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 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 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.)
In 1935 Erwin Schrödinger proposed a thought experiment to show the absurd consequences of applying quantum mechanics to everyday objects. Schrödinger imagined placing a cat in a box, along with a vial of deadly poison that is connected to a radioactive atom. If the atom decays, it releases the poison and kills the cat. When the box is closed we do not know if the atom has decayed or not, which means that it can be in a "superposition" of two states (decayed and non-decayed) at the same time. Therefore, protested Schrödinger, the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time – which is clearly absurd. There was obviously, he thought, some boundary between the microscopic world of atoms and quantum mechanics, and the macroscopic world of cats and classical mechanics.
Schrodinger’s cat describes a paradox in which a cat is located in a sealed black box with a poison sealed capsule inside it. Radioactive source decays and emits radiation, which activates a Geiger counter, The Geiger counter generates a signal to release poison from the capsule and kill the cat. Since the decay of a radioactive source is a random sub atomic event, based on quantum mechanics we can only derive a probability-based assumption on the exact time that the decay of the radioactive atom will occur. The Copenhagen interpretation says that until an observer opens the box, the entire system is in superposition and the cat is both dead and alive. In this paper, I will show that we can extrapolate this superposition paradox also to the time domain and the entropy level of the system.
Schrodinger’s cat describes a paradox in which a cat is located in a sealed black box with a poison sealed capsule inside it. Radioactive source decays and emits radiation, which activates a Geiger counter, The Geiger counter generates a signal to release poison from the capsule and kill the cat. Since the decay of a radioactive source is a random sub atomic event, based on quantum mechanics we can only derive a probability-based assumption on the exact time that the decay of the radioactive atom will occur. The Copenhagen interpretation says that until an observer opens the box, the entire system is in superposition and the cat is both dead and alive. In this paper, I will show that we can extrapolate this superposition of the wave function to entropy level, to the fabric of space – time, to the information paradox of black holes, new dimensions and to the multiverse theory.
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