• pageflight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        From Forbes:

        Quoting directly from Schrödinger’s diaries, Moore revealed that the physicist justified his attraction to girls by considering that, being a genius (which he believed no woman ever could be), he was naturally entitled. “It seems to be the usual thing that men of strong, genuine intellectuality are immensely attracted only by women who, forming the very beginning of the intellectual series, are as nearly connected to the preferred springs of nature as they themselves. Nothing intermediate will do, since no woman will ever approach nearer to genius by intellectual education than some unintellectuals do by birth so to speak.”

        TIL. Ugh.

  • neatchee@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Nasty hobitses did not mention radioactive particle decay or poison vile vial! Cat is just dead dead dead!! Suffocated, starved, sensory deprived cat!

  • Bunitonito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    … It’d be a lot easier to explain this if Schroedinger had a whole pile of boxes with cats in them

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      oh god you just made me write the stupidest nerdiest song about schroedinger in about half a second and the chorus goes “and he’s got boxes and boxes and boxes of cats/ yeah he’s got boxes and boxes and boxes of cats” i feel so ashamed

        • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          YOU HEAR IT TOO

          oh gods. i’m going to ask my wife if it’s coming out my teeth

          edit: she says yes it’s coming out your teeth, you’re singing

  • chaogomu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    20 hours ago

    A box without a lid, no way to check on the cat, and no air holes. That cat is dead. It was always going to die.

    • Saapas@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Going to, but there was no given time frame. So you don’t know if it is dead, yet

      • Chakravanti@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        By the time you ask the question, you are unquestionably sick, sadistic, & cruel because no one lives long enough to be otherwise.

    • Goodeye8@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Are you also dead because you’re guaranteed to die eventually? It’s not an experiment of the eventual outcome but the observation of the outcome. While you’re observing the cat it has to be alive or dead, it can’t be both. But when you stop observing the certainty disappears and the cat is no longer dead or alive but both at the same time.

    • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Alive and death at the same time. It’s more like asking if the coin is heads or tails when the coin is still spinning.

    • Bunitonito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      No, the cat is one or the other. Radioactive half-life is the point at which there is a 50/50 chance that any single isotope had decayed, and we usually work around that in classical systems by using large sample sizes (a pile of isotopes, it’s easy to see that half of it would have decayed). But for one single isotope we aren’t observing (or the cat), we need to look at it in terms of probabilities until we observe it