Does Schrodinger's Cat Paradox Suck?

[Rap]

There seems to be two definitions of the word "measurement".
1. The establishment of decoherence - more precisely, the establishment of the validity of the decoherence approximation.
2. The collapse of the wave function into a set of wave functions corresponding to a classical measurement device yielding a unique answer.

So I will not use the word "measurement" but rather "decoherence" and "collapse of the wave function".

First, decoherence is not the same as the collapse of the wave function. Decoherence is the realization that the quantum description of a system in terms of wave functions with interfering probability amplitudes can be very accurately, but not perfectly, replaced by a classical "ensemble" with additive probabilities. A classical ensemble is just a bunch of classical possibilities each with their own probability, and the probabilities all add up to one, with no interference effects. In the SCP, the probability of cat dead equals P, probability of cat alive = 1-P, where 0<P<1 so that P + (1-P) = 1

Collapse of the wave function is the act of a scientist replacing his/her information set prior to observing a system with a new information set that reflects the new information gained by the observation. In a microscopic case, this could be choosing one wave function from the set of wave functions that were previously superposed. In the macroscopic case, it could be choosing one of the classical outcomes from a bunch (ensemble) of classically possible outcomes. Note that this corresponds to choosing a wave function which is a superposition of all the wave functions that give the same observation. In the SCP, the scientist opens the box and sees that the cat is dead (probability of cat dead=1, probability of cat alive=0) or perhaps sees the cat alive (probability of cat dead=0, probability of cat alive=1)

The quarter wave plates do NOT, in and of themselves, affect the interference pattern.

I need to study this experiment, but this statement makes sense, decoherence is not the same as wave function collapse.

Further, in a quantum measurement system, it is possible to erase the results of a measurement and thereby restore a prior superposition state.

This bothers me, because I thought that decoherence was irreversible. I assume this means that if you are on the ragged edge of decoherence, it is possible for a system to "re-cohere"?

You are correct that the result of a measurement does not need to be recorded or otherwise observed to achieve decoherence. Again, it depends on the complete setup.

Yes, wave function collapse is not the same as decoherence.

 

[DrChinese]

This bothers me, because I thought that decoherence was irreversible. I assume this means that if you are on the ragged edge of decoherence, it is possible for a system to "re-cohere"?

Yes, it is strange, but you can do some weird things with recombining outputs of things like beam splitters and restoring a previous state. There are some theoretical treatments of things like this (of course this is based on standard application of QM), including one I wrote:

Entangled "Frankenstein" Photons

There are not a lot of good experiments to cite in this particular vein. There are a few but the basic concept itself - erasure after an apparent splitting - is pretty well established.

 

[yuiop]

The quarter wave plates do NOT, in and of themselves, affect the interference pattern. Further, in a quantum measurement system, it is possible to erase the results of a measurement and thereby restore a prior superposition state.

Could you elaborate on this statement? For example in fig 2 of http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf when the quarter wave plates are not present there is an interfence pattern that looks like this:

[PLAIN]http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/PHY5653.gif

but when the quarter wave plates are put in front of the slits the pattern looks like figure 3 of the same paper:

[PLAIN]http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/PHY5658.gif

Now while it is debatable whether or not the second image is or is not an interference pattern*, we can certainly say the quarter wave plates do "affect the interference pattern".

Bear in mind that the above effect happens even before a polariser is placed in the path of the primary entangled photon that is used for coincidence counting.

Another example can be seen in figure 5 of this document http://www.fsc.ufsc.br/~lucio/2003-07WalbornF.pdf by the same authors, of the effect of the quarter wave plates on the interference pattern, in a situation that does not involve entanglement. *I plan on starting a new thread to go into the details of the erasure experiment so I will not digress here.

 

[Rap]

Tentatively accepting that, there's one aspect that still doesn't quite match up in my mind. Taking the position that pre measurement everything in the box is in a superposed 'ghostly' state, center-of-mass change post measurement seems problematic. Specifically, that say the averaged state of 'alive and standing cat' + 'dead and lying cat' is different from either actualized/measured state. So is there a sudden jump in momentum as a result of the act of measurement, or is that somehow formally taken care of 'observer+observed' = constant?

Well, the momentum of the whole system would not change, but the position of the box would change if the cat died and fell down. If the box is truly isolated, then you cannot monitor its position, that would require de-isolation, if only to bounce a photon off the box every once in a while. When you close the box, you could measure its position, but to measure its position at some later point in time is tantamount to opening the box. One single measurement of the box's position would tell you whether the cat was standing (alive) or lying (dead), and you might as well just open the box. Until then the position of the box is in a superposition of moved and not-moved.

 

[Q-reeus]

Well, the momentum of the whole system would not change, but the position of the box would change if the cat died and fell down... Until then the position of the box is in a superposition of moved and not-moved.

Hmm... no problem with following that sequence, but it's the dynamics at the point of wavefunction collapse/measurement that has me still wondering. Collapse is supposed to be essentially instantaneous, I gather this means also the transition in cat centre-of-mass - from superposed to either standing & alive, or lying & dead. Whether or not the box is taken to act as an exact counterpoise momentum wise, seems kind of potentially violent - we all know what a really rapid dp/dt implies. I don't for a moment believe such could happen, but it does suggest maybe collapse has to be in fact a somewhat leisurely affair? Interesting to speculate about possible additional restrictions on the wavefunction/collapse process if we were to say have a rotating cat-n-box setup (conservation of angular momentum). Bed time again!

 

[Rap]

Hmm... no problem with following that sequence, but it's the dynamics at the point of wavefunction collapse/measurement that has me still wondering. Collapse is supposed to be essentially instantaneous, I gather this means also the transition in cat centre-of-mass - from superposed to either standing & alive, or lying & dead. Whether or not the box is taken to act as an exact counterpoise momentum wise, seems kind of potentially violent - we all know what a really rapid dp/dt implies. I don't for a moment believe such could happen, but it does suggest maybe collapse has to be in fact a somewhat leisurely affair? Interesting to speculate about possible additional restrictions on the wavefunction/collapse process if we were to say have a rotating cat-n-box setup (conservation of angular momentum). Bed time again!

Well, no, we have to keep separate the event of the cat dying and the event of opening the box. The cat dying will be not give infinite dp/dt, that can be a "leisurely affair", but observing whether the cat is dead or alive can be considered instantaneous.

 

[Rap]

Thank you, yes, exactly the point I was trying to make a while back. I think paradoxes arise if you posit that human observation must happen for a measurement to take place

I am not positing that human observation must happen. Any entity making symbolic quantum mechanical calculations and capable of modifying those calculations in light of new information (i.e. a measurement) will respond to this new information in the quantum mechanical way - collapsing the wave function that it is using to describe the system.

At the same time, in the double slit experiment, human observation alone is not enough to collapse the wavefunction, precise measurement must take place so as to induce momentum uncertainty.

Human observation (or its equivalent - see above) is sufficient to collapse the wave function. If the human is observing a screen responding to individual photons, the human will collapse the wave function to one in which position is well defined, momentum is not. Its a question of what the device is set up to measure. If it were set up to measure momentum, then it would induce position uncertainty and the human would collapse the wave function to something different.

And also, if we assert that the Geiger counter is in a state of superposition until heard or viewed by a human, we would have to explain why the cat, upon hearing the Geiger counter and viewing the hammer fall and glass shatter (or not) would not be able to collapse the system, while a human could, as though only an intelligent enough being could collapse a wavefunction...

The cat would collapse the wave function of a system it is observing (Geiger counter), the scientist outside would not collapse the wave function of a system he is not observing (Geiger counter). If the cat is capable of performing symbolic quantum calculations, then it would collapse the wave function it was using to describe the geiger counter. It would then be like "Wigner's friend". As and object of study by Wigner, who is outside the box, the wave function Wigner uses to describe the cat etc will be a superposition of states, some of which describe the cat as alive and making quantum calculations and collapsing the wave function it is using, some as dead and not.

The resolution to the SC paradox is the realization that the wave function is objective in the sense that it encodes your MEASUREMENTS, but subjective in the sense that it encodes YOUR measurements. Realizing that you know more after you have made a measurement (i.e. collapsing the wave function you use to describe a system) is not an act that modifies the system you are studying. Collapsing the wave function does not affect the system being observed. Acquiring the information you use to collapse the wave function does. If we have a group of scientists, none of which are part of the system being studied, then they will all make the same measurement, and all will use the same wave function, and it will seem very objective. But if one of the scientists is part of the system being studied, then the wave function that scientist uses to describe e.g. the Geiger counter, will not be the same as the one used by the scientists who are not part of the system being studied. The wave function is a very special way of encoding what you have measured, and the formalism of QM spells out in detail what you can then infer. For a community of scientists, what one knows, all know (in principle), and the wave function is the same. If one scientist knows more, by being an integral part of an isolated system that others are studying, then there is trouble. The SC paradox and in particular, Wigner's extension, is a brilliant way to bring this issue to the front.

 

[Q-reeus]

Rap, you've done a sterling job explaining your position but let's see if I have understood one key aspect right. That the time evolving wavefunction of the totally isolated system cat+Geiger-counter+poison+box etc. is basically just a 'knowledge probability function' tied entirely to the radioactive decay process within, and quite distinct from the 'actual physics' going on in said system (ie. - cat at any moment is alive, or is dead/dying, we just don't know). In #64 you wrote "...Until then the position of the box is in a superposition of moved and not-moved." I will in light of your subsequent statements take that as just a semantic slip-up - that you really meant "knowledge of the position...". Yes? Otherwise, the bang-crash problem posed in #65 remains imho acute and real [or maybe not, see below] (That dirty 'r' word many deny has real meaning). If so then quite honestly I cannot see any practical difference to an entirely classical system - Sir Isaac N opens his box and observes, but that has no influence on what's already happened - merely his awareness. Indeed why bother with unattainable but theoretically possible total isolation. Isn't it all governed by chance radioactive decay, which is quite insensitive to isolation or not? For that matter, dispense with the sole quantum aspect that matters - radioactive decay, and substitute a purely classical random event generator that over say the life of the universe will generate randomness indistinguishable from the real McCoy.

My understanding from various sources has been quite different - superposition means an actual indeterminacy of the physical system - it is, really and truly, in all possible states at once, but the weighting of the 'blurred system' evolves smoothly and deterministically in time - more and more favoring 'dead cat' as time goes on. And that observation suddenly crystallizes the actual physical state. Not merely revealing what already is, but forcing into existence at that point - hence the concerns in #65. [EDIT: Given that the Schrodinger eq'n evolves in a Hamiltonian manner, that should guarantee all superposed states are equivalent re energy & momentum? Severely restricting the cat states - cannot be standing/lying at the same time - maybe 'floating' at all times. Then there is no bang crash crisis upon wavefunction collapse, right? On further thought, that still doesn't restrict changes in center of mass - looks like back to square one.] Seems to be the lesson from say double-slit; observed or not effects the interference pattern in a very physical way. It's not just an alteration of our which-way knowledge, the pattern of screen hits alters tangibly - energy/momentum density has altered for real. So is there even one clear Copenhagen interpretation of SCP? From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat, under Copenhagen Interpretation:

"In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well-defined in this interpretation. The experiment can be interpreted to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.

However, one of the main scientists associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, Niels Bohr, never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave function, so that Schrodinger's Cat did not pose any riddle to him. The cat would be either dead or alive long before the box is opened by a conscious observer.[5] Analysis of an actual experiment found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave function before there is any conscious observation of the measurement.[6] The view that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector can be developed into objective collapse theories. In contrast, the many worlds approach denies that collapse ever occurs."

So dissent from the beginning even within the CI camp it would seem. From #65 I consider it unphysical that observer initiated sudden collapse of a physically superposed SC system occurs, but the 'knowledge only' interpretation seems airy-fairy and essentially classical in all but name.

 

[Rap]

See, you and everybody else who attack my position by looking for logical inconsistencies and absurdities are the people my inner type-2 troll is looking for. People who quote this and that authority are not. Was it someone on this thread who included the quote from Einstein who, when confronted by a book entitled "100 scientists against Einstein", responded "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough". Excellent.

... the time evolving wavefunction of the totally isolated system cat+Geiger-counter+poison+box etc. is basically just a 'knowledge probability function' tied entirely to the radioactive decay process within, and quite distinct from the 'actual physics' going on in said system (ie. - cat at any moment is alive, or is dead/dying, we just don't know).

As a Copenhagen sympathizer, I would say that there is no "actual physics" going on in said system, just like there is no "actual spin" of an electron, just what you measure given the measurement device you set up, which may measure along z axis, or maybe x or y. "actual physics" would be an appeal to a hidden variable approach to QM, which has been shown to be false. But, this produces a problem/learning opportunity in the case of Wigner's friend. To the friend inside the friend+SC box (F+SC), there is no "actual physics" inside the SC box, but to Wigner outside the F+SC box, the is no "actual physics" going on inside it?!? Grrrr. Let me think about it.

In #64 you wrote "...Until then the position of the box is in a superposition of moved and not-moved." I will in light of your subsequent statements take that as just a semantic slip-up - that you really meant "knowledge of the position...". Yes? Otherwise, the bang-crash problem posed in #65 remains imho acute and real

A more accurate statement would be "until then the wave function for the box and contents will consist of a superposition of moved and not moved regarding the position of the box".

If so then quite honestly I cannot see any practical difference to an entirely classical system...

If a system is described by a QM wave function, then there can be interference, causing a zero amplitude where + and - valued wave functions add their amplitudes. The probability is the absolute value of the amplitude, which can yield a null result from two non-null amplitudes. Classical probability is >0 and simply additive. The only way you get zero is the sum of zeroes. The probabilities inside the box must be calculated quantum mechanically, so no, it is still a quantum system.

My understanding from various sources has been quite different - superposition means an actual indeterminacy of the physical system - it is, really and truly, in all possible states at once, but the weighting of the 'blurred system' evolves smoothly and deterministically in time - more and more favoring 'dead cat' as time goes on. And that observation suddenly crystallizes the actual physical state. Not merely revealing what already is, but forcing into existence at that point - hence the concerns in #65.

I would not say that it is in all states at once. I would simply say that our bookkeeping regarding our knowledge of the system is encoded in a wave function which is represented as a vector in an N-dimensional space. Opening the box will collapse the state vector to one of many possible other vectors in the space that correspond to an observation (eigenstates). The state vector before opening the box can be expressed as a weighted sum of these eigenstates: i.e it is a "superposition" of these eigenstates. And that's all I would say. When we closed the box, the state vector was in an eigenstate corresponding to "cat alive, Geiger counter not clicked". Schroedingers equation expresses the evolution of what we may say about the system as time goes on: the state vector, which we knew at time zero, then moves around in the vector space in a particular way, described by Schroedinger's equation, and when we express it as a weighted sum of eigenstates, those weights change smoothly in time. When we open the box, our new information changes the state vector from the one calculated to the one observed. It is pointless to think of the state vector as "really" being in some eigenstate, while "apparently" being the vector we calculate using Schroedinger's equation, before we open the box. Its a bookkeeping problem, but not a classical one, because the evolution of the system uses quantum wave functions yielding interference effects which is not the way classical systems behave.

Given that the Schrodinger eq'n evolves in a Hamiltonian manner, that should guarantee all superposed states are equivalent re energy & momentum? Severely restricting the cat states - cannot be standing/lying at the same time - maybe 'floating' at all times. Then there is no bang crash crisis upon wavefunction collapse, right? On further thought, that still doesn't restrict changes in center of mass - looks like back to square one.

Energy, momentum, center of mass will all remain constant, to within Heisenberg uncertainty, which is negligible in this huge system. But when the cat drops dead, the energy, momentum, and center of mass do not change. I guess we have to say the box is not in a gravitational field, to insure isolation, so the cat is weightless, it does not drop, but it still might change its configuration. But even if there were a gravitational field, the position of the box would go up as the cat went down, and the center of mass would remain the same. Same for momentum and energy: no change.

Seems to be the lesson from say double-slit; observed or not effects the interference pattern in a very physical way. It's not just an alteration of our which-way knowledge, the pattern of screen hits alters tangibly - energy/momentum density has altered for real. So is there even one clear Copenhagen interpretation of SCP? From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat, under Copenhagen Interpretation: (quote)

I pretty much agree with the quote. But its not "observed or not" that affects the interference pattern, its what instrument you choose as your measuring device. If you choose to measure position, you get interference. If you choose to measure momentum, no interference pattern. (Thats a bit glib, but I think its correct)

However, one of the main scientists associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, Niels Bohr, never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave function, so that Schrodinger's Cat did not pose any riddle to him. The cat would be either dead or alive long before the box is opened by a conscious observer.[5]

This surprises me. I would expect Bohr to deny any physical reality to something that was not yet measured. Applied to an electron, I would not expect Bohr to say that an electron was spin up or spin down long before the electron spin is measured.

