Cat In The Box - Thought Experiments

[ryan]

I have never read that the cat is a metaphor. Are you sure about your source? Here's a source that seems to agree with me, http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html .

Quote;
''Of course, Schrödinger claimed, that was ridiculous. Quantum superposition could not work with large objects such as cats, because it is impossible for an organism to be simultaneously alive and dead.''

''While it is true that modern experiments have revealed that while quantum superposition does work for tiny things like electrons, larger objects must be regarded differently.''

I think I have the correct explanation to all of this incase you are interested.

The cat experiment was meant to show the absurdity of the implications of quantum mechanics, as it was known at the time. But then the theories like decoherence came and helped explain why the cat's fate becomes defined before the box is opened.

 

[DBT]

Quote;
''Of course, Schrödinger claimed, that was ridiculous. Quantum superposition could not work with large objects such as cats, because it is impossible for an organism to be simultaneously alive and dead.''

''While it is true that modern experiments have revealed that while quantum superposition does work for tiny things like electrons, larger objects must be regarded differently.''

I think I have the correct explanation to all of this incase you are interested.

The cat experiment was meant to show the absurdity of the implications of quantum mechanics, as it was known at the time. But then the theories like decoherence came and helped explain why the cat's fate becomes defined before the box is opened.

I don't think that anyone has the correct explanation as yet. The Copenhagen interpretation has its problems. String theory, many worlds, is not yet testable...not to mention several other interpretations.

Even Bohm's non local hidden variables theory has been somewhat revived.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

No, you can't have it both ways. You are here with us or there with them. And not every conceivable outcome is necessarily possible in the QM many-worlds interpretation. It's not anything like the logic of the "possible worlds".

But maybe he can trump even that, I don't know.
EB

 

[Underseer]

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.

[...]

Schrodinger's cat is meant to criticize the  Copenhagen interpretation. What you are supposed to get out of the thought experiment is that the cat cannot be both alive and dead, therefore the Copenhagen interpretation is stupid and should be abandoned.

Look at it this way, the observer in the Schrodinger's cat experiment is not the human who opens the box, but the cat.

 

[fromderinside]

[


... the observer in the Schrodinger's cat experiment is not the human who opens the box, but the cat.

Cat: "Don't open the box. Puleez, don't open the box."

 

[Jayjay]

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.

[...]

Schrodinger's cat is meant to criticize the  Copenhagen interpretation. What you are supposed to get out of the thought experiment is that the cat cannot be both alive and dead, therefore the Copenhagen interpretation is stupid and should be abandoned.

Look at it this way, the observer in the Schrodinger's cat experiment is not the human who opens the box, but the cat.

If the cat is the observer, it can only observe if it is alive. Therefore, from cats point of view, it's always going to find Schroedinger opening the box looking delighted (or perhaps perplexed, if he has repeated the experiment enough times).

Meanwhle in parallel universes you got a bunch of dead, non-observing cats.

 

[Malintent]

[


... the observer in the Schrodinger's cat experiment is not the human who opens the box, but the cat.

Cat: "Don't open the box. Puleez, don't open the box."

 

[Speakpigeon]

Quote;
''Of course, Schrödinger claimed, that was ridiculous. Quantum superposition could not work with large objects such as cats, because it is impossible for an organism to be simultaneously alive and dead.''

''While it is true that modern experiments have revealed that while quantum superposition does work for tiny things like electrons, larger objects must be regarded differently.''

I think I have the correct explanation to all of this incase you are interested.

The cat experiment was meant to show the absurdity of the implications of quantum mechanics, as it was known at the time. But then the theories like decoherence came and helped explain why the cat's fate becomes defined before the box is opened.

As long as the box does isolate its contents, including the cat, from the environment outside, including the observer, the fate of the cat remains undecided: it may be dead or it may be alive. All the observer can say using QM is that there will be a dead cat or a live one whenever he opens the box.
EB

 

[Malintent]

I think I have the correct explanation to all of this incase you are interested.

The cat experiment was meant to show the absurdity of the implications of quantum mechanics, as it was known at the time. But then the theories like decoherence came and helped explain why the cat's fate becomes defined before the box is opened.

