On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:18:46 -0800, M Purcell wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:51 am, Kevin <barry196...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> So there is the 2-D version of Schrodinger's Cat and a 3-D version, >> neither of which I control. So the 2-D version is interesting... >> curious... and relatively pain free... Does the 2-D version of >> Schrodinger's Cat 'fold' because it is 2-D? Fine with me if it works in >> my favor (yawn)... So the first rule of folding must be that it is >> impossible to look directly into the eye of the Cyclops. But wait!! The >> 2-D version of Schrodinger's Cat is just a bait or hook to make me feel >> the same way about the 3-D version of Schrodinger's Cat... Yeah, well, >> the 3-D version of Schrodinger's Cat seems contrived and maybe even >> cartoonish... Maybe you should ask the alcoholic Santa with post >> traumatic stress what he thinks about the 3-D version... but only after >> he is done spraying the tall grass with machine gun fire. > > Here, kitty, kitty. > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bringing-schrodingers- quantum-cat-to-life
I don't particularly like Scientific American because it is too political and deceptive.
Take the first quote of the article attributed to Schrodinger - it is out of context. The context is that Heisenberg had been hammering Schrodinger to admit that his matrix formulation of QM was the same as Schrodinger's differential equation approach, and Schrodinger was sick of hearing it.
Then the article started to beat around the bush, and I don't have time to waste on articles that try to be cute that way. That's why real science articles generally have an abstract.