Talk:Schrödinger's Cat

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

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)

How's everything looking now? ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 15:02, 31 July 2007 (EDT)


  • If people had not acted on their own, without contacting a Sysop, one would have known this article was created by known parodists, and all of the people above in the first part of talk are banned users. So, not exactly amazing you found it copied, and bogus in parts, eh? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:26, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
It appears that this edit was the addition of most of the material, and this edit removed the material that was copied (and a commentary on it on a talk page) - later blocked as a sock, and this edit was a revert of the removed material back to the one that included the copied material which remained rather unchanged until current. Thus, the sequence of events was:
  1. Parody article written/coppied
  2. Individual removed copied material
  3. Individual notified sysop of parody and copy
  4. Sysop reverted to parody and copy
  5. Time passed
  6. Copied material removed again.
--Rutm 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, that is typical clean sock / dirty sock procedure. There was also another article, possibly created to remedy the bogus info, I am not expert enough on the topic to make that determination. What I do know is, editors deciding on their own to redirect, rather than just ask an article to be moved, removes the entire edit history. So we have the edit history here, but not the one from the article where the re-direct was added by an editor. Nothing that cannot be undone, however. :D --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
TK, the second article was one that I wrote several weeks ago. I totally forgot to replace the "oe" with "o" in "Schrodinger" when I searched for the existence of the article, so went ahead and wrote a new article. Then, yesterday, Bayes found my mistake, and asked if I could help fix up the articles. Seeing as the Schrodinger with the accent marking was the correct page, I decided to re-write this article here using some of my other article (the "oe" page that redirects here) and redirect that old article here, because it's also considered a correct spelling. I was the only editor of the "schroedinger's cat" article, and I assure you, it was a clean page :) ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 10:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, yes...I can see even deleted items, eh? I am just saying, why the re-direct? Isn't it a simple matter to ask any Admin to delete the other?

(cur) (last) 06:56, 31 July 2007 Stryker (Talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
(cur) (last) 11:06, 13 July 2007 Stryker (Talk | contribs | block) (it's a start, i suppose)

--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 11:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood that. I saw your comment on Bayes' talk page, but i'll just repeat how "schroedinger" is an acceptable transliteration. I assumed that for a simple matter of content I was directly responsible for, I would take the initiative to redirect it without bothering a sysop, but if you all prefer having adminstrators do that, then that's cool, i'll just ask you all in the future. While we're on the topic of redirects though, could you please reverse the direction of the redirect between Cor Anglais and English Horn? Cor Anglais should redirect to English Horn, because English Horn is the more common name. It's currently backwards. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 12:17, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
  • No, not always, but there isn't any point in having a redirect is there? Unless you think the other spelling is where people will search first, and in that case, the article is better to be moved there, then kept here....gets confusing, I know! Now should the re-direct stay, or should the old article be deleted? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I think the re-direct should stay; it's how I was taught to spell Schroedinger's, and I think there are many people that would search for the "oe" spelling. I know it jumbles up the webspace a little bit, but I really do think that people will search for "schroedinger's cat" before they search for "schrodinger's cat," but you will definitely have people that spell it both ways. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 11:19, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Footnotes

I added another footnote. This should cover everything that needs to be sourced; the article introduction and introduction to Explanations are synthesized from the two references cited. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 12:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools