In his paper on the Cat’s uncertain situation between life and death, S. intended to criticize the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and, conversely, to assert the consistency of his own wavelike view of the theory. His ideas contrasted with Heisenberg and Bohr’s positions, but also with Einstein’s attempt at a classically statistical interpretation of a quantum theory. His criticism therefore did not intend to discredit the whole Quantum Mechanics. In the fifties, he proposed a second quantization approach to a many particles state of the theory, which included his New Statistics. He asserted that the new approach modified some aspects of his famous 1926 equations. In my paper, I argue that S.’s new ideas in the fifties are related to his 1920 and 1926 contributions on rarified gas theory.
In his paper on the Cat’s uncertain situation between life and death, S. intended to criticize the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and, conversely, to assert the consistency of his own wavelike view of the theory. His ideas contrasted with Heisenberg and Bohr’s positions, but also with Einstein’s attempt at a classically statistical interpretation of a quantum theory. His criticism therefore did not intend to discredit the whole Quantum Mechanics. In the fifties, he proposed a second quantization approach to a many particles state of the theory, which included his New Statistics. He asserted that the new approach modified some aspects of his famous 1926 equations. In my paper, I argue that S.’s new ideas in the fifties are related to his 1920 and 1926 contributions on rarified gas theory.
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!
One of the most famous cats in modern physics must be the Schroedinger’s Cat, in which he hypothesized that his cat cannot be determined alive or death until we look into his box. By which the paradox of his half-live cat had been puzzling the quantum physicists over three-quarter of a century since Schrödinger disclosed it in a Copenhagen forum in1935. Since the disclosure, the paradox has been debating by Einstein, Bohr, Schroedinger himself and many others renowned physicists, until now. We have found the cause of the paradox and we will show in this article, of which the hypothesis of Schroedinger’s Cat is not a paradox after all. It was the timeless radioactive particle he introduced into the box, since timeless and temporal spaces are mutually exclusive. We will show that the whole Schrödinger’s quantum world is timeless (i.e., t = 0) and his fundamental principle of superposition is timeless, since his quantum mechanics was built within an empty subspace. We will also stress that Schrödinger equation is mathematics and it is primarily designed to calculate particle’s quantum dynamics using particle-wave duality. Similar to the set of Maxwell equations; the solution has to satisfy the boundary condition of our universe; dimensionality, temporal and causality (i.e., t > 0) condition.
In his famous thought experiment, Schrodinger(1935) imagined a cat that measures the value of a quantum mechanical observable with its life. Since Schrodinger’s time,no any interpretations or modifications of quantum mechanics have been proposed which gives clear unambiguous answers to the questions posed by Schrodinger’s cat of how long superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse?In this book appropriate modification of quantum mechanics is proposed.We claim that canonical interpretation of the wave function ψ=с1ψ1+с2ψ2 is correct only when the wave function supports ψ1 and ψ2 essentially overlap. When these ones have separated supports we claim that canonical interpretation of the wave function ψ is no longer valid for a such cat state.Possible solution of the Schrodinger’s cat paradox is considered. We pointed out that the collapsed state of the cat always shows definite and predictable outcomes even if the cat also consists of a superposition:|cat>=с1|alive cat>+с2|death cat>.Using new quantum mechanical formalism the EPRB-paradox is considered.We find that the EPRB-paradox can be resolved by nonprincipal and convenient relaxing of the Einstein’s locality principle.
Erwin Schrodinger begins by describing the classical system, using the Rutherford model of the atom. During 1934–1935, Schrodinger was primarily situated at Oxford, although he toured the United States during this period. During 1935, he received support from the Imperial Chemical Industries, London, which allowed him some leisure time in which to write an overview of the state of quantum mechanics as he saw it. While the period following the 1927 and 1930 Solvay conferences seemed to be relatively calm, a series of important papers would arrive in 1935. These included Schrodinger's view on the status of quantum mechanics as well as his famous thought experiment involving a cat. Schrodinger's work would be published in three parts in the German journal Die Naturwissenschaften . Schrodinger suggests that the Niels Bohr doctrine is “born of distress.” Almost all the important figures in quantum mechanics were also there—Bohr, Schrodinger, W. Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Enrico Fermi, and both de Broglies.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.