Bakara-chanI wonder if the result will change depending on whether or not roulette is observed.
RurekoAlso occult things ...
Bakara-chanNo, I'm seriously thinking that this is a possibility.
It's not Schrodinger's cat, it's "Roulette of Bakara (name)"!
What is Schrodinger's cat?
Schrodinger's cat(Schrödinger's cat and Schrodinger's catBritish: Schrödinger's cat) was an Austrian physicist in 1935.Erwin SchrodingerAnnounced by the physical realityQuantum mechanicsUsed to explain that the description is incompleteThought experiment..Schradinger, in a paper supplementing the EPR paper, describes the state of the microscopic system as the principle of state discrimination (the states of the macroscopic system that can be distinguished by macroscopic observation are observed if they are described as superposition unless observed. This thought experiment was used as a concrete example showing that it does not satisfy the principle that it can be distinguished regardless of the presence or absence of.[1].
Originally used to criticize quantum mechanics, it was rather used as an example to explain the peculiarities of the quantum world, and later.Everett's multi-world interpretationWas one of the triggers for the birth of.There are often examples of using Schrodinger's cat to explain some interpretations and theories of quantum theory.[Source required]
Bakara-chanSchrodinger's cat is simply said, "Whether the cat in the box is alive or dead is neither alive nor dead unless the box is opened and observed. It can be said that it is alive or dead. I can say ".
To put it simply, the video of the double-slit experiment in ↑ is "The result is different if you are watching (observing) and not watching (not observing). Why? Just watching (act of observing) Will the result change? I don't know this anymore. "
RurekoIf you are interested in the details, please check it out.
Bakara-chanSo what I mean is, "I can say that the roulette I'm playing is hit (hit) or not hit (miss)."
That is not to say, "If you are watching (observing) the moment when the result of roulette is decided (the moment when the ball enters) and not seeing (not observing), the result will change (for unknown reasons)." That's what it was.
Since the roulette result itself is finally observed, it is possible to know whether the result is correct or not, but it is decided at that moment whether it is correct or not, so it does not matter whether it is seen or not. I wonder.
Rureko(... I don't know this anymore)
Bakara-chanIt's common to play roulette and hit it!I couldn't hit it when I was looking at it, and when I was watching it on Youtube, I was hit by a pompon.
So I don't know the reason, but I wonder if the winning percentage of roulette will increase if you don't see (observe).
RurekoWell, I've heard in a coin toss experiment that it's easier to think about it, but isn't that the opposite?Isn't it better to do it while thinking that it will hit?
Bakara-chanI don't know that, but basic gambling and probability go wrong, right? (Meaning that you are biased toward the one you do not want)
Isn't that coin toss experiment not applicable to the probability of gambling?
I think it's a little different from this "results change depending on whether you observe or not".
I think it's different if you think about seeing (observing).
Rurekosurely.I wonder if there is no choice but to actually verify it.
Bakara-chanright!That's why I'm already doing it now.
Will the winning percentage change if you keep betting on the same two points that are hot 50 times in a row and observe them in auto play with live roulette?I'm doing something endless.
Originally, I can't talk about probabilistic stories about 50 times, but I don't really care about that because I'll win or lose.No matter what number you bet on, it has nothing to do with probability theory.
It doesn't make a lot of sense just to bet on HOT numbers as a relief.
RurekoWell, please do your best.
Bakara-chanI'll report if the results come out.
If you don't observe and the results of winning and losing are different, it will be a big discovery that cannot be scientifically proved.
It's not a normal idea.There is no new discovery or development unless the idea is broken.
You have to be non-scientific.
SaitoYou can say that you won't lose unless you observe it.
end!
Comment