Schrodinger's Cat Paradox Marks 90 Years as Quantum Question Endures (aeon.co) 40
A thought experiment involving a cat trapped in a steel box with a potentially lethal device, first proposed by physicist Erwin Schrodinger in 1935, remains at the center of scientific and philosophical debate as it marks its 90th anniversary.
The paradox, initially published in a technical review of quantum mechanics, presented a scenario where a cat could theoretically exist in a superposition of states -- both alive and dead simultaneously -- until observed, highlighting profound questions about quantum reality. "Schrodinger understood that under no circumstances could his cat be considered to be both alive and dead at the same time," science writer Jim Baggott noted in a recently published essay. Baggott co-authored "Quantum Drama: From the Bohr-Einstein Debate to the Riddle of Entanglement" in 2024.
The thought experiment gained cultural traction largely through science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin's 1974 short story "Schrodinger's Cat," which wrestled with the paradox's philosophical implications. This sparked widespread appearances across literature, film, and television.
The paradox continues to divide physicists between those accepting quantum mechanics as a mathematical framework for prediction and others, like Einstein and Schrodinger himself, who considered the theory fundamentally incomplete.
The paradox, initially published in a technical review of quantum mechanics, presented a scenario where a cat could theoretically exist in a superposition of states -- both alive and dead simultaneously -- until observed, highlighting profound questions about quantum reality. "Schrodinger understood that under no circumstances could his cat be considered to be both alive and dead at the same time," science writer Jim Baggott noted in a recently published essay. Baggott co-authored "Quantum Drama: From the Bohr-Einstein Debate to the Riddle of Entanglement" in 2024.
The thought experiment gained cultural traction largely through science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin's 1974 short story "Schrodinger's Cat," which wrestled with the paradox's philosophical implications. This sparked widespread appearances across literature, film, and television.
The paradox continues to divide physicists between those accepting quantum mechanics as a mathematical framework for prediction and others, like Einstein and Schrodinger himself, who considered the theory fundamentally incomplete.
What "debate"? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no "debate", except among the ignorant.
Re: (Score:1)
God does not hang fuzzy dice from the rear view mirror of the universe.
Re: (Score:1)
Gauss and Poisson laugh at your "God".
Re: (Score:2)
I'd never heard of it prior to that....
Then again, I didn't study too deeply into physics....
Honourable mention (Score:4)
Pixel, the Cat Who Walks through Walls
Re: (Score:2)
QM is weird, but so was Newton's model (Score:2)
In 1687, Newton unveiled his universal gravitation model, proposing every atom in your body is pulled by every other atom in the universe. Mind-boggling! Yet, its math was spot-on, accurately predicting cosmic and earthly motion, so it gained acceptance. Two centuries later, Einstein's theory refined gravity, ditching Newton's "action at a distance" oddity.
Quantum mechanics, just a century old, is a stellar model but not reality itself. I’m not betting on a better explanation soon. The universe migh
Re: QM is weird, but so was Newton's model (Score:4, Interesting)
Two centuries later, Einstein's theory refined gravity, ditching Newton's "action at a distance" oddity.
Matter causing the coordinate grid of space-time itself to curve isn't an "action at a distance" oddity?
Idunno dude.
My honest take is that the only hope for a "better" theory is more experimental data at relativistic speeds at macroscopic scale. Anything you do now is either far away (astronomy) too small (particle accelerators) or too slow (earth orbit or solar system) to really sample anything other than a tiny little corner of the envelope and then extrapolate from there.
If you want to waste money on pure science, waste it on getting a 100mg object up to 10% the speed of light. Just big enough to carry meaningful instrumentation, just small enough that it might be doable in the foreseable future.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't how Einstein described it. General relativity is a field theory, just like all our other (modern) fundamental theories. Many of Einstein's colleagues were enamored with non-Euclidean geometry though, and John Wheeler was extremely influential in teaching the admittedly catchy "gravity is bending space" analogy to a couple generations of students. Einstein himself didn't like it, and pointed out
Re: QM is weird, but so was Newton's model (Score:2)
"Two centuries later, Einstein's theory refined gravity, ditching Newton's "action at a distance" oddity. ...was disbelieved by Einstein, who called it spooky action at a distance.
Quantum mechanics, just a century old"
Re: QM is weird, but so was Newton's model (Score:2)
The claim that QM was "disbelieved by Einstein" is deeply misleading.
The guy won a nobel prize for showing that light is quantized, and if there is one idea that's key to QM it's that one.
He believed that QM was incomplete, but that's VERY different from saying that he didn't believe it was accurate.
Plenty of physicists today are still investigating the foundations of QM, because like Einstein they believe that QM is accurate, and they also believe that we still have more to learn.
Not a Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
The paradox continues to divide physicists between those accepting quantum mechanics
I am pretty sure that it does not divide us in this way. I am am physicist and I've yet to meet any physicist who does not accept quantum mechanics. Also Schrodinger's cat is not a paradox it is a reductio ad absurdum argument against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which is generally not how we think about QM today because of consequences like this! The intpretation of the cat being both dead an alive is clearly absurd and yet that is what would happen if the Copenhagen interpretation of QM were correct hence the Copenhagen interpreation cannot be correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a Paradox (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed... they left out the 3rd state when starting this whole thing...
âoeIn fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the
cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat
could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.â
â Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it's the division between the "shut up and calculate" point of view, and the one which seeks to /explain/ the rules for the calculations.
Quantum *mechanics* is pretty well accepted: it works under a great many circumstances!
It's also reviled as an *explanation*: it's hard to generalize the rules, and interpreting them in any palatable way (as, for example, explaining what is an observer and what it means to make an observation) is apparently impossible. Thus the enduring presence of people w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which is generally not how we think about QM today because of consequences like this! The intpretation of the cat being both dead an alive is clearly absurd and yet that is what would happen if the Copenhagen interpretation of QM were correct hence the Copenhagen interpreation cannot be correct.
From Wikipedia
Throughout much of the 20th century, the Copenhagen tradition had overwhelming acceptance among physicists.[60][65] According to a very informal poll (some people voted for multiple interpretations) conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[66] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted label that physicists applied to their own views. A similar result was found in a poll conducted in 2011.[67]
My guess is that the problem is fundamental to trying to create a mathematical model of the universe. In simpler terms mathematically if you flip a coin there is a 50-50 chance it will turn up heads or turn up tails. But once the coin lands it is either heads or tails. You don't know which until you examine it. One way to look at that is that to you as an observer the chance of it being heads or tails remains 50-50 until you observe which it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Unlike any other interpretation of Schrödinger's cat this one actually makes sense. Coming from a more chemical background I've always found quantum theory to be completely in line with everything else inside the electron cloud. (and even more, of course, anything flying out of an ekectron cloud.) No reason to doubt it. I just never figured what that damn cat in a suitcase had to with it. I always had the feeling everyone pretended to understand that analogy while it actually didn't explain any
It's certain (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? What about the whole 9 lives thingy?
Re: (Score:3)
That's in pet supplies in isle 7 at the supermarket.
Re: Aisle 7 (Score:2)
You have a beautiful mind and a quick wit.
I hope you brightened your parents live like you brightened my day.
In other words, I wish I had thought of that response, except for the aisle thing...
Re: It's certain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This cat would be 90+ years old now. I'm sure it's dead.
Jim: Thanks Bones. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Ding!
Read the original paper (well translated if you are an American). The whole point was that you can not have this coupling and have quantum effects manifest in the classical scale. There was never meant to be any implication that the cat was in some uncertain state. It was supposed to get the reader to realize that this does not and can not happen.
And, just try to get people to understand and believe that.....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> The cats life-status is rendered classical by decoherence
I don't know. I have observed cats interfering with themselves. They are very flexible. But stll clearly |alive> .
FTFY (Score:2)
Schrodinger's Cat Paradox May Mark 90 Years as Quantum Question Endures
Can we put my wife's cats in the box? (Score:2)
At least they won't be shitting in my house and tracking it all over the food prep surfaces.
A resolution (Score:1)
My Solution to SchrÃdingerâ(TM)s Cat Paradox
1. Clarify the Setup
A cat is placed in a box with a device triggered by a quantum event (radioactive decay).
If the event occurs, the cat dies; if not, the cat lives.
Quantum mechanics says the atom is both decayed and not decayed until observed.
Does this mean the cat is both alive and dead?
2. Key Insight: The Cat Is Not a Quantum Object
The paradox arises from applying quantum rules (superposition) to a macroscopic object (the cat).
In reality, quantum supe
And yet... (Score:1)
Re: And yet... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, "witness" means consciousness. The cat may or may not qualify as well. The fact of the matter is that before something conscious observes something, it may be in an indeterminate state or not. Yes, that may include the complete universe being in that indeterminate state. There really is no way to tell. Obviously, there are always idiots that claim to have truth when nothing like that is the case...
Schrodinger (Score:2)
Still have a bunch of Schrodinger lottery tickets.
They're not winners or losers until I check them.*
*I know that's an incorrect interpretation but it works at some level...