Election day paradox

Obama and Romney are both elected … until the votes are actually counted.
It’s kind’a like Schrödinger’s cat.

[/quantumgeekness]

6 Comments!

  1. Melissa In Texas
    Posted November 6, 2012 at 8:20 pm |

    Like a good conservative….
    I have to work in the morning….
    Please, merciful father… let the* right* win!

  2. mojo
    Posted November 6, 2012 at 8:27 pm |

    Ok, fine. Now explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and the quantum exclusion theory.

    “WANTED – For Quantum Indeterminacy. DEAD OR ALIVE”

  3. DougM (November is heeeeeere!)
    Posted November 6, 2012 at 9:06 pm |

    ^ mojo (2)
    Off’n the top of my head? Mmmm … tough.
    Okay, *snick*

    Heisenberg Uncertainty Polling: can’t measure both current opinions and trends simultaneously.
    (see: push polling)

    Pauli Polling Exclusion Principle: No two electors in the same ballot may #occupy the exact same swing states. That is, each elector in a ballot has a unique set of polling numbers.

    Howzat?
    [/quantumgeekness]

  4. Sigivald
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

    Finally, a graphic that at least implies that the entire point of the Cat thought-experiment was Schrödinger complaining that the Cophenagen model is bollocks, rather than saying that The Cat is both alive and dead!

    I approve.

  5. ZZMike
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 8:03 pm |

    Technically, I suppose you’re right – but: the Electoral College is going to vote Obama in. Heck, I don’t even know how many Electoral Votes he got.

    At least, Rush &c have 4 years of plentiful material. Unless, of course, they declare him to be an Enemyof the People.

  6. mojo
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:08 am |

    Actually, all it’s saying is that you cannot predict when an atom of a radioactive isotope is going to spit out a particle. It’s a statistical thing, and the limits of knowledge. A certain percentage of atoms will, in any given time period, but we can’t tell which precisely.

    Same for Heisenberg, he just points out that the act of observation is an interaction. Basically, “Hey, you just bounced a high-energy photon (or whatever) off of that particle, so now we know where it used to be, but we don’t know where it isanymore. We changed it by looking.”