h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Schrodinger, Superposition, Entanglement and other Strange Things - A1021942
Author: Atlantic_Cable - U196159

Is this entry clear or have I been staring at it too long?

Fresh viewpoints welcomed.

my main problem with this at the moment is the blatant errors in the section on the orbits of planets which just leap out at you.

for a start, the problems with the possition of mercury are observational errors due to relativity and gravitic bending (as has been pointed out in the peer review thread), not due to quantum theory.

then you claim that newtons laws of motion are deterministic, but the three body problem proved many years ago (before either relativity or quantum theory) that they were actually chaotic, and thus suffered from sensitivity to initial conditions.

also, you say that newton is incompatable with quantum theory, but you are wrong.

newtons laws are a special case in both quantum theory and relativity, and thus are not incompatable with either. however there are problems getting relativity and quantum theory to work together as both the extensions were done independantly, and incompatably.

however both relativity and quantum theory have been proved true (within the limits of current experimental error), so there will have to be a reformulation which includes both of them (and thus newton as well) as special cases.

the orbits of jupiters moons were showing problems many years before einstein, and finite light speed explained what the problem was.

as to schroedingers experiment showing that they are incompatable for ever, what rot. both are true, and according to the knowledge representation hypothosis, they must be reconsilable (although it doesn't have to be easy).

I will get back to the rest of the article later.

I do not remember saying that schroedingers experiment showing that newton and quantum mechanics they are incompatable for ever.

Also they are currently incompatible as no-one has managed to create a quantum theory of gravity. There are discrepancies between the quantum predictions and Newton's.

However for some of the other things you mentioned, it may be time to spank the girlfiend (she's a physicist).

I've been reading that orbit of planets part, and it seem superfluous to the article.

Should I just dump it?

I don't think you should remove the section on the planets, as some of it seems relevant.

I seem to be wrong about reading that incompatability into the article, as it isn't there. oops

as to the incompatabilities between newton and quantum mechanics, I am not aware of any, so please mention some.

as I understand it, quantum theory is a specialisation from newton which ecxtends the existing newtonian equations to cover very small items, with the significant terms for small items approximating to zero for asteroid sized bodies and above. this then can be simplified to give newtons equations.

also, I understand relativity to have done the same trick, but to deal with things that are either very massive, or very fast. again, I understand the significant extensions to approximate to zero for bodies smaller than a certain size, and slower than a certain speed, which can then be simplifed to give newtons equations as a special case.

the problem seems to be that both of these extensions make incompatable assumptions about extra variables which don't have a significan effect at the scales where newton applies, and it is this difficulty in reconciling the two theories which means we don't have a theory of quantum gravity.

I would be interested to hear if your girlfriend agrees with the above statements or not.

I thought the desciption of Schrodingers Cat thought experiment was nice and clear, and the implications bit was good

You have enough here for more than one article - you could split it up. I don't really see how the monty hall problem or the motion of the planets is relevant to Schrodingers Cat. The bits you have about Schrodigers Cat will make a nice article on their own - short clear articles that stick to the topic are good. Just enititle it 'Schrodinger's Cat' as well

There is also already an edited article on the Wave Particle duality which is what is demonstrated by Young's double slit experiment.

There is more than one entry on Heisenberg's uncertaintity principle, the best being one that has been recommended. you should link to that one instead

Done that. Thanks for the input, I was really stuck on that entry.

much better.

I hope you kept a copy of your original text before you cut it down into just being about the cat, as there was enough for a couple more aticles in there.

well done.

just strolling by, not really adding any relevant comment at this stage...



... but is always annoyed me that very few people try and see the whole thing from the 's point of view : by turning it into an observer (which it is), the whole paradox vanishes away "in a puff of logic", as it is able to tell what is happening in the box, being there, right ?
(that is, before it dies of asphyxia)

Connie L.