Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Science

Where It's At

H. Craig

Published Oct 11, 1996• 18 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In the “Schrodinger's Cat” experiment (Letters, [16 Aug., p. 859][1]) Schrodinger undoubtedly chose a cat as the subject because the experiment can be repeated many times with both negative and positive results, that is, until the final experiment when Schrodinger's CatDoesn't know where it's
DOI
10.1126/science.274.5285.165a

Related papers

Superposition Refutes Schrödinger's Cat Experiment

Colin James

•Aug 1, 2018•0 citations

Schrodinger's Cat at Hand

B. A. B. Seiders

Letters from: [ Andras Malnasi Csizmadia and Achilles J. Sanchez ][1] [ Randy Morse ][1] [ Barbara A. B. Seiders ][1] [ Paul C. S. Hoaken ][1] [ Andrew Ahlgren ][1] When the Schrodinger cat paradox was first proposed in 1935, it was difficult to envision an experimental system in which to model Schrodinger's experiment. But C. Monroe et al. describe such a system in their research article “A ‘Schrodinger cat’ superposition state of an atom” ([24 May, p. 1131][2]). In an accompanying Research News article ([24 May, p. 1101][3]), Gary Taubes writes > … Erwin Schrodinger described a cat shut up in what he called a “diabolical device”: a closed box also containing a small amount of a radioactive substance. Over the course of an hour, the radioactive substance has a 50-50 chance of decaying. If it does, the decay is detected by a counter, which shatters a flask of deadly acid, killing the cat. If it doesn't, the cat lives. But for the experiment to be a true paradox, the box must contain only one radioactive atom, as specified by Schrodinger. If there are numerous atoms in the box, it is a statistical certainty that at least one atom (but we cannot know which one) will decay in the course of the experiment, and the unfortunate cat will undoubtedly be killed. If, on the other hand, there is only one or very few atoms in the box, we will not know whether the cat is dead or alive. # {#article-title-2} As a naive molecular biologist, I am perplexed by one facet of the problem of Schrodinger's cat as it is usually presented. Why can't the cat be considered an observer and therefore remove the uncertainty about its own life or death status? # {#article-title-3} My 12-year-old daughter Phoebe is a student of quantum paradoxes, but she was concerned about an error in the illustration accompanying the Research News article with regard to feline anatomy. Presumably, even Schrodinger's cat would have foreleg “elbows,” not “knees.” # {#article-title-4} The title of the Research News article “Schizophrenic atom doubles as Schrodinger's cat—or kitten” perpetuates a misconception about schizophrenia—which is nothing like split personality—and trivializes a potentially disabling mental disorder. # {#article-title-5} “Kitten,” as used by Taubes, seems needlessly macroscopic as a metaphor for a single trapped atom. How about “Schrodinger's furball”? [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.273.5277.857e [2]: /lookup/volpage/273/1131 [3]: /lookup/volpage/273/1101

Science•Aug 16, 1996•2 citations

Schrödinger Cats and Quantum Complementarity

Lorenzo Maccone

Abstract Complementarity tells us we cannot know precisely the values of all the properties of a quantum object at the same time: the precise determination of one property implies that the value of some other (complementary) property is undefined. E.g. the precise knowledge of the position of a particle implies that its momentum is undefined. Here we show that a Schrödinger cat has a well defined value of a property that is complementary to its “being dead or alive” property. Then, thanks to complementarity, it has an undefined value of the property “being dead or alive”. In other words, the cat paradox is explained through quantum complementarity: of its many complementary properties, any quantum system, such as a cat, can have a well defined value only of one at a time. Schrödinger’s cat has a definite value of a property which is complementary to “being dead or alive”, so it is neither dead nor alive. Figuratively one can say it is both dead and alive. While this interpretation only uses textbook concepts (the Copenhagen interpretation), apparently it has never explicitly appeared in the literature. We detail how to build an Arduino based simulation of Schrödinger’s experiment based on these concepts for science outreach events.

Foundations of Physics•Jan 25, 2024•11 citations

What is it like to be Schrodinger's cat?

P. J. Lewis

Analysis•Jan 1, 2000•19 citations

Schrodinger's Cat: Empirical Research into the Radical Subjective solution of the Measurement problem.

Dick J. Bierman, Stephen Whitmarsh

Schrodinger's Cat: Empirical research into the radical subjective solution of the measurement problem\n\nDick J. Bierman & Stephen Whitmarsh\n\n \n\nThe most controversial of all solutions of the measurement problem holds that a measurement is not completed until a conscious observation is made.\n\nIn other words quantum physics is a science of potentialities and the measurement i.c. the conscious observation brings about the reality by reducing the state vector to one of the Eigen-states.\n\nIn a series of experiments modeled after the famous experiment by the Shimony group we have explored the brain responses of observers of a quantum event. \n\nIn about 50% of the exosures this quantum event had already been observed about one second earlier by another person. This random manipulation was unknown to the final observer. \n\nThe first experiment along these lines gave suggestive evidence for a difference in brain responses dependent on the manipulation. In subsequent experiments quantum events were mixed with classical events and the results of these experiments that have been reported elsewhere were ambiguous. \n\nIn a final experiment we are trying to solve the paradoxical results obtained so far. In this experiment the final observer receives detailed information about the type of event that (s)he observes. Also the experimental protocol is such that not only pre-observed events cannot be distinguished from not pre-observed events on the basis of their physical characteristic but neither on the basis of inter-event time distributions.

