Schrodinger's cat
Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Schrödinger's cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level -- everything visible to the unaided human eye.
Here's Schrödinger's thought experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of hydrocyanic acid, a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat.
The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, according to quantum law, the cat is both dead and alive, in what is called a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)
We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics. Schrödinger himself is rumored to have said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat.
Join the conversation
79 comments
Although the one(s) setting up the experiment know certain detatils about the cat, I now enter the experiment after it has been set-up. I am told about the basic conditions of the experiment, but I am not told any details about the cat. But before any other consideration, I immediately pull the cat from this ungodly experiment, thus saving its life! Now, I have positively affected the outcome through my consideration of the poor animal's plight.
Through my observations, participation, and 'status' as Co-creator, I can also affect whether the cat is male or female, young or old, black or orange, nice or mean, etc. Those who selected the cat without my observing it, have in their minds these details, but there perceptions are subject to a 'parallel-reality'. I AM aware that my thoughts are potentially very powerful and faster-than-light (it has no mass). Therefore, because of this superluminal aspect of thought, my desires can travel back in time and produce a new reality that will be perceived in the present as 'coincidence'.
Remember, "There is no single outcome unless it is observed. We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics."
By the way, if this experiment were to be actually carried out without my knowledge until I was brought in in the middle of it, after saving the cat's life I would keep it. And the karma of those setting up this unglodly scenario would produce them being reincarnated as laboratory rats.
- Brad Watson, Miami
I have always felt the conclusion to this thought experiment, contains a fallacy in the logic, in spite of stature of the author. Even though we spent about 2 weeks on quantum theory in college physics, the proposition and conclusions have seemed somehow dishonest.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it still make a sound?
28 Jul 2013
4:05 AM z
Report
I completely disagree with this experiment. They cat can not be dead and alive at the same time. The discovered outcome will not change the previous happenings.
In response to the above, that's exactly the point he's making. The ABSURDITY of Quantum Physics. He's just finding a way of making people who aren't physicists understand the theory behind it. Nothing is known for sure until a proven outcome.
Maybe the real insight here to "perceptions vs reality" is how this story is believed to be some great insight when it really isn't.
one must have faith that there is even a cat in the box.
This assumes an even more unnatural event: that cats can be resurrected from the dead.
We can also listen to hear whether or not the hammer has smashed to know whether the cat is dead or alive.
Life carries on regardless of whether or not we witness an event, right? That's how we can get calls that one of our loved ones was killed in a car accident, even if we haven't witnessed it, right? People can die alone in their apartments even if no one was with them to witness it.
(Presently, she can say either no or yes, with both possibilities being possible)
(You will never know the answer until you participate/observe/take action, and your action is what caused the result/answer)
Get it?
Therefore, cat is not alive and dead. The cat is alive OR dead. One must observe to know -- there is no other way. It's as simple as that.