Analysis of an actual experiment found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave function before there is any conscious observation of the measurement.[6] The view that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector can be developed into objective collapse theories.

This sounds like decoherence theory to me, and decoherence theory is derived from QM, and therefore cannot deny it. The collapse is a collapse to a bunch of classical possibilities, and is an approximation. When the box is opened, if you are working in pure QM, the wave function collapses to a superposition of all the many possible "dead" eigenstates, or a superposition of all of the many possible "alive" eigenstates. In decoherence, you "collapse" the wave function to a sum of the two possibilities, and the probabilities are very accurately, but not perfectly additive. Then you open the box and one or the other becomes apparent.

In contrast, the many worlds approach denies that collapse ever occurs."

I object to the many worlds idea because it is unverifiable, you can make no measurement to verify or refute it, and therefore it is not scientific.

 

[Q-reeus]

See, you and everybody else who attack my position...

Hey Rap, sorry if you feel that way, but honestly not my intent - just a genuinely confused QM dummy. Really appreciate all the effort you go to.

As a Copenhagen sympathizer, I would say that there is no "actual physics" going on in said system, just like there is no "actual spin" of an electron, just what you measure given the measurement device you set up, which may measure along z axis, or maybe x or y. "actual physics" would be an appeal to a hidden variable approach to QM, which has been shown to be false...

Fine, I'm thinking that is basically Schrodinger's Instrumentalist approach someone mentioned earlier. Have to say though that the following impresses me still re 'actual physics' - refers to that micro-cantilever experiment mentioned in #22:
"Scientists supersize quantum mechanics": http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html
The way it's presented, comes across to me as achieving a 'real' superposed state.

Energy, momentum, center of mass will all remain constant...

I worded that badly. Basically was suggesting that cat center of mass could be anywhere within the box, without in any way violating the constancy of energy/momentum, and the total system COM.
As for the rest, well I really need to bone up in order to have serious dialogue on this sort of thing. So no more pestering you on this topic - honest. Have a nice stress-free day!

 

[Rap]

Hey Rap, sorry if you feel that way, but honestly not my intent

LOL - read the whole sentence - I'm thanking you for the reasoned attack.

So no more pestering you on this topic - honest. Have a nice stress-free day!

Thanks, you too. But your "pestering" revealed a problem regarding Wigner's friend that is just the kind of thing I was looking for.

 

[yuiop]

A more accurate statement would be "until then the wave function for the box and contents will consist of a superposition of moved and not moved regarding the position of the box".

According to your earlier definitions there is no such thing as "the wave function for the box and contents" independent of a observer. For example do you mean the wave function according to the cat, according to the observer outside the box or according to the friend in a box inside the SC box? You have stated that the wave function is not an absolute entity, but an observer dependent entity, so like in Special Relativity when we say the velocity of an object is v, this has no meaning until we add a qualifier such as "according to observer x at rest with respect to reference frame S". Is that really how wave functions are defined in QM?

 

[yuiop]

I am not positing that human observation must happen. Any entity making symbolic quantum mechanical calculations and capable of modifying those calculations in light of new information (i.e. a measurement) will respond to this new information in the quantum mechanical way - collapsing the wave function that it is using to describe the system.

Let us say we have two almost identical experiments but one is "open box" and one is "closed box". For each experiment we have a radioactive source, a Geiger counter, a paper chart with a constant drive and a recording pen. The Geiger system is connected in such a way that a voltage signal from the detector causes a blip on the chart. There are no microprocessors or other logic devices built into the system and I doubt no one would describe the Geiger counter and recording chart as a "sentient system". Now we run the experiments a million times but one experiment is in an open box closely monitored by scientists skilled in the art of making quantum calculations and the other is run in a closed box. After each run, the paper chart is removed from the closed box and put in a safe without anyone looking at it. After a million test runs, we remove the test charts from the safe and compare them with the results from the observed "open box" runs. Do you expect there to be any statistically significant difference between the open box and closed box results. If there is any difference we repeat the experiment a million times again and collate the statistical average of the tests. Does observation by intelligent beings make any difference to the two cases? (I say no, what do you say?). Are the paper charts in the locked safe in a superposed state until someone opens the safe and looks at them?

I am not positing that human observation must happen. Any entity making symbolic quantum mechanical calculations and capable of modifying those calculations in light of new information (i.e. a measurement) will respond to this new information in the quantum mechanical way - collapsing the wave function that it is using to describe the system.

I still think you are using wave function to mean the predictions of humans with limited information rather than the state of the system itself.

I object to the many worlds idea because it is unverifiable, you can make no measurement to verify or refute it, and therefore it is not scientific.

While that may well be true, there are many interpretations of what is going on in QM systems, but they are all equally valid. There is equally no measurement to verify or refute the Copenhagen Interpretation versus the other interpretations. It comes down to personal taste or philosophy. It is a bit like the difference between LET and SRT in relativity. The mathematical predictions are the same, but the philosophical interpretations are different. Personally I find the MWI distasteful, because it requires many worlds/universes and a sort of book keeping system to correctly sort them, when there are other interpretations that only require a single universe and non-local interaction at the quantum level.

This is a "hidden variables" approach to QM which has been shown to be wrong.

Bell's inequalities do not by themselves demonstrate that hidden variables "are wrong". They demonstrate that theories that explain the EPR experiment results must be either non-local or unrealistic (or both). A theory that contains hidden variables is not excluded as long as it is non-local or unrealistic.

P.S. Dr Chinese. Have you seen/considered https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3118570&postcount=63"?

