And there he lies in his closed casket hoping someone will get the joke in time. Suddenly, a shovel of dirt hitting the casket wakes him up from his stupor. No cries were loud enough, rest in peace Scrhrodie 😢
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
533 points (98.9% liked)
memes
19000 readers
2310 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
His cat also looking.
Was he put into the casket alive with a poison triggered by a random event? If so, love that conviction.
Fun fact!
Schrodinger originally put forth his "cat in a box" thought experiment to make fun of what he thought was a ridiculous model of reality (the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics).
Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-live cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics, thus employing reductio ad absurdum.
The fact that the people he was trying to criticize latched onto his analogy and started enthusiastically using it for demonstrative purposes annoyed the shit out of him.
Not-so-fun bonus fact: Schrodinger was also a grooming pedophile rapist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger#Sexual_abuse_allegations
My understanding of quantum physics collapses when observed. I feel like I don't get some of the fundamental ideas. Like I think I understand that the wave function is a superposition of several eigenstates of a particle. Just probabilities until observed. What I don't get is the apparent requirement for the observation to influence the observed state (Heisenberg?) and thus the need for information to travel, maybe even faster than light. I fully see Einstein et.al.'s problems with that. Except that it's not possible to transmit real information superluminal. But still entangled particles need to communicate the observed state. That part I don't understand at all. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen's idea of particles determining the state upon entanglement through some unknown local variables makes so much more sense. But then Bell somehow proved that this could not be, because for some reason the Copenhagen interpretation yields around 25% disagreement in some experiment and local variables 33% and Bell always measured 25%. I don't even understand why the disagreement rate would be different.
In an Irish Times article from Dec 11 2021, Joe Humphreys brought the personal life of one of the most famous names in quantum physics into the spotlight: allegations surfaced suggesting Erwin Schrödinger had been a paedophile. Moreover, the article summarises Schrödinger’s own journal entries as having justified his “predilection for teenage girls on the grounds that their innocence was the ideal match for his natural genius”.
Trinity College Dublin – where Schrödinger had been based in the 1940s and 50s – responded the following April by renaming a lecture theatre which, until that point, had been named in his honour.
their innocence was the ideal match for his natural genius
That makes... no sense. Except to nonces I suppose
The German Experiment That Placed Foster Children with Pedophiles
Quite literally the public policy of the West German state government straight into the 1980s.
Any link available to the article without the paywall?
I'm not a subscriber and I can see it just fine. Try toggling "Reader View" in your browser.