lel. . Home ' All manna; I Pets F Caht ' Toothpast Question N" Your' Open Question Shaw we . I put my cat an a sealed boa, is it still aha? mung: Illa! asthma:
x
Click to expand

lel

Home ' All manna; I Pets F Caht ' Toothpast Question
N" Your' Open Question Shaw we .
I put my cat an a sealed boa, is it still aha?
mung: Illa! asthma: the hamma that will bmac he Haul: of man as man it datum
at Mom of material decay.
is my an aims at and?
agn- 6 days lama answer.
Answers (N Shaw: AI. I. rowers
yum busted- Wand your a sick . ..... ..i hope they ) all your may
lifing.
ota.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+452
Views: 40236
Favorited: 46
Submitted: 08/28/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to disguised submit to reddit

Comments(205):

[ 205 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#14 - heafi (08/28/2013) [-]
#67 to #14 - anon (08/29/2013) [-]
Interesting Fact: A cat with orange fur and black stripes is naturally sterile, and can never have kittens.

Explains why Garfield is a dick!
#107 to #67 - hopskotch (08/29/2013) [-]
THEN HOW DO TIGERS REPRODUCE HMMMM?
#151 to #107 - anon (08/29/2013) [-]
TOP LEL.JPEG tfw can't do anything as a anon
#118 to #14 - AquariusCyclone (08/29/2013) [-]
But did Schrodinger indeed suck it?
User avatar #222 to #14 - ponchosdm (08/29/2013) [-]
i really didnt saw the yahoo profile name, till i saw your pic
#4 - randallgraves (08/28/2013) [-]
Its alive. It was put ON the sealed box not IN it.
User avatar #131 to #4 - bladebites (08/29/2013) [-]
That's the joke. I don't understand why this is getting so many thumbs.
User avatar #136 to #131 - witislimited ONLINE (08/29/2013) [-]
I doubt that's the joke, it's probably a to-the-side psychological/mental experiment.
#138 to #131 - anon (08/29/2013) [-]
because no one read on. their minds read it as in a sealed box
User avatar #188 to #4 - bagguhsleep (08/29/2013) [-]
He never said the flask of hydrocyanic acid and the rest of the equipment was in the box either.
#5 - thechosentroll (08/28/2013) [-]
See, this is why you don't reference scientific stuff. Your average person's too dumb to get the joke. It gets even worse when you realise that half the people on the planet are even dumber than said average person.
#16 to #5 - anon (08/28/2013) [-]
I don't think the road to intelligence is paved with obscure scientific experiments that most people who are aware of still don't fully understand.
User avatar #17 to #16 - thechosentroll (08/28/2013) [-]
Well, I learned about it by sleeping through half a documentary on National Geographic, so I doubt it's all that hard to learn.
#34 to #5 - anon (08/28/2013) [-]
Do you have source to support your statement ("half of the people in the planet are even dumber than said average person")
+1
#48 to #34 - infernis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #73 to #34 - alanflindt (08/29/2013) [-]
Well you're clearly a ******* idiot so that must count for something.
#65 to #5 - anon (08/29/2013) [-]
That is the exact reason why I don't believe in democracy.
0
#154 to #5 - wedontneedeyes **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #155 to #5 - bighairyfart (08/29/2013) [-]
It makes me sad to think the the "average" person & the "healthy" person(or, in this case, basic intelligence) are two different things.
User avatar #49 to #5 - IamSofaKingdom (08/28/2013) [-]
Or, you spend so much time researching basic notions of science and philosophy that you fail to learn English and say "on the box" twice.
#80 - Hidnight (08/29/2013) [-]
For those who don't fully understand Schrodinger's Cat and Quantum Mechanics. I can make this read simpler if anyone really wants it to be. The cat is a metaphor FYI.

Schrodinger's Cat describes duality of probability. Every single possibility is occurring to the cat until you open the box. Thus dead and alive at the same time. But Schrodinger's Idea is ONE OF MANY INTERPRETATIONS of Quantum Mechanics, where in an undeterministic world, which is the sub atomic world, every the electron is everywhere in the electron cloud until you look closer. Another interpretation is the Multi-World Hypothesis, where when ever there is possibility or choice involved in an event, the universe splits into as many universes it needs to so every possibility occurs. The difference between the two is that in M.W.H. there is no duality of probability, you are just in the universe where the cat is dead or the one where you get tails on a coin and another you gets the opposite. Interestingly enough, Bioshock Infinite used M.W.H. in their game, which in my opinion makes it a more fantastic game. The math in Quantum mechanics is simple, understanding what it means is controversial.
#91 to #80 - shishiko **User deleted account** (08/29/2013) [-]
*cough cough* this was in the first game
#60 - mrwillbobs (08/28/2013) [-]
Seriously? His username was literally what the theory was named after
User avatar #66 to #60 - generaljosh ONLINE (08/29/2013) [-]
It's not a goddamn theory, it's a sensationalist criticism.
#21 - lefish (08/28/2013) [-]
User avatar #157 - ManInKilt (08/29/2013) [-]
schroedinger's cat?
#161 to #157 - anon (08/29/2013) [-]
yeah that's what it's called. You don't know if it's alive or dead until you open the box.
User avatar #167 to #161 - Harmoria (08/29/2013) [-]
Actually it argues for quite the opposite
User avatar #201 to #199 - Harmoria (08/29/2013) [-]
These comments give me tumors.
#121 - iamphoenix (08/29/2013) [-]
The answer is that it's dead. Macro particles (e.g., cats) don't exist in super positions.
User avatar #89 - giveupnow (08/29/2013) [-]
The cat would be alive since it was put ON the box not in. Jesus **** people are retarded.

inb4 that was the joke and the username of the account is Schrödinger.
#94 - arcticassassin (08/29/2013) [-]
How do they not get the joke
How do they not get the joke
User avatar #141 to #94 - zorororonoa (08/29/2013) [-]
I learned about it only last year
#150 to #94 - forszhen (08/29/2013) [-]
The typo threw me off for a second. Maybe that's it?
User avatar #95 to #94 - mrwillje (08/29/2013) [-]
I don't think it's a crime not knowing about Schrodinger's cat
User avatar #96 to #95 - arcticassassin (08/29/2013) [-]
But still I expected at least one of them to get it
User avatar #99 to #96 - mrwillje (08/29/2013) [-]
In the 'cat' section of Yahoo answers? Something tells me not. All the posts in there are probably from people saying "My cat ate X should I take it to the vet?"
#101 to #99 - arcticassassin (08/29/2013) [-]
You have a valid point.
You have a valid point.
#103 - sonicsyndicate ONLINE (08/29/2013) [-]
lol
User avatar #127 to #103 - zzforrest (08/29/2013) [-]
It looks like it's humping the dead cat.
User avatar #29 - decieverofthegods **User deleted account** (08/28/2013) [-]
The cat is alive and dead.
#30 to #29 - anon (08/28/2013) [-]
Well done.
#32 to #29 - lurg (08/28/2013) [-]
...
...
#38 to #32 - stdhen (08/28/2013) [-]
It's Schodinger's cat
It's Schodinger's cat
User avatar #39 to #38 - lurg (08/28/2013) [-]
yes he over simplified the joke and made it not funny
#24 - drewlefacetwo (08/28/2013) [-]
the best part is he said he put it ON the box, not IN it
User avatar #202 - bluelightbebop (08/29/2013) [-]
Yes, it's alive.

Also, it's dead.
#207 to #202 - anon (08/29/2013) [-]
Unless it's a zombie!
User avatar #225 to #207 - bbbegley (08/29/2013) [-]
Or a typo.
User avatar #209 to #202 - littlehozz (08/29/2013) [-]
no this isnt a Schrodinger's cat incident. he put it on not in therefore not schrodinger's so much as word play
User avatar #59 - mcrut (08/28/2013) [-]
Good thing he was ON the box.
#164 - feelythefeel (08/29/2013) [-]
MFW Schrodinger's cat was meant to argue against the Copenhagen interpretation, and now everyone thinks it's the greatest argument for it because most people don't know **** .
#168 to #164 - bestmofoevr (08/29/2013) [-]
no it wasn`t Schrodinger`s cat was made to support Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle
User avatar #170 to #168 - feelythefeel (08/29/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

"It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, resulting in a contradiction with common sense."
#185 to #170 - bestmofoevr (08/29/2013) [-]
never mind we are both right``The routine explanation of this effect was, at that time, provided by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.[citation needed] Physical quantities come in pairs which are called conjugate quantities. Examples of such conjugate pairs are position and momentum of a particle and components of spin measured around different axes. When one quantity was measured, and became determined, the conjugated quantity became indeterminate. Heisenberg explained this as a disturbance caused by measurement.
The EPR paper, written in 1935, was intended to illustrate that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, referred to as A and B, and pointed out that measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance.
User avatar #190 to #185 - feelythefeel (08/29/2013) [-]
What I was saying in the original post was that the theory he was trying to discredit ended up being the one people commonly ascribe to it.
User avatar #176 to #170 - jittersfj (08/29/2013) [-]
I'm not saying one way or the other...but you're basing your argument via wikipedia? Pay attention in school: Wikipedia is not credible.
User avatar #177 to #176 - feelythefeel (08/29/2013) [-]
I consider it the most credible site on the web. In fact, that's what my school taught me. It's never lead me astray.
User avatar #181 to #177 - jittersfj (08/29/2013) [-]
I use it all of the time, but in high school and college I have been instructed that if I use wikipedia as a source I will immediately use points. You can use the credible references cites at the bottom of the page, but not the website itself. That's what I was always told.
User avatar #184 to #181 - feelythefeel (08/29/2013) [-]
So cite the stuff at the bottom of the page. It's not like they're going to commonly change the stuff they're citing on the same page. The only time you need to at all worry is if it says "[citation needed]" near the point in question.
User avatar #189 to #184 - jittersfj (08/29/2013) [-]
I'm just saying whenever you right a report or essay, you often need documented information to support yourself, and to provide extra background information. The stuff on wikipedia could be directly quoted, paraphrased, or the result of a combination of the different sources. If you want to properly support yourself, show the direct evidence, not a secondary source of the information.
User avatar #193 to #189 - feelythefeel (08/29/2013) [-]
The guy above has already withdrawn his statement.
User avatar #37 - alphahacker ONLINE (08/28/2013) [-]
I never got this schrodingers cat thing...can someone explain?
User avatar #85 to #37 - knifeyoass (08/29/2013) [-]
TL;DR the cat can be dead and alive at the same time. you don't know.
User avatar #40 to #37 - umaya (08/28/2013) [-]
Basically its saying that no-one knows whether the cat is alive or dead so it is dead and alive at the same time until someone opens the box and looks. The killing works with some poison that has a trigger, the trigger is a hammer that will only break the poison flask if the geiger counter detects any radiation, which it might or might not, background radiation in most areas now would probably trigger the hammer instantly but at the time he did the experiment he was probably in a lab or an area which radiation was less likely or at least controlled.
User avatar #41 to #40 - alphahacker ONLINE (08/28/2013) [-]
ohh i see


thank you
#62 to #37 - anon (08/29/2013) [-]
The cat is in a box with a bottle of poison, there is a small hammer that could drop at anytime and break the bottle poisoning the cat and he would die, but there is also a chance the hammer does not fall and the cat lives. Due to the box being sealed you don`t know if the cat is alive or dead so in theory he can be classified as both until the box is opened.
#27 - anon (08/28/2013) [-]
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND
This is a thought experiment often called "Schrodinger's cat".
Google it.
User avatar #12 - sirrelevant (08/28/2013) [-]
Look at his name..
User avatar #26 to #12 - LookinHereWhy (08/28/2013) [-]
thatsthejoke.png
[ 205 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)