 

[Rap]

Let us say we have two almost identical experiments but one is "open box" and one is "closed box". For each experiment we have a radioactive source, a Geiger counter, a paper chart with a constant drive and a recording pen. The Geiger system is connected in such a way that a voltage signal from the detector causes a blip on the chart. There are no microprocessors or other logic devices built into the system and I doubt no one would describe the Geiger counter and recording chart as a "sentient system". Now we run the experiments a million times but one experiment is in an open box closely monitored by scientists skilled in the art of making quantum calculations and the other is run in a closed box. After each run, the paper chart is removed from the closed box and put in a safe without anyone looking at it. After a million test runs, we remove the test charts from the safe and compare them with the results from the observed "open box" runs. Do you expect there to be any statistically significant difference between the open box and closed box results. If there is any difference we repeat the experiment a million times again and collate the statistical average of the tests. Does observation by intelligent beings make any difference to the two cases? (I say no, what do you say?). Are the paper charts in the locked safe in a superposed state until someone opens the safe and looks at them?

The fundamental thing here is that the closed box is an isolated system, the open box is not. For the closed box, the calculations of the wave function may be carried out using only the results of our measurements on it when we closed it. The open box is open to the universe, and being affected by the universe, and unless we have the universe (without the scientist) isolated, we cannot do QM calculations on it. We cannot even do classical calculations on it, unless it is classically isolated, which is much easier. Suppose we have a container of gas which is at equilibrium and classically isolated - thermally insulated, constant volume, opaque, etc. whose temperature and pressure we measure. Then we can predict the future for that system - its pressure and temperature will remain constant. Suppose we kick the container off the edge of the grand canyon. We know that it will be dented or broken on the way down but we cannot predict its future, unless we know the position of every rock on the way down, the momentum and position after we kicked it, etc. We have opened it to the universe, and lost the ability to predict its future. Quantum systems must be VERY isolated in order to do wave function calculations. You cannot do quantum calculations on an open box because you cannot know all the variables that are affecting it: its effectively been kicked off the edge of the grand canyon. The minute you open one of the closed boxes, you can no longer do quantum calculations on it. But the contents of the box may be treated classically, its a classical cat. If you open it, and the readings on the tape are are not significantly changed by the environment (and unless you open the box in a burning building or something, they will not be), then the results will be valid, altho they cannot be treated quantum mechanically. So I believe there will be no statistical difference in the results, and no, the tapes cannot be treated quantum mechanically, as being in a superposition of states when they are stored in the safe, because the prerequisites for a quantum mechanical treatment (complete isolation of your experiment) have been violated.

I still think you are using wave function to mean the predictions of humans with limited information rather than the state of the system itself.

If by "limited information" you mean "quantum-limited information" (e.g. Heisenberg uncertainty), then yes, I am doing exactly that with the wave function, but the wave function IS the "state of the system itself". I am not trying to use a wave function outside of an isolated system. I wouldn't try to do a classical analysis of a problem if it were not practically isolated from the rest of the universe. If I flip a coin and cover it with my hand before looking at it, that is a classical problem, the coin is made of metal, and is isolated from severe classical perturbations, so we can treat it as a classical probability problem. No quantum analysis is possible, the system is not isolated enough. If I fully isolate the coin and a flipping machine, then I can use quantum mechanics to describe the state of the system and once the coin is flipped, I will describe it as being in a superposition of flipped and not flipped. Now I am using quantum uncertainty to describe the situation. Decoherence theory says that I will not get radically different results when I open the box, because the coin is, as already noted, a classical system. When decoherence theory is applicable, quantum uncertainty translates to classical uncertainty.

While that may well be true, there are many interpretations of what is going on in QM systems, but they are all equally valid. There is equally no measurement to verify or refute the Copenhagen Interpretation versus the other interpretations.

The Copenhagen interpretation is different. It does not postulate anything beyond measurement. So what you are saying is that there is no measurement to verify or refute the idea that there is nothing beyond measurement, which is ... well, you see my point.

Bell's inequalities do not by themselves demonstrate that hidden variables "are wrong". They demonstrate that theories that explain the EPR experiment results must be either non-local or unrealistic (or both). A theory that contains hidden variables is not excluded as long as it is non-local or unrealistic.

I think you are right, but we are dealing with quantum mechanics as it is presently understood, not as it might be some day when such a theory is developed.

 

[yuiop]

If by "limited information" you mean "quantum-limited information" (e.g. Heisenberg uncertainty), then yes, I am doing exactly that with the wave function, but the wave function IS the "state of the system itself".

You are again being self inconsistent here. You have many times stated that there is no such thing as the wave function of the "state of the system itself", but only the wave function according to the cat in the box or according to the observer outside the sealed box or according to Wigner's friend, so by your definition, the wave function is an observer dependent function that is totally incompatible with statements like the wave function IS the "state of the system itself"

I think the difference in our positions is well described by this quote by Mermin http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9609/9609013v1.pdf:

(1) The theory should describe an objective reality independent of observers
and their knowledge.
The maddening thing about the wave–function is the way in which it manages to mix
up objective reality and human knowledge. As a clear indication of this murkiness note that even
today there is coexistence between those who maintain that the wave–function
is entirely real and objective — notably advocates of Bohmian mechanics or seekers of a
modified quantum mechanics in which wave–function collapse is a ubiquitous real physical
phenomenon—and those who maintain, unambiguously with Heisenberg and presumably
with Bohr, that the wave–function is nothing more than a concise encapsulation of our
knowledge.
A satisfactory interpretation should be unambiguous about what has objective reality
and what does not, and what is objectively real should be cleanly separated from what is
“known”. Indeed, knowledge should not enter at a fundamental level at all.

