In a discussion of Schroedinger’s views on quantum theory John Bell says that Schroedinger did not see how “to account for particle tracks in track chambers…and more generally for the definiteness, the particularity, of experience, as compared with the indefiniteness, the waviness, of the wave function. It is the problem he had had with his cat. He thought it could not be both dead and alive. But the wave function showed no such commitment, superposing the possibilities. Either the wave function as given by the Schroedinger equation is not everything or it is not right” (Bell 1987). At a recent conference Bell sermonized against the employment of “for all practical purpose” reasoning- he called it FAP reasoning-to solve this problem (Bell 1989). He argued that we should not be satisfied with any alleged solution which works “for all practical purposes” only while leaving conceptual puzzles unresolved.
In a discussion of Schroedinger’s views on quantum theory John Bell says that Schroedinger did not see how “to account for particle tracks in track chambers…and more generally for the definiteness, the particularity, of experience, as compared with the indefiniteness, the waviness, of the wave function. It is the problem he had had with his cat. He thought it could not be both dead and alive. But the wave function showed no such commitment, superposing the possibilities. Either the wave function as given by the Schroedinger equation is not everything or it is not right” (Bell 1987). At a recent conference Bell sermonized against the employment of “for all practical purpose” reasoning- he called it FAP reasoning-to solve this problem (Bell 1989). He argued that we should not be satisfied with any alleged solution which works “for all practical purposes” only while leaving conceptual puzzles unresolved.
Erwin Schrodinger first described the thought-experiment which has since become known as 'the paradox of Schrodinger's cat' 51 years ago. In recent years, popular accounts of quantum mechanics have tended to adopt one or other of the philosophically most extreme solutions to this paradox, i.e. the consciousness hypothesis or the many worlds interpretation. The author attempts to redress the balance by describing what he takes to be the orthodox solution to the paradox which explains the paradox, without recourse to such counterintuitive notions as a cat simultaneously dead and alive or a universe continually splitting into multiple worlds, as being due to a misapplication of the quantum formalism.
If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved. E. Schrödinger Introduction I have borrowed the title of a characteristic paper by Schrödinger (Schrödinger, 1952). In it he contrasts the smooth evolution of the Schrödinger wavefunction with the erratic behaviour of the picture by which the wavefunction is usually supplemented, or ‘interpreted’, in the minds of most physicists. He objects in particular to the notion of ‘stationary states’, and above all to ‘quantum jumping’ between those states. He regards these concepts as hangovers from the old Bohr quantum theory, of 1913, and entirely unmotivated by anything in the mathematics of the new theory of 1926. He would like to regard the wavefunction itself as the complete picture, and completely determined by the Schrödinger equation, and so evolving smoothly without ‘quantum jumps’. Nor would he have ‘particles’ in the picture. At an early stage, he had tried to replace ‘particles’ by wavepackets (Schrödinger, 1926). But wavepackets diffuse. And the paper of 1952 ends, rather lamely, with the admission that Schrödinger does not see how, for the present, to account for particle tracks in track chambers… nor, more generally, for the definiteness, the particularity, of the world of experience, as compared with the indefiniteness, the waviness, of the wavefunction. It is the problem that he had had (Schrödinger, 1935 a ) with his cat. He thought that she could not be both dead and alive.
If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved. E. Schrödinger Introduction I have borrowed the title of a characteristic paper by Schrödinger (Schrödinger, 1952). In it he contrasts the smooth evolution of the Schrödinger wavefunction with the erratic behaviour of the picture by which the wavefunction is usually supplemented, or ‘interpreted’, in the minds of most physicists. He objects in particular to the notion of ‘stationary states’, and above all to ‘quantum jumping’ between those states. He regards these concepts as hangovers from the old Bohr quantum theory, of 1913, and entirely unmotivated by anything in the mathematics of the new theory of 1926. He would like to regard the wavefunction itself as the complete picture, and completely determined by the Schrödinger equation, and so evolving smoothly without ‘quantum jumps’. Nor would he have ‘particles’ in the picture. At an early stage, he had tried to replace ‘particles’ by wavepackets (Schrödinger, 1926). But wavepackets diffuse. And the paper of 1952 ends, rather lamely, with the admission that Schrödinger does not see how, for the present, to account for particle tracks in track chambers … nor, more generally, for the definiteness, the particularity, of the world of experience, as compared with the indefiniteness, the waviness, of the wavefunction. It is the problem that he had had (Schrödinger, 1935 a ) with his cat. He thought that she could not be both dead and alive.
