Cat In The Box - Thought Experiments

[Speakpigeon]

And now for something completely different.

If a theorist believes a cat in a box has an uncollapsed wave function, and that it needs an intelligent observer to collapse the wave function, what sort of experimental box with cat could be set up to prove that claim is true?

Consider this possibility, a box with cat and camera. The proceedings are recorded. If one opens the box and finds a dead cat, then views the .mpg, is that .mpg a record of what happened or does that record remain in an uncollapsed wave function until viewed, and why would it be in perfect agreement with the observation that the cat is dead?

This is how i understand it:
As long as the box is shut to the observer, each of the various possible states of the cat, as predicted by calculus from the initial state of the system, will remain potentially what the observer would discover were he to open the box. If there's a camera inside the box, then the camera will be considered as being in as many possible states as the cat, and the observer might be able to calculate what these states would be if he opened the box. These are all potential states for the observer. On opening the box, only one state is apparent. The state of the camera will be "selected" at the same time as that of the cat and will be coherent with it (I guess there is a very small probability that it wouldn't be).
It remains open to debate whether the alernative states predicted by calculus are somehow real or not. If they are real, then there would be as many versions of the observer himself as necessary, all in divergent universes. Suppose the cat is either dead or alive, then there will be two states for the observer, one where the observer sees a dead cat, one where he sees a cat still alive. A this stage, each state has gotten its own life, so to speak, so to the observer in one state, everything looks like he is the only observer, looking at either a dead or live cat. But there is the other state (or universe), and the observer there would think much the same thing except that the cat would in the opposite state. This solution is heavy on the ontological side. At each split second, at each quantum event at any rate, there's potentially a split of the observer in different states that quickly become part of divergent universes. So zillions of them appear at every moment. The problem is that if you don't go for this solution then there's no reason explaining why the observer will eventually observe a dead cat rather than a live cat (or vise versa). There are actual experiments that seems to show that there are different universes but the last lime I read on this not all physicists seemed to agree on that. Do they now?
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can we entangle two cats in two boxes, where as observing the status of one cat indicates the opposite status for the second cat?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Can we entangle two cats in two boxes, where as observing the status of one cat indicates the opposite status for the second cat?

Perhaps a single experimenter places tow cats in two boxes and hits a switch that closes the boxes at the same time. The geiger counter triggers the poison in both boxes.

 

[Jayjay]

Can we entangle two cats in two boxes, where as observing the status of one cat indicates the opposite status for the second cat?

Sure, why not. Put the cats in two separate boxes with lids open. Geiger counter is set up so that one box closes, other one remains open, depending on whether the counter ticks or not. In addition, there is a timer that closes the box after 5 minutes regardless. Put the whole contraption inside a third bigger box. Run geiger counter, release poison into the larger box (so that the cat in the box that is open dies, other one lives), wait 5 minutes, open the outer box and vent the gas. Now you have two entangled cats in a box where one is dead and the other is alive, but you don't know which.

Only works with ACME quantum observation proof boxes though.

 

[DBT]

Even though I'm far from being convinced, given the sheer intricacy and weirdness of quantum mechanics, probability wave function, superposition, entanglement, observer/observed relationship, etc, rather than a simpler structure of matter formation, I can understand why some argue that we live in simulated universe.

 

[Potoooooooo]

 

[fast]

It is claimed that if you put a cat in a box with a random device that can release poisonous gas, the cat is neither alive or dead until the box is opened. At that point then the cat is either dead or alive.
Schroedinger's unfortunate cat.

That's silly. The discovery that the cat died doesn't imply when the cat died. If I am privy to information that the cat in fact died 15 minutes after the cat was put in a box, then your discovery that the cat is dead 30 minutes after the cat was put in the box shows that the point you discovered that the cat is dead is not the point when the cat died.

Also, I would argue that you know the cat is dead before you further confirm what it is you already know, but that would turn out to be a long arduous process.

 

[fast]

Sometimes, when a quirky explanation becomes the norm, we are misguided into thinking the explanation is accurate. There are no worlds or alternate universes where alternative possibilities exist. Speak like a nut; think like a nut. That's not an ad hominem; not only that, it's not directed to anyone. It just goes to express the deceptive ensnarement of commonplace quirky explanations.

In the construct of the explanation, acquiesce, for sure, but carry not what is learned out unto the real world bound by the temporary quirkiness of the explanation. In other worlds, if it takes a little imagination to drive home some teachable moments, great, but forget not it was for learning purposes--not to be taken as literally true. Possible world talk is a teaching tool, yet I can't help but think people are taking it literally.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Part of all of this was the idea that the cat with a wave function is nonsense, Schroedinger's conclusion. The idea is that these thought experiments seem to indicate a lot of flawed thinking.

If indeed it took a concious mind to collapse a complex wave function of a cat, before brains evolved there were no collpased wave function.

Of course again I have never seen a serious claim to that idea we need concious intelligence to collapse a wave function that has bothered with developing an experiment to demonstrate that claim. Since a successful experiment that demonstrated that would be a sure Nobel prize, it would seem somebody would be trying this.

A sure demonstration of that would be one of the most momentous discoveries in the history on mankind.

 

[DBT]

Part of all of this was the idea that the cat with a wave function is nonsense, Schroedinger's conclusion. The idea is that these thought experiments seem to indicate a lot of flawed thinking.

If indeed it took a concious mind to collapse a complex wave function of a cat, before brains evolved there were no collpased wave function.

Of course again I have never seen a serious claim to that idea we need concious intelligence to collapse a wave function that has bothered with developing an experiment to demonstrate that claim. Since a successful experiment that demonstrated that would be a sure Nobel prize, it would seem somebody would be trying this.

A sure demonstration of that would be one of the most momentous discoveries in the history on mankind.

Then there is the idea of retro-causality, that the very act of observation not only collapses wave function, thereby expressing particle position, but its history back through time.

 

[Malintent]

There is anti-matter, why not anti-time?

 

[Kharakov]

Time is a dimension of spacetime, not a characteristic of matter like charge, spin, etc.

 

[DBT]

Space/time being inseparable from matter/energy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is anti-matter, why not anti-time?

There is frozen water, so why not frozen red?

 

[ryan]

Part of all of this was the idea that the cat with a wave function is nonsense, Schroedinger's conclusion. The idea is that these thought experiments seem to indicate a lot of flawed thinking.

If indeed it took a concious mind to collapse a complex wave function of a cat, before brains evolved there were no collpased wave function.

Of course again I have never seen a serious claim to that idea we need concious intelligence to collapse a wave function that has bothered with developing an experiment to demonstrate that claim. Since a successful experiment that demonstrated that would be a sure Nobel prize, it would seem somebody would be trying this.

A sure demonstration of that would be one of the most momentous discoveries in the history on mankind.

Then there is the idea of retro-causality, that the very act of observation not only collapses wave function, thereby expressing particle position, but its history back through time.

So, imagine a similar experiment to Schrodinger's except we have 2 bombs where there is a 50% bomb A goes off and a 50% bomb B goes off. Either way it's the end for the brave scientist. 6:00pm is when the radioactivity determines which bomb goes off.

If the scientist doesn't blow up at 6:00pm, then does his past self die at 6:00pm when his present self discovers which bomb was suppose to explode? If the latter is how he dies, then who opened the box?

 

[DBT]

Then there is the idea of retro-causality, that the very act of observation not only collapses wave function, thereby expressing particle position, but its history back through time.

So, imagine a similar experiment to Schrodinger's except we have 2 bombs where there is a 50% bomb A goes off and a 50% bomb B goes off. Either way it's the end for the brave scientist. 6:00pm is when the radioactivity determines which bomb goes off.

If the scientist doesn't blow up at 6:00pm, then does his past self die at 6:00pm when his present self discovers which bomb was suppose to explode? If the latter is how he dies, then who opened the box?

Presumably the history that forms through retro-causality (if that is the case), is not self contradictory and so preserves past, present and future coherence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sometimes, when a quirky explanation becomes the norm, we are misguided into thinking the explanation is accurate. There are no worlds or alternate universes where alternative possibilities exist. Speak like a nut; think like a nut. That's not an ad hominem; not only that, it's not directed to anyone. It just goes to express the deceptive ensnarement of commonplace quirky explanations.