I wouldn't try to do a classical analysis of a problem if it were not practically isolated from the rest of the universe. If I flip a coin and cover it with my hand before looking at it, that is a classical problem, the coin is made of metal, and is isolated from severe classical perturbations, so we can treat it as a classical probability problem. No quantum analysis is possible, the system is not isolated enough. If I fully isolate the coin and a flipping machine, then I can use quantum mechanics to describe the state of the system and once the coin is flipped, I will describe it as being in a superposition of flipped and not flipped. Now I am using quantum uncertainty to describe the situation. Decoherence theory says that I will not get radically different results when I open the box, because the coin is, as already noted, a classical system. When decoherence theory is applicable, quantum uncertainty translates to classical uncertainty.
The Copenhagen interpretation is different. It does not postulate anything beyond measurement. So what you are saying is that there is no measurement to verify or refute the idea that there is nothing beyond measurement, which is ... well, you see my point.

You say you are a Copenhagen Interpretation sympathiser and as I understand it in that interpretation it is only what we measure that counts. This implies you can not say things like "in a superposition of flipped and not flipped" because you do not have any knowledge of what is going on between measurements. You flip the coin and cover it with your hand. When you uncover the coin you find you have "heads". One interpretation is that when the coin was covered, it was either heads or tails but not both but we because we do not have certain knowledge we can only assign a probability to the state of heads or tails which simply reflects our lack of certain knowledge. Another interpretation is that the coin under your hand is in a superposition of both heads and tails. However, according to the CI, we can say nothing about the coin until we uncover it and find we have heads, so saying it is in a superposition before before the uncovering is against the spirit of the CI because you are saying you know something about the coin (i.e. it is a state of superposition" without making any objective measurement to prove it is a superposition.) Can you prove that if after you remove your hand the coin showed "heads" that it was not in a state of "heads" while it was covered by your hand? So when you say "The Copenhagen interpretation is different. It does not postulate anything beyond measurement." that is not entirely true, because it is postulating that something is in a superposed state before measurement. Let's take another example. Let us say we have source of light that is unpolarised, i.e. if we place a polarising filter in the path we always get 50% transmission in accordance with Malus's law. Now there are two (maybe more) possible interpretations for what is going on here. One is that a given photon has a definite polarisation state before the polariser and if it orientated between -45 and +45 degrees of the polariser it passes through, giving a 50% chance. Once the photon has passed through the filter it is aligned with the filter and and information and the orthogonal component of its polarisation is lost. The other interpretation is that the photon has no definite polarised state before the filter and is in a superposition of vertical and horizontal polarisation. On arriving at the polariser, the photon flips a coin and has 50% chance of passing through. Now Malus's law simply says that the photon has probability of 50% of passing through and does not postulate whether the photon was in a superposed state before the polariser or not. The CI on the other hand goes beyond Malus's law and its own remit, by claiming to know that the photon was in a superposed state before the measurement, so it is not adhering to the "Shut UP and Calculate Interpretation", but offering an explanation or assumption of what is happening before measurement, by stating the photon is superposed before measurement. If the CI adheres strictly to not postulating anything beyond measurement, then the CI should say "we do not know whether the photon is superposed or in a definite state before measurement, all we know is that the measurements will statistically agree with the predictions of Malus's law."

 

[Maui]

For me, the most obvious problem with the thought experiment lies in the fact that the Geiger counter is perfectly sufficient in collapsing the wave function of the decay particle, and superposition ends there, does it not?

Not necessarily, the only way to know anything at all in this universe(reality) is through a mind. A Geiger counter is just a tool. This point is very obvious if you trust the experiements that highlight the role that potential knowledge plays on collapsing wavefunction.

 

[Maui]

No. A human observer does not have to be present for a measurement to take place.

The Geiger counter is a classical system. That is the key. The measurement occurs when the quantum system interacts with a classical system. It is this interaction that causes the decoherence phenomenon which collapses the entire composite system, the cat+Geiger counter+ decaying atom into a classical, non superimposed state.

No human intervention or reading of the Geiger counter is necessary to collapse the system.

The human observers uncertainty about the measurement is classical, and does not correspond to a quantum superposition.

I am sure many people will disagree on the split into classical and quantum systems(Bohr was of this opinion) but i'd point out that environmentally induced decoherence doesn't explain the transition from mixed states to single outcomes. Some form of measurement/observation/split-ala-MWI is mandatory. The idea that the environment does all the selection 'work' through some deterministic(realist) process is just wishful thinking.

 

[Rap]

You are again being self inconsistent here. You have many times stated that there is no such thing as the wave function of the "state of the system itself", but only the wave function according to the cat in the box or according to the observer outside the sealed box or according to Wigner's friend, so by your definition, the wave function is an observer dependent function that is totally incompatible with statements like the wave function IS the "state of the system itself"

You are absolutely right, I never should have said that without explanation, knowing as I do that your definition of "the state itself" is different than mine. I think you define the state as an objective reality, while I define a state as the sum of my knowledge, properly expressed in terms of whatever theory I am making my calculations with. In thermodynamics, for example, if you have a container of gas, its "macrostate" or thermodynamic state is defined e.g. by its temperature and pressure. In classical statistical mechanics, its "microstate" is defined by the position and momentum of every gas molecule in the container. In quantum mechanics the wave function is also known as the "state vector" in the Hilbert space that is being used to describe the set of all possible wave vectors that could exist for a system. I will not use the term "state" without explanation in the future.

I think the difference in our positions is well described by this quote by Mermin http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9609/9609013v1.pdf:

Yes, that is an excellent quote. I only object to the word "maddening". I used to be maddened by it until I realized that my idea of "objective reality" is encoded in my brain by my DNA which has evolved to survive in a classical Newtonian world, and had no need to deal with quantum uncertainty, just as my brain is wired to deal with Galilean relativity and the absolute nature of time, rather than Einsteinian relativity where space and time get all mixed up. If the equations work, I will take it as providing true clues as to how the world works, and not demand that they make intuitive sense to my Cro-magnon brain.