•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

A Feasible Experiment Concerning the Schrödinger's Cat and Wigner's Friend Paradoxes

Fred H. Thaheld

Physics Essays•Jun 1, 2001•2 citations
Letters from: [ Andras Malnasi Csizmadia and Achilles J. Sanchez ][1] [ Randy Morse ][1] [ Barbara A. B. Seiders ][1] [ Paul C. S. Hoaken ][1] [ Andrew Ahlgren ][1] When the Schrodinger cat paradox was first proposed in 1935, it was difficult to envision an experimental system in which to model Schrodinger's experiment. But C. Monroe et al. describe such a system in their research article “A ‘Schrodinger cat’ superposition state of an atom” ([24 May, p. 1131][2]). In an accompanying Research News article ([24 May, p. 1101][3]), Gary Taubes writes > … Erwin Schrodinger described a cat shut up in what he called a “diabolical device”: a closed box also containing a small amount of a radioactive substance. Over the course of an hour, the radioactive substance has a 50-50 chance of decaying. If it does, the decay is detected by a counter, which shatters a flask of deadly acid, killing the cat. If it doesn't, the cat lives. But for the experiment to be a true paradox, the box must contain only one radioactive atom, as specified by Schrodinger. If there are numerous atoms in the box, it is a statistical certainty that at least one atom (but we cannot know which one) will decay in the course of the experiment, and the unfortunate cat will undoubtedly be killed. If, on the other hand, there is only one or very few atoms in the box, we will not know whether the cat is dead or alive. # {#article-title-2} As a naive molecular biologist, I am perplexed by one facet of the problem of Schrodinger's cat as it is usually presented. Why can't the cat be considered an observer and therefore remove the uncertainty about its own life or death status? # {#article-title-3} My 12-year-old daughter Phoebe is a student of quantum paradoxes, but she was concerned about an error in the illustration accompanying the Research News article with regard to feline anatomy. Presumably, even Schrodinger's cat would have foreleg “elbows,” not “knees.” # {#article-title-4} The title of the Research News article “Schizophrenic atom doubles as Schrodinger's cat—or kitten” perpetuates a misconception about schizophrenia—which is nothing like split personality—and trivializes a potentially disabling mental disorder. # {#article-title-5} “Kitten,” as used by Taubes, seems needlessly macroscopic as a metaphor for a single trapped atom. How about “Schrodinger's furball”? [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.273.5277.857e [2]: /lookup/volpage/273/1131 [3]: /lookup/volpage/273/1101
Abstract Complementarity tells us we cannot know precisely the values of all the properties of a quantum object at the same time: the precise determination of one property implies that the value of some other (complementary) property is undefined. E.g. the precise knowledge of the position of a particle implies that its momentum is undefined. Here we show that a Schrödinger cat has a well defined value of a property that is complementary to its “being dead or alive” property. Then, thanks to complementarity, it has an undefined value of the property “being dead or alive”. In other words, the cat paradox is explained through quantum complementarity: of its many complementary properties, any quantum system, such as a cat, can have a well defined value only of one at a time. Schrödinger’s cat has a definite value of a property which is complementary to “being dead or alive”, so it is neither dead nor alive. Figuratively one can say it is both dead and alive. While this interpretation only uses textbook concepts (the Copenhagen interpretation), apparently it has never explicitly appeared in the literature. We detail how to build an Arduino based simulation of Schrödinger’s experiment based on these concepts for science outreach events.
Schrodinger's Cat: Empirical research into the radical subjective solution of the measurement problem\n\nDick J. Bierman & Stephen Whitmarsh\n\n \n\nThe most controversial of all solutions of the measurement problem holds that a measurement is not completed until a conscious observation is made.\n\nIn other words quantum physics is a science of potentialities and the measurement i.c. the conscious observation brings about the reality by reducing the state vector to one of the Eigen-states.\n\nIn a series of experiments modeled after the famous experiment by the Shimony group we have explored the brain responses of observers of a quantum event. \n\nIn about 50% of the exosures this quantum event had already been observed about one second earlier by another person. This random manipulation was unknown to the final observer. \n\nThe first experiment along these lines gave suggestive evidence for a difference in brain responses dependent on the manipulation. In subsequent experiments quantum events were mixed with classical events and the results of these experiments that have been reported elsewhere were ambiguous. \n\nIn a final experiment we are trying to solve the paradoxical results obtained so far. In this experiment the final observer receives detailed information about the type of event that (s)he observes. Also the experimental protocol is such that not only pre-observed events cannot be distinguished from not pre-observed events on the basis of their physical characteristic but neither on the basis of inter-event time distributions.