In the construct of the explanation, acquiesce, for sure, but carry not what is learned out unto the real world bound by the temporary quirkiness of the explanation. In other worlds, if it takes a little imagination to drive home some teachable moments, great, but forget not it was for learning purposes--not to be taken as literally true. Possible world talk is a teaching tool, yet I can't help but think people are taking it literally.

It's not entirely clear that you are refering to me talking about parallel universes but anyway I shall try to provide some details.

Quantum physics doesn't talk of parallel universes, or possible worlds etc. The suggestion rather is that every probable outcome in a quantum event is realised so that in Schroedinger's thought experiment there's a dead cat and there a cat still alive and since these two shall never meet again each will exist in a separate "universe", for want of a better word. Those two universes are initially identical except for the state of the cat. As the state of a whole cat is not a reversible processs, the two universes will remain separate ad eternam and diverge further in term of events. Call that "universes" or not is not the point. People in any such locations will take it as a proper universe and blissfully ignore the others. These places are not just supposed to be "possible" but actual. Not all QM scientists seem to agree on this interpretation but it does have the support of minority of them (the last time I read something about this) based on some specific experiment.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Part of all of this was the idea that the cat with a wave function is nonsense, Schroedinger's conclusion. The idea is that these thought experiments seem to indicate a lot of flawed thinking.

If indeed it took a concious mind to collapse a complex wave function of a cat, before brains evolved there were no collpased wave function.

Of course again I have never seen a serious claim to that idea we need concious intelligence to collapse a wave function that has bothered with developing an experiment to demonstrate that claim. Since a successful experiment that demonstrated that would be a sure Nobel prize, it would seem somebody would be trying this.

A sure demonstration of that would be one of the most momentous discoveries in the history on mankind.

There are some serious people who have made the claim but I don't see that it would be possible to built an experiment to prove it. We hardly understand what consciousness is to start with. So the fact that no experiment has ever been proposed is no indication that nobody is serious about the claim.

That being said, there's been developments of the notion of measure to try and flesh out the idea that wave collapse occurs as a result of the measure (or interaction). I don't think it's conclusive yet but it's one direction, and I guess the majority of QM scientists would prefer that it worked. The alernative is that of the multiverse interpretation, with some problems of its own apparently.

Personally, I think we shouldn't take any interpretation too literally. They should be seen as work models to check reality against. We can think of these virtual worlds as pure theoretical fictions that nonetheless help for making predictions, including for designing new experiments that could be tested.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is anti-matter, why not anti-time?

There is frozen water, so why not frozen red?

Hey you can't win all the time!
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sometimes, when a quirky explanation becomes the norm, we are misguided into thinking the explanation is accurate. There are no worlds or alternate universes where alternative possibilities exist. Speak like a nut; think like a nut. That's not an ad hominem; not only that, it's not directed to anyone. It just goes to express the deceptive ensnarement of commonplace quirky explanations.

In the construct of the explanation, acquiesce, for sure, but carry not what is learned out unto the real world bound by the temporary quirkiness of the explanation. In other worlds, if it takes a little imagination to drive home some teachable moments, great, but forget not it was for learning purposes--not to be taken as literally true. Possible world talk is a teaching tool, yet I can't help but think people are taking it literally.

It's not entirely clear that you are refering to me talking about parallel universes but anyway I shall try to provide some details.

Quantum physics doesn't talk of parallel universes, or possible worlds etc. The suggestion rather is that every probable outcome in a quantum event is realised so that in Schroedinger's thought experiment there's a dead cat and there a cat still alive and since these two shall never meet again each will exist in a separate "universe", for want of a better word. Those two universes are initially identical except for the state of the cat. As the state of a whole cat is not a reversible processs, the two universes will remain separate ad eternam and diverge further in term of events. Call that "universes" or not is not the point. People in any such locations will take it as a proper universe and blissfully ignore the others. These places are not just supposed to be "possible" but actual. Not all QM scientists seem to agree on this interpretation but it does have the support of minority of them (the last time I read something about this) based on some specific experiment.
EB

So are Trump supporters in some sort of quantum flux where they live in our universe but experience the events of a parallel universe?