It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Schrödinger intended his thought experiment as a discussion of the EPR article—named after its authors Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen—in 1935.[1] The EPR article highlighted the strange nature of quantum entanglement, which is a characteristic of a quantum state that is a combination of the states of two systems (for example, two subatomic particles), that once interacted but were then separated and are not each in a definite state. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the state of the two systems collapses into a definite state when one of the systems is measured. Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.
Schrödinger wrote:[3][2]
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)
The thought experiment illustrates this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:
You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.
Note that the charge of gunpowder is not mentioned in Schrödinger's setup, which uses a Geiger counter as an amplifier and hydrocyanic poison instead of gunpowder. The gunpowder had been mentioned in Einstein's original suggestion to Schrödinger 15 years before, and apparently Einstein had carried it forward to the present discussion.
Originally posted by tridentblue
reply to post by NorEaster
You've got to be careful of that Quantum mockery, though. One example of quantum mockery was called the "watched pot" experiment. To illustrate the absurdity of the Quantum mechanics, a scientist devised an experiment, where he showed that by making constant observations of radioactive decay, the substance would never decay. He mockingly compared it to the old phrase "a watched pot never boils." So scientists did the experiment, and indeed, radioactive decay, if constantly watched, doesn't happen. The effect is called Quantum Zeno Effect:
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by NorEaster
Awesome.
Another quantum foolery I find seduces the easily seduced is the idea that atoms are mostly empty space, leaving some solipsists to proclaim, quite wrongly, that everything is mostly empty space. This, of course, is refutable by walking into a wall or biting into a rock. But nonetheless, the view that we are mostly empty space is perpetuated in spiritual woo woo (Osho for instance). Sure, there is mostly empty space in an atom, but it is still an atom, and we are composed of atoms, with very little empty space between them. A bundle of balloons is composed of a bundle of balloons, not the air that keeps them solid.
Quantum mechanics, though interesting, is creating a religious revival of sorts, with implications such as "God particles", "quantum entanglement", "Quantum observer effect", and so fourth.
Would Einstein have lived just ten more years, he would have liberated himself from the shackles that bounded him to classical physics. A stupefying new insight derived by the UK physicist John Bell would probably have given him the shock of his life, but it would have helped him taking the mental hurdle to accept quantum physics as our deepest view on reality. Einstein would probably have felt his famous physics intuition had lost contact with reality, and he would certainly happily have admitted that Feynman's claim "nobody understands quantum physics" makes no exception for him. (Einstein Got It Wrong, Can You Do Better?)
Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by NorEaster
I didn't finish reading the whole thing so your thread both agrees and disagrees with my own opinion until I do.
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by adjensen
Science and its potential is misused when its not considered with an open mind.
Originally posted by adjensen
I think you're missing Schrödinger's point, which was about the consequences of quantum entanglement and its application to the macroscopic. If, mathematically, we can say that we don't know the state of a particle until it is observed, and therefore it, mathematically, simultaneously holds both states, how does that apply to the macro? If the state of the particle in the box is unknown, and the cat, as a result is mathematically both alive and dead, what is the cat's position in this? The cat cannot observe the particle, and yet it knows whether it is alive or dead (well, it knows that it is alive.)
Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics was a result of his place in time, not in the invalidity of the field.
Would Einstein have lived just ten more years, he would have liberated himself from the shackles that bounded him to classical physics. A stupefying new insight derived by the UK physicist John Bell would probably have given him the shock of his life, but it would have helped him taking the mental hurdle to accept quantum physics as our deepest view on reality. Einstein would probably have felt his famous physics intuition had lost contact with reality, and he would certainly happily have admitted that Feynman's claim "nobody understands quantum physics" makes no exception for him. (Einstein Got It Wrong, Can You Do Better?)
I do agree with you that people who really have no idea of what the field is about tend to use it to explain "how we can do magic," which is, of course, utter rubbish. See the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" for a prime example of the misuse of physics.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by adjensen
Science and its potential is misused when its not considered with an open mind.
If that's a defense of the "What the Bleep Do We Know" crowd, no. The movie is a propaganda film for a cult in Washington state, and the only real expert in it, David Albert, has long since denounced the filmmakers for misrepresenting his perspective, which was that the cult knew nothing of quantum mechanics and that the claims made in the film were completely fictional.
David Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. Bohm postulates that the ultimate nature of physical reality is not a collection of separate objects (as it appears to us), but rather it is an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. For Bohm, the insights of quantum mechanics and relativity theory point to a universe that is undivided and in which all parts merge and unite in one totality.
If, mathematically, we can say that we don't know the state of a particle until it is observed, and therefore it, mathematically, simultaneously holds both states...
Originally posted by NorEaster
Schrodinger's point was that the Copenhagen Interpretation was ridiculous. What part of his own words making that point did you have a problem with? The "paradox" was actually a parody.
Schrödinger's cat is a seemingly paradoxical thought experiment devised by Erwin Schrödinger that attempts to illustrate the incompleteness of an early interpretation of quantum mechanics when going from subatomic to macroscopic systems.
Schrödinger proposed his "cat" after debates with Albert Einstein over the Copenhagen interpretation, which Schrödinger defended (Schrödinger's cat)
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by NorEaster
Schrodinger's point was that the Copenhagen Interpretation was ridiculous. What part of his own words making that point did you have a problem with? The "paradox" was actually a parody.
No, it wasn't.
Schrödinger's cat is a seemingly paradoxical thought experiment devised by Erwin Schrödinger that attempts to illustrate the incompleteness of an early interpretation of quantum mechanics when going from subatomic to macroscopic systems.
Schrödinger proposed his "cat" after debates with Albert Einstein over the Copenhagen interpretation, which Schrödinger defended (Schrödinger's cat)
It's exactly as I described above -- an effort to explain the difficulty of moving from quantum mechanics on the sub-atomic level to classic physics on the macroscopic level. Until someone opens the box and looks, the mathematical state of the cat is both alive and dead, regardless of its actual state, which is not known until the observation is made.
You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases.......That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.