Difference between revisions of "Talk:Schrödinger's Cat"
m |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::It looks much better, and what you added (the quote from Schroedinger) makes redundant much of the copied material. That paragraph right below the blockquote is the material that appears to be copied; could you remove what the Schroedinger quote already states and rewrite the rest (the part about how the cat relates to quantum law)? Maybe what you already wrote covers everything; like I said, I'm not very familiar with the topic. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 11:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT) | ::It looks much better, and what you added (the quote from Schroedinger) makes redundant much of the copied material. That paragraph right below the blockquote is the material that appears to be copied; could you remove what the Schroedinger quote already states and rewrite the rest (the part about how the cat relates to quantum law)? Maybe what you already wrote covers everything; like I said, I'm not very familiar with the topic. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 11:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Oops, I missed that paragraph! I'll delete it; everything from decoherence to entanglement is already covered after that paragraph. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:20, July 31, 2007
I am not sure that this article actually succeeds in explaining the paradox to someone who does not know what the paradox is in the first place. (The poem is nice, though). I think it's necessary to discuss the nature of QM first, in order that we understand that in QM there is indeterminacy until an observation is made. (An article is needed on the 2 slit experiment?) i.e. it's not just that we don't know, its actually that the system is in all possible states, until the waveform collapes by observation. To anyone who does not know what this entails, it is meaningless, as it is outside normal everyday experience. I have tried to explain this thought expt. to friends, and all they can see is that it appears to be cruel to cats! --CatWatcher 16:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's not quite a "paradox" in the traditional sense of the word. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 09:33, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
I could not agree more. QM is not an everyday thing that people can wrap their heads around, even if their garage door opener does work. Indeterminacy, probability waves, etc are tough for people. We do need an article on the two-slit experiment. Volunteers?--PalMDtalk 09:42, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- Sure, I'll help. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 10:23, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
ThanksPalMDtalk 10:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Possible copyvio
The majority of the text in this article seems like it was copied and pasted from some other source (see here or here). Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself about the thought experiment could rewrite the article using their own words. At the very least we should give proper credit. Jinkas 11:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
- I rewrote the entire article and cited a reference. I have other references, but they're print sources, and I've had edits reverted here because of using print sources. Stryker 11:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
- It looks much better, and what you added (the quote from Schroedinger) makes redundant much of the copied material. That paragraph right below the blockquote is the material that appears to be copied; could you remove what the Schroedinger quote already states and rewrite the rest (the part about how the cat relates to quantum law)? Maybe what you already wrote covers everything; like I said, I'm not very familiar with the topic. Jinkas 11:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
- Oops, I missed that paragraph! I'll delete it; everything from decoherence to entanglement is already covered after that paragraph. Stryker 11:20, 31 July 2007 (EDT)