I’ve said it before: I’ve never seen a Schroedinger’s Cat comic I didn’t like.

Cidu Bill on Dec 26th 2013

Or a clowns-coming-out-of-a-car gag. Seriously.

If somebody came up with a comic where twenty clowns in a tiny car are either alive or dead, I’d probably get it tattooed to my chest.

dt131225.gif

Filed in Dilbert, LO, Schroedinger's Cat, Scott Adams, comic strips, comics, humor | 19 responses so far

19 Responses to “I’ve said it before: I’ve never seen a Schroedinger’s Cat comic I didn’t like.”

  1. The Bad Seed Dec 26th 2013 at 12:20 pm 1

    Now I know how I’ll spend the next 7 days of my Christmas vacation. ;)

  2. Paperboy Dec 26th 2013 at 02:39 pm 2

    Hate to get off comic topics, but isn’t Schrodinger’s Cat supposed to disprove the idea that something can be in two states at once?

  3. Some Old Guy Dec 26th 2013 at 03:06 pm 3

    Yes, but Dogbert appears to be attempting to refute that view. I would have put this one in the ewww queue.

  4. Ian Osmond Dec 26th 2013 at 04:36 pm 4

    Paperboy — no, it’s supposed to prove that the idea that something can be in two states at once is ridiculous.

    Schrodinger THOUGHT that he was disproving the idea, but all that he proved is that it’s a ridiculous idea. But as people learned more physics, we learned that, in fact, there are LOTS of things that are ridiculous but are nonetheless true.

  5. Rick Dec 26th 2013 at 07:28 pm 5

    I couldn’t resist. I wanted to see if you’d tattoo this on your chest or other body part.
    Rick

    http://www.halfbakedcomics.com/just-for-fun.php

  6. Bob in Nashville Dec 26th 2013 at 09:00 pm 6

    How long ago was Schrodinger’s thought experiment? What is the life expectancy of a cat?

    Considering those two points, it’s safe to say that Schrodinger’s cat is definitely dead at present whether it survived the experiment or not. ;-)

  7. Elyrest Dec 26th 2013 at 09:06 pm 7

    Bob in Nashville - Since it’s a thought experiment just thinking about Schrodinger’s cat brings it to life. Then kills it. Repeat.

  8. Mark in Boston Dec 26th 2013 at 11:03 pm 8

    The Copenhagen Interpretation doesn’t claim to be exactly how reality is. It only describes a model that is consistent with what we can observe.
    It’s interesting: naively, you would think that a model that claims to describe reality exactly as it is would also make the most accurate predictions, and one that made no claims about ultimate reality would not make accurate predictions at all.
    And yet, the models that make the strongest claim to describing real reality are mystical religious dogmas, and they are poor at prediction because God acts in mysterious ways that defy prediction. And on the other hand, quantum mechanics offers a model that says some things HAVE no objective reality until someone looks at them, whatever that means, and yet it makes many predictions that have been tested and found true time and time again. In the first case something’s really there but you aren’t allowed to know what it’s doing; in the second, something’s not really there but here is what it is doing.

  9. billybob Dec 27th 2013 at 04:06 am 9

    every time you do a “thought experiment,” a kitten dies.

    Please, think of the kittens.

  10. DemetriosX Dec 27th 2013 at 08:01 am 10

    The problem with Schrödinger’s Gedankenexperiment as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation is that ignores the fact that the cat itself is an observer.

  11. Louis R Dec 27th 2013 at 08:24 am 11

    All you can say is that the cat MIGHT be an observer. Obviously a dead cat can’t observe anything.
    Still, you can tell nothing about the system until YOU open the box.

    As for Bob in Nashville(5)’s argument, the description of Schroedenger’s Cat specifically states that at a specific time ‘t’ the cat would be both alive and dead. Not forever, just at that time. Further into the future you might be able to make a more specific prediction, but at that moment the only way to tell is to look.

  12. Winter Wallaby Dec 28th 2013 at 12:16 am 12

    There’s no evidence that the process of “observation” in quantum mechanics has anything to be with the colloquial definition of an “observer” meaning a conscious person or cat that’s observing and thinking about things.

  13. Dave in Boston Dec 28th 2013 at 01:01 am 13

    Correspondingly, there’s a “theory” of sorts that a being is conscious if and only if it can be a quantum observer. This doesn’t fit the available data too well, though.

  14. Brent Dec 28th 2013 at 01:43 am 14

    Whether the cat is an observer or not doesn’t really matter. The line between the quantuum and the macroscopic that the experiment questions is crossed well before that point. You could do the same thought experiment without the cat (so there’s no conscious actor to complicate things) and talk about the the superposition of the flask as broken or not.

  15. Elyrest Dec 28th 2013 at 12:03 pm 15

    Schrodinger’s Flask? Nah, just not the same.

  16. Brent Dec 28th 2013 at 03:59 pm 16

    Well, yeah, the cat was really added for shock value. Really all you need is the radioactive source and a geiger counter that can show when it’s been tripped. But that doesn’t even have the fun of breaking glassware.

  17. Joseph K. Dec 28th 2013 at 11:15 pm 17

    Dogbert doesn’t like uncertainty. He eliminated the airholes. Because he is a control freak.

  18. feuerstein Jan 13th 2014 at 10:47 pm 18

    Bill, regarding Rick’s drawing, you’ll post a photo of your new tattoo, right?

    Thanks, Rick!

  19. Rick Jan 15th 2014 at 05:40 pm 19

    I noticed that the word “probably” was added to the original post.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply