Jez: I have a hot date tonight.
Belle: Boy or girl?
Jez: Schroedinger. We'll see when we get there...
Belle: Cool cat!
Belle: Boy or girl?
Jez: Schroedinger. We'll see when we get there...
Belle: Cool cat!
by Hector Borges June 19, 2021
The dilemma of flushing the toilet with a closed lid; there is a 50% chance that the turd is still present. The turd is equally alive and dead, until somebody lifts the lid.
by CJV August 27, 2012
A cat which is neither alive nor dead, but rather in a state of stasis, in a box. There is also in the box a geiger counter and a tiny radioactive particle, the counter wired to a vial of hydrochloric acid (that got your attention). After a set amount of time, the particle is 50% likely to decay, setting off a mechanism triggered by the geiger counter which smashes the vial and kills the cat. Supposedly, after that set amount of time, if no one looks in the box, the whole system is in a state of stasis because the cat is 50% likely to be alive and 505 likely to be dead, and is thus neither alive nor dead, but both. At least, until someone opens rhe box. There are all sorts of conundrums associated with this thesis, and it is very controversial.
by Braavosi May 17, 2003
Is a cat in an isolated box that has a 50% chance of getting killed in the next hour due to a quantum event - such as a particle decaying with 50% chance, and which will release a poison that will kill the cat. If the particle does not decay, then cat will remain alive.
Schroedinger/Einstein claimed that after an hour with the box lid closed, the cat must be either dead or alive, each with 50% probability - this is just common sense. Bohr/Heisenberg claimed that with the lid closed, the cat is neither alive nor dead, but 50% alive AND 50% dead at the same time. That is the cat is in 2 mutually exclusive states at the same time!
Bohr's position is the "Principle of Superposition" and is central to quantum physics.
Empirical experments show that Bohr was correct, and Schroedinger wrong - up to a point. If the observer happens to be in the box, he will see what Schroedinger asserts. If the observer is out of the box and cannot see inside the box, then Bohr is right.
So Bohr and Schroedinger were both neither right nor wrong! What irony. The answer is "who is asking". Is the observer privy (entangled) with the cat or not. Note: this is unrelated to the popular concept that "the observer influences the observed". There is no influence by the observer.
Schroedinger/Einstein claimed that after an hour with the box lid closed, the cat must be either dead or alive, each with 50% probability - this is just common sense. Bohr/Heisenberg claimed that with the lid closed, the cat is neither alive nor dead, but 50% alive AND 50% dead at the same time. That is the cat is in 2 mutually exclusive states at the same time!
Bohr's position is the "Principle of Superposition" and is central to quantum physics.
Empirical experments show that Bohr was correct, and Schroedinger wrong - up to a point. If the observer happens to be in the box, he will see what Schroedinger asserts. If the observer is out of the box and cannot see inside the box, then Bohr is right.
So Bohr and Schroedinger were both neither right nor wrong! What irony. The answer is "who is asking". Is the observer privy (entangled) with the cat or not. Note: this is unrelated to the popular concept that "the observer influences the observed". There is no influence by the observer.
by Litwitquak December 30, 2008
"Schroedingers silence" is a situation where on an online chat, the chat partner suddenly becomes silent, as if ignoring. But in fact, it is quite impossible to know if the partner is the latter, or simply away from the keyboard.
These situations can only be one or the other, as soon as the Schroedingers silence is opened, E.G. having a second partner check if he will get an answer when chatting with the first partner: If no answer is given back, the Schroedingers silence has been open, and one can conclude that the partner is indeed AFK. However if the partner do answer, the Schroedingers silence has been opened aswell, and one can now conclude that the partner is ignoring.
These situations can only be one or the other, as soon as the Schroedingers silence is opened, E.G. having a second partner check if he will get an answer when chatting with the first partner: If no answer is given back, the Schroedingers silence has been open, and one can conclude that the partner is indeed AFK. However if the partner do answer, the Schroedingers silence has been opened aswell, and one can now conclude that the partner is ignoring.
chat 1
Self: so hey how is it going?
Partner 1: Yeah, its going good
Self: Got any new games lately
*Partner 1 does not answer for a period of time*
Self: Hey, did you get any or what?
*Still no answer*
chat 2
Self: Hey i think Partner 1 is in a Schroedingers silence
Partner 2: Yeah il check in.
Self: Thanks
chat 3
Partner 2: Hey Partner 1, i heard you got a new dog
*Partner 1 does not answer for a period of time*
chat 2
Partner 2: The Schroedingers silence has been opened, Partner 1 is AFK.
Self: Thanks bud.
Self: so hey how is it going?
Partner 1: Yeah, its going good
Self: Got any new games lately
*Partner 1 does not answer for a period of time*
Self: Hey, did you get any or what?
*Still no answer*
chat 2
Self: Hey i think Partner 1 is in a Schroedingers silence
Partner 2: Yeah il check in.
Self: Thanks
chat 3
Partner 2: Hey Partner 1, i heard you got a new dog
*Partner 1 does not answer for a period of time*
chat 2
Partner 2: The Schroedingers silence has been opened, Partner 1 is AFK.
Self: Thanks bud.
by Dinkledinker May 16, 2013
A regular sweet guy walking in the street. However, a woman does not know that he's a regular sweet guy since he's a stranger, so it's best to assume he's out to rape you.
A woman walking alone in the streets cannot determine whether an approaching man is an intending rapist or not until the encounter has reached its conclusion, so it logically follows that every man is both a rapist and not a rapist at the same time.
A woman walking alone in the streets cannot determine whether an approaching man is an intending rapist or not until the encounter has reached its conclusion, so it logically follows that every man is both a rapist and not a rapist at the same time.
Rape center, hello, it's about a Schroedinger's rapist. He both has both raped me and not raped me! And he's also a very sweet guy and not a very sweet guy.
by Esa4 September 5, 2019
Your woman could dress nicely, act feminine, and be pleasant to be around. She could also have had a gangbang with the football team one month ago. These two things don’t contradict each other or result in anomalies. It is possible for both events to exist at the same time, thereby proving Schroedinger’s Slut theory.
by Yung poon November 26, 2017