As long as the box does isolate its contents, including the cat, from the environment outside, including the observer, the fate of the cat remains undecided: it may be dead or it may be alive. All the observer can say using QM is that there will be a dead cat or a live one whenever he opens the box.
EB

If you change "undecided" to "unknown", and remove the words "using QM", then how is this any different than simply saying, "if it is not observed it is not known"?

 

[Speakpigeon]

As long as the box does isolate its contents, including the cat, from the environment outside, including the observer, the fate of the cat remains undecided: it may be dead or it may be alive. All the observer can say using QM is that there will be a dead cat or a live one whenever he opens the box.
EB

If you change "undecided" to "unknown", and remove the words "using QM", then how is this any different than simply saying, "if it is not observed it is not known"?

Say instead of a device based on a decaying element we put inside the box a (macroscopic) computer to generate random values one of which is used to kill the cat. I guess we would all agree that the box would then contain a dead cat or live cat depending on whether the killer number has come up yet. In other words, we accept that we wouldn't need to wait for the box to be opened for it to contain one or the other. If you do it with a adecaying element, subject to quantum superposition, then the theory is that all we can say is that before opening the box all we have is a probability function relative to potential states (of the cat), but no actual cat. To have an actual cat you need to open the box. That's the standard interpretation.
EB

 

[Malintent]

we know the cat is in the box because we put it in there. Closing the lid does not change the certainty of the existence of the cat in the box. It was a black cat when we put it in there. Once the lid was closed (all the way closed, or just closed enough for us to no longer be visually observing it?), what color is the cat then? Is it all colors? no colors?

the errors with measuring procedures in the QM field sure does create a lot of problems, don't it.

 

[Juma]

Once the lid was closed (all the way closed, or just closed enough for us to no longer be visually observing it?), what color is the cat then? Is it all colors? no colors?.

In the dark all cats are grey.

 

[fromderinside]

Once the lid was closed (all the way closed, or just closed enough for us to no longer be visually observing it?), what color is the cat then? Is it all colors? no colors?.

In the dark all cats are grey.

No.. Actually we see green eyes due to the effects of photons on phosphor material at the back of their retinas. Yes Marsha there are photons moving though the dark.

 

[Speakpigeon]

we know the cat is in the box because we put it in there. Closing the lid does not change the certainty of the existence of the cat in the box. It was a black cat when we put it in there. Once the lid was closed (all the way closed, or just closed enough for us to no longer be visually observing it?), what color is the cat then? Is it all colors? no colors?

the errors with measuring procedures in the QM field sure does create a lot of problems, don't it.

Inasmuch as certainty is a psychological condition you can be certain of whatever you like but it wouldn't affect the contents of the box. So, yes, we would all be very certain that there's a cat in there once we've closed the door. However, QM doesn't really tell you that, which is the point. All it tells you is the probability of finding a dead cat or a cat alive, which is definitely not the same thing. So you can say there's a cat because I can't stop you but it's not because you say it that there's a cat. The point is that we project our usual interpretative schemes we use in normal circumstances to a situation where QM says it doesn't work. It may well be that there is either a dead cat or a cat alive but, again, that's not what the theory says and as long as the box remains closed all you have is the theory and an inapplicable interpretative scheme. So, based on QM, you can't even say that there is a cat in the box as long as it remains closed.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Inasmuch as certainty is a psychological condition .....

... you may find yourself in a quiet darkened room when you think you may have heard a sound so you push the button on the right.

 

[DBT]

The cat may have pooed in the box. You cannot know until the lid is lifted and the poo is observed.

 

[Jayjay]

The cat may have pooed in the box. You cannot know until the lid is lifted and the poo is observed.

Pooping is a macroscopic event that is not sensitive to quantum events. So you can know whether the cat has pooped or not by just deducing it from the state of its bowels prior to putting it in the box.

 

[bilby]

If the box is airtight, you know the cat's gonna die.

If the box isn't, you'll know if it has pooped.

 

[DBT]

The cat may have pooed in the box. You cannot know until the lid is lifted and the poo is observed.

Pooping is a macroscopic event that is not sensitive to quantum events. So you can know whether the cat has pooped or not by just deducing it from the state of its bowels prior to putting it in the box.

All is Quantum, the mere act of observation collapses wave function - aka Copenhagen - actualizing the presence of macro scale poo. Wave function/superposition turned particle position expressed as the cat poo now definitely sitting in the corner of the open box.

 

[Potoooooooo]