You say you are a Copenhagen Interpretation sympathiser and as I understand it in that interpretation it is only what we measure that counts. This implies you can not say things like "in a superposition of flipped and not flipped" because you do not have any knowledge of what is going on between measurements.

I think you are trying to assign objective reality to a superposed wave function. A superposed wave function is not describing the (unmeasureable) objective reality of the system, it is simply encoding what we know about it based on previous measurements. You get a superposed wave function by measuring a system, which gives a non-superposed wave function, then you let Schroedinger's equation tell you how that wave function changes, and it will change into a superposed wave function. Thats how you know it is a superposed wave function.

The wave function is a vector in Hilbert space. Any vector can be expressed as a weighted sum of N base vectors. You can pick any bunch of base vectors you want, as long as they are linearly independent (i.e. not pointing in the same direction). If you have an electron, it can be spin up (i.e. "flipped") or spin down (i.e. not flipped). These are two base vectors <up> and <down> in the 2-d Hilbert space, and any other wave function (vector) can be expressed as A1 <up>+A2 <down>. If A1=1, A2=0 you have spin down, A1=0, A2=1, you have spin up. If you have A1=1/2, A2=1/2, then you have a superposition of spin up and spin down. This superposed wave function is a precisely defined wave function that tells you that if you now measure the spin of that electron, half the time you will measure spin up, half the time spin down. I do not have any knowledge of what is going on between measurements, but I do know exactly what the wave function is, and it reflects my uncertainty about what my result will be if I measure the spin of the electron.

You flip the coin and cover it with your hand. When you uncover the coin you find you have "heads". One interpretation is that when the coin was covered, it was either heads or tails but not both but we because we do not have certain knowledge we can only assign a probability to the state of heads or tails which simply reflects our lack of certain knowledge. Another interpretation is that the coin under your hand is in a superposition of both heads and tails.

No - the coin is not in an isolated system, we cannot do quantum mechanics on it until it is part of an isolated system.

However, according to the CI, we can say nothing about the coin until we uncover it and find we have heads, so saying it is in a superposition before before the uncovering is against the spirit of the CI because you are saying you know something about the coin (i.e. it is a state of superposition" without making any objective measurement to prove it is a superposition.)

Suppose I have an electron in a weak magnetic field along the x axis, and I measure its z-spin to be "up". If I plug <z-up> into Schroedingers equation, Schroedingers equation will show how the wave function changes in time, until at a certain time T later, it is in a superposition of z-up and z-down. My "proof" that it is a superposed state at time T is my measurement that it was <z-up> at time zero and my use of Schroedinger's equation to predict the superposed state at time T.

Lets take another example. Let us say we have source of light that is unpolarised, i.e. if we place a polarising filter in the path we always get 50% transmission in accordance with Malus's law. Now there are two (maybe more) possible interpretations for what is going on here. One is that a given photon has a definite polarisation state before the polariser and if it orientated between -45 and +45 degrees of the polariser it passes through, giving a 50% chance. Once the photon has passed through the filter it is aligned with the filter and and information and the orthogonal component of its polarisation is lost. The other interpretation is that the photon has no definite polarised state before the filter and is in a superposition of vertical and horizontal polarisation. On arriving at the polariser, the photon flips a coin and has 50% chance of passing through. Now Malus's law simply says that the photon has probability of 50% of passing through and does not postulate whether the photon was in a superposed state before the polariser or not. The CI on the other hand goes beyond Malus's law and its own remit, by claiming to know that the photon was in a superposed state before the measurement, so it is not adhering to the "Shut UP and Calculate Interpretation", but offering an explanation or assumption of what is happening before measurement, by stating the photon is superposed before measurement. If the CI adheres strictly to not postulating anything beyond measurement, then the CI should say "we do not know whether the photon is superposed or in a definite state before measurement, all we know is that the measurements will statistically agree with the predictions of Malus's law."

The idea that a photon must have a polarization within 45 degrees of the polarizer before passing thru does not work. If I pass a beam of randomly polarized photons thru a polarizer oriented at zero degrees, then I guess we could say the polarization of the photons coming out are evenly distributed between +45 and -45. Next we pass them thru a polarizer at 45 degrees. Half of the ones out of the first polarizer will be between 0 and 45 degrees, and only these will make it thru the second polarizer, since they are between 45-45=0 and 45+45=90 degrees. Now we pass these thru a polarizer at 90 degrees - none will make it thru, because there are none in the beam that are between 90-45=45 and 90+45=135 degrees. In actual fact, something like 20 percent of the original photons make it thru all three polarizers.

Quantum mechanics gives the right answer, but you have to be sure and distinguish between a bunch of photons in a superposition of up and down, and a bunch of randomly polarized photons. The first involves a quantum uncertainty about the polarization of the photons, the second implies further lack of information about the polarization which is not included in the wave function. You can have two kinds of uncertainty - Heisenberg uncertainty encoded in a well-defined wave function, and then uncertainty about the wave function itself. If you flip a coin with your hand, you have uncertainty about the wave function itself, because its not a system that is isolated enough to do quantum mechanics.

 

[Ken G]

I am sure many people will disagree on the split into classical and quantum systems(Bohr was of this opinion) but i'd point out that environmentally induced decoherence doesn't explain the transition from mixed states to single outcomes. Some form of measurement/observation/split-ala-MWI is mandatory. The idea that the environment does all the selection 'work' through some deterministic(realist) process is just wishful thinking.