The physicist Erwin Schrödinger described, back in 1935, one aspect of this strange phenomenon. He placed his cat in a sealed box with a piece of radioactive material which might or might not send out a sub-atomic particle. If it did, the Geiger counter was designed to trigger a release of poisonous gas in the box, and thereby kill his cat. The Geiger counter was set up to be triggered just enough to give a 50-50 chance of a particle being detected, and therefore the cat an even chance of being poisoned or not. (In those days, this sort of experiment was acceptable, particularly as it was only a thought experiment.) Radioactive behaviour is unpredictable (except in a general, statistical probability way). There is no way of working out whether or not the Geiger counter will be triggered off. If the sub-atomic event does not occur-the cat lives. Otherwise, it dies. Just as the photon (in Problem 93) will quite happily go through both slits until someone tries to measure or detect it, at which point what the physicists call ‘the collapse of the wave function’ takes place, the particle can both trigger the poison gas and not trigger the poison gas. Until someone looks, Schrödinger’s idea is that his cat, for a while, is both alive and dead!
The physicist Erwin Schrödinger described, back in 1935, one aspect of this strange phenomenon. He placed his cat in a sealed box with a piece of radioactive material which might or might not send out a sub-atomic particle. If it did, the Geiger counter was designed to trigger a release of poisonous gas in the box, and thereby kill his cat. The counter was set up to be triggered just enough to give a 50-50 chance of a particle being detected, and therefore the cat an even chance of being poisoned or not. (In those days, this sort of experiment was acceptable, particularly as it was only a thought experiment.) Radioactive behaviour is unpredictable (except in a general, statistical probability kind of way). There is no rule for working out whether or not the Geiger counter will be triggered. If the sub-atomic event does not occur, the cat lives. Otherwise, it dies. Just as a photon (in that famous experiment from ‘real-life’ physics) will quite happily go through both of two parallel slits in a screen – until someone tries to measure or detect it, at which point what the physicists call ‘the collapse of the wave function’ takes place – the particle can both trigger the poison gas and not trigger the poison gas. That is, until someone looks, Schrödinger’s idea is that his cat, for a while, is both alive and dead!
The Schrödinger's Cat paradox was proposed in 1935 by Edwin Schrodinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, as an attempt to visualize the macroscopic realization of a quantum superposition state. A cat is placed in a sealed box together with a vial of poison. A two-state particle (e.g. an electron) is sent into a detector in the box resulting either in a broken or an intact vial and a dead or live cat, respectively. The main problem consists in whether the superposition state of a microscopic particle can be transferred upon the macroscopic cat, that is, whether the cat can exist in a superposition state, being simultaneously dead and alive. Since the standard Copenhagen interpretation is unable to assign any reality to the quantum superposition state, the paradox finds no resolution within the regime of this interpretation. Von Neumann's insistence on the uniform treatment of both microscopic (quantum) and macroscopic (classical) objects according to the laws of quantum mechanics provides a more consistent framework for the resolution of the paradox. In particular, the discovery of the phenomenon of decoherence, whereby the disappearance of the quantum interferences at the macro level is accounted for, suggests the onset of an extremely efficient interference relaxation process (10-23 s) upon the interaction of the two state particle with the detector. As a result, Schrodinger's cat can exist macroscopically either as dead or alive and never as a combination of both. Decoherence not only aids the resolution of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox but also sheds light upon the mechanisms by which the macro-world emerges from the microscopic quantum realm.