Schrödingers cat is alive...

[MiM]

...or maybe dead, but not both at the same time. If this theory is right.

The Astounding Link Between the P≠NP Problem and the Quantum Nature of Universe

With some straightforward logic, one theorist has shown that macroscopic quantum objects cannot exist if P≠NP, which suddenly explains one of the greatest mysteries in physics

...continues

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/7ef5eea6fd7a

It is all because a cat is too complex to have its wave function calculated... I wonder if this applies to dogs too

[pErvinalia]

Go home, quantum physics, you're drunk!

[Hermit]

In other words, macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature. Or as Bolotin puts it: “For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects.”

WTF?

"For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects." =/= "Macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature."

[PsychoSerenity]

In other words, macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature. Or as Bolotin puts it: “For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects.”

WTF?

"For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects." =/= "Macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature."

Well it may be if the nature of the universe and the difference between quantum and classical is dependant on computational complexity. Certainly no clear evidence for it, but at least this could give some testable predictions. Having ideas to test is where science must start.

[Hermit]

In other words, macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature. Or as Bolotin puts it: “For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects.”

WTF?

"For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects." =/= "Macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature."

Well it may be if the nature of the universe and the difference between quantum and classical is dependant on computational complexity. Certainly no clear evidence for it, but at least this could give some testable predictions. Having ideas to test is where science must start.

Lol. How would you go about testing that hypothesis?

[mistermack]

In other words, macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature. Or as Bolotin puts it: “For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects.”

WTF?

"For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects." =/= "Macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature."

Well it may be if the nature of the universe and the difference between quantum and classical is dependant on computational complexity. Certainly no clear evidence for it, but at least this could give some testable predictions. Having ideas to test is where science must start.

Lol. How would you go about testing that hypothesis?

I would check the box for cat shit.

[mistermack]

I'm happy to admit I don't understand Schrödinger, I've never given him any thought.

But I think it's cruel using a cat. He could have used a clock.

Say you design a clock that gets stopped when the container is shattered when the radioactive decay is detected.
Much more humane than a cat, and the clock can tell you when it actually stopped.

[PsychoSerenity]

In other words, macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature. Or as Bolotin puts it: “For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects.”

WTF?

"For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects." =/= "Macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature."

Well it may be if the nature of the universe and the difference between quantum and classical is dependant on computational complexity. Certainly no clear evidence for it, but at least this could give some testable predictions. Having ideas to test is where science must start.

Lol. How would you go about testing that hypothesis?

At the end of the article it suggests several situations which would have to be explained by it or where it could provide specific limits of what we would expect to see. If an object larger than what this guy says can be calculated can be created in a quantum state, then he's wrong.

[Hermit]

In other words, macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature. Or as Bolotin puts it: “For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects.”

WTF?

"For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects." =/= "Macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature."

Well it may be if the nature of the universe and the difference between quantum and classical is dependant on computational complexity. Certainly no clear evidence for it, but at least this could give some testable predictions. Having ideas to test is where science must start.

Lol. How would you go about testing that hypothesis?

At the end of the article it suggests several situations which would have to be explained by it or where it could provide specific limits of what we would expect to see. If an object larger than what this guy says can be calculated can be created in a quantum state, then he's wrong.

The way I see it, you must be able to calculate the quantum state in order to know if it exists as such, so the hypothesis is untestable.

At any rate, Bolotin never claimed that macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature. He merely said that there are limits to the size of objects on which such calculations can be done. The unnamed author of the article quotes Bolotin to that effect twice.