is observed, like when alucard shot him - there were people present, and they were observing the hell out of him, but he was still both dead and alive. I think this is a parody on the part of kouta hirano, saying that no, atoms don't give a shit about who's observing them and that branch of physics is so stupid that it belongs in fiction.
But he's also said to be both "everywhere and no where". This relates to something very different, and about as interesting: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This was put forward no more than two years after shrodinger's cat. It's to do with the margin of error in experiments, but has larger implications. Heisenberg's thought experiment went like this:
So you're investingating this particle, and you want to know its position, let's call that X, and its momentum, that's P. Measure X with a microscope of whatever sort is required, and then its momentum by colliding it. then do it again in the same way, in the same environment... should get the same result, right? nope, because by using the microscope you've shot more photons than it likes at it and changed its momentum, and by colliding it with something else you've changed its position.
OK, so micorscopes and other particles aren't all they're cracked up to be - use something else. Use waves: an ultrasound like process for position, and emit and collect waves at either end of its pathway to measure its momentum. Now do that again with the same stuff in the same environment. Same results? didn't think so. waves'll have a minimal effect on it too, why didn't I think of that?
Thus: no measuring device in this world or the next is totally reliable. Heisenberg, though, says that even if you had an infinitely accurate, infinitely passive measuring device you'd still change the particle, in opposition to shrodinger. Now, this was the exact problem that he put forward - the position and momentum of a particle being measured, and you can't have the two measurements at the same time.
For shrodinger, this applies... and here I start getting obscure. Thing is, we know his position: it's super. Thanks for asking. No, stop laughing, this does make sense, so his position is super and that means that his momentum can be whatever it likes. Whatever he likes, for that matter, making him the ultimate messenger and allowing him to be everywhere and no where because he is forever in superposition in every aspect of his identity. here's an interesting extension of that: he's both male and female. Heh, Hirano, you could have ignored that question. So, help me expand and work on this, if you feel it needs it.
Shrodinger's cat, in moderate detail(bit more than Erin's summary),
So, early-ish twentieth century. Lots of developements in physics, what with General relativity(ten years earlier) and such, and the latest(and probably craziest) sub section of physics is making itself heard. That subsection is called quantum mechanics: the almost totally metaphysical, but mind wrenchingly interesting, study of atoms. It puts forward a freakishly revolutionary statement: atoms know when we're looking at them. "Observer effect" already played a part in science - for instance, measure the temperature of water and you'll be mostly right, but your measuring device will have reduced the outcome by absorbing some heat - But this didn't mean that the water knew it was being measured. So atoms were entirely different.
Don't ask me how. I've read my share of articles and books on this sort of thing, but that counts for very little. What non physicists are told is what the almighty Terry Pratchett calls "lies to children", and devotes a couple of chapters to them in the science of discworld - they are what people are told when they don't stand a chance in hell of understanding the truth. The fact is, you need a degree to understand all of it, not a forum post, not even a book, but a lifetime's worth of study. Oh, you think you can handle it? No, me neither >>
But that was the upshot. atoms know when we're looking at them... think about it. If observation really does change quantum mechanics, then it has done forever - therefore it has been observed forever, therefore... there was something observing it before us. And animals don't count(see below). Yuh. Existance of God, right there... and unless you're anti fideist(in which case I don't like you), you'll find this stupid whether you think s/he exists or not.
Shrodinger thought so too... and so came up with the cat thought experiment to prove it wrong then and there. It goes like this: put a cat in a box(a special box, with what is called chinese walls: nothing, no wave, no particle, no neutrino, can get past it) with a decaying atom that is having its decay measured by a meter, which is connected to a cannister of poisonous gas. rig it so that the cannister releases the gas when the atom decays.
Wait an hour, and the atom will do whatever it likes; and here is where the observation comes in. the decay rate of an atom is predictable, but the predictions are by no means ineffable, and according to quantum mechanics it is also influenced by(and what with the chinese walls, dependant on) observation. Note that the cat can't observe it seeing as it doesn't have neutrino microscopes on its eyelids. So... the atom is both decayed and not decayed, thus the cat is both dead and alive.
...wtf? you can't be both dead and alive... unless you're undead. being in two mutually exclusive states is called a "superposition", and you stay there until you're observed - but this is theoretical, whereas shrodinger's cat means the phrase is actually applied. Coming back to that in a minute... this proves, says shrodinger, that quantum mechanicers had spent too much time indoors. Their theories may make sense with maths and experiments so small it costs millions just to get the test samples(gold atoms - large and unconductive), but are worth diddly squat when applied to macro(bigger) principles. That was shrodinger's cat.
So he's both dead and alive - that's new[/sarcasm]. So I surmise that shrodinger is in a physical superposition on that issue, rather than being simply "undead"... and he can maintain that superposition, even if he is observed, like when alucard shot him - there were people present, and they were observing the hell out of him, but he was still both dead and alive. I think this is a parody on the part of kouta hirano, saying that no, atoms don't give a shit about who's observing them and that branch of physics is so stupid that it belongs in fiction.
But he's also said to be both "everywhere and no where". This relates to something very different, and about as interesting: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This was put forward no more than two years after shrodinger's cat. It's to do with the margin of error in experiments, but has larger implications. Heisenberg's thought experiment went like this:
So you're investingating this particle, and you want to know its position, let's call that X, and its momentum, that's P. Measure X with a microscope of whatever sort is required, and then its momentum by colliding it. then do it again in the same way, in the same environment... should get the same result, right? nope, because by using the microscope you've shot more photons than it likes at it and changed its momentum, and by colliding it with something else you've changed its position.
OK, so micorscopes and other particles aren't all they're cracked up to be - use something else. Use waves: an ultrasound like process for position, and emit and collect waves at either end of its pathway to measure its momentum. Now do that again with the same stuff in the same environment. Same results? didn't think so. waves'll have a minimal effect on it too, why didn't I think of that?
Thus: no measuring device in this world or the next is totally reliable. Heisenberg, though, says that even if you had an infinitely accurate, infinitely passive measuring device you'd still change the particle, in opposition to shrodinger. Now, this was the exact problem that he put forward - the position and momentum of a particle being measured, and you can't have the two measurements at the same time.
For shrodinger, this applies... and here I start getting obscure. Thing is, we know his position: it's super. Thanks for asking. No, stop laughing, this does make sense, so his position is super and that means that his momentum can be whatever it likes. Whatever he likes, for that matter, making him the ultimate messenger and allowing him to be everywhere and no where because he is forever in superposition in every aspect of his identity. here's an interesting extension of that: he's both male and female. Heh, Hirano, you could have ignored that question. So, help me expand and work on this, if you feel it needs it.