Yes, there are really three stages to the cat paradox, not two the way it is normally explained. There is the true superposition of the entire closed system, there is its unitary evolution that projects into a mixed-state subspace (via decoherence) constituting the physical parameters that we (the physicists) are actually tracking (which suffice to tell us if a cat is alive or dead), and there is the observational outcome which "actualizes" only one substate from that mixed substate. Which of those steps is the "collapse", and which is most paradoxical? Many people would choose different answers to those two questions, so until that landscape is navigated clearly, we are spinning our wheels. It might also help to recognize that the fundamental difference between MWI and Copenhagen is how they construct the flow of priority in those steps-- MWI appeals to an "outside-in" ordering of priorities just as it was stated above, which is essentially a temporal ordering, and Copenhagen uses an "inside-out" ordering of priorities, which starts with the physicist and builds outward, essentially in reverse to the temporal order described above. That, in turn, boils down to whether you think physics gives rise to physicists (MWI), or physicists give rise to physics (Copenhagen).

 

[Ken G]

You can have two kinds of uncertainty - Heisenberg uncertainty encoded in a well-defined wave function, and then uncertainty about the wave function itself. If you flip a coin with your hand, you have uncertainty about the wave function itself, because its not a system that is isolated enough to do quantum mechanics.

Yes, that is true, but remember that one can always recover the superposition state by embedding the coin into a larger system that is effectively isolated (like the whole Earth or some such thing). The cat paradox is often erroneously stated that the cat is in a superposition state, but that is simply wrong quantum mechanics. It is never the cat that is in a superposition state, because just as you say, the cat is not isolated. It is only the larger isolated system, including the amplifier and decaying nucleus, that is in a superposition state. Projecting that onto the cat will always yield a mixed state, so there's no paradox in that projection at all. The paradox doesn't come until we (the observers using the physics) observe the cat, and take a combined isolated system that contained dead-cat substates and alive-cat substates, and get just one or the other. That's the Wigner's friend version of the paradox, which is the real issue-- the quantum mechanics part only seems like a paradox if it is done wrong. (The same goes for the issue of whether or not a wave function is a description of the reality or just a description of our knowledge-- I agree with you that it is always the latter, but that doesn't resolve the real cat paradox, only the wrong one.)

In other words, when you flip a coin and cover it, you would not describe that coin with a superposition state, because that would just be wrong quantum mechanics, and for just the reasons you've described. But someone else, say an alien on a distant planet interested in not just the coin but everything happening on the Earth, might indeed use a superposition state that includes you, the coin, the room, etc.. The tension between those two different but correct uses of quantum mechanics is really what the "cat paradox" is, and it is a very good paradox for bringing out those distinctions. I would conclude the resolution is that not only is the wave function determined by our knowledge and what questions we are trying to answer, but the reality itself is also so dependent. There is no such thing as "reality" beyond what we have decided we want to know about reality, and so the reality that Mermin is searching for, and requiring our physics to describe, simply does not exist (or at least, we can't get at it with physics, so should not make that a requirement of physics). I believe that is also what Bohr was saying.

 

[Rap]

Yes, there are really three stages to the cat paradox, not two the way it is normally explained. There is the true superposition of the entire closed system, there is its unitary evolution that projects into a mixed-state subspace (via decoherence) constituting the physical parameters that we (the physicists) are actually tracking (which suffice to tell us if a cat is alive or dead), and there is the observational outcome which "actualizes" only one substate from that mixed substate. Which of those steps is the "collapse", and which is most paradoxical? Many people would choose different answers to those two questions, so until that landscape is navigated clearly, we are spinning our wheels. It might also help to recognize that the fundamental difference between MWI and Copenhagen is how they construct the flow of priority in those steps-- MWI appeals to an "outside-in" ordering of priorities just as it was stated above, which is essentially a temporal ordering, and Copenhagen uses an "inside-out" ordering of priorities, which starts with the physicist and builds outward, essentially in reverse to the temporal order described above. That, in turn, boils down to whether you think physics gives rise to physicists (MWI), or physicists give rise to physics (Copenhagen).

I read a quote from Callen (Thermodynamics and statistical physics, p 15), that said "'Operationally, a system is in an equilibrium state if its properties are consistently described by thermodynamic theory.'' LOL. Sounds like a Copenhagen guy to me. I believe the idea that you cannot have physics without a theory, wrong or right, and physicists are the ones who come up with that theory. But a wrong theory is just wrong, and in that sense, physics gives rise to physicists.

Anyway, decoherence isn't some kind of change in the physics of the situation, it is an approximation that becomes valid. Sort of like the thermodynamic limit is not a change in the physics of the situation (i.e. N-particle problem), it is an approximation that becomes valid. Both constitute a loss of information when the approximation is made. This means that you can, in principle, analyse a problem using pure QM wave functions, or you can make the decoherence approximation, just like you can, in principle, analyse a container of gas as an N-body problem, or you can make the thermodynamic approximation, and treat it as a much simpler thermodynamic system. If you do the SC problem as pure QM, then when you open the box, the wave function will collapse into a superposition of all the alive wave functions or a superposition of all the dead wave functions, which is all the scientist is really measuring upon opening the box. Decoherence says you can approximate the wave function before opening the box as a bunch of classical possibilities with classical probabilities, one of which the scientist observes when opening the box. Decoherence does not deny the validity of the pure wave function treatment. Once you make the classical approximation of decoherence theory, you are no longer doing pure QM, and the rules change, but the results are the same (if the decoherence assumption is valid).

 

[Ken G]

I believe the idea that you cannot have physics without a theory, wrong or right, and physicists are the ones who come up with that theory. But a wrong theory is just wrong, and in that sense, physics gives rise to physicists.

That is what I would call the "literal school" for dealing with "laws of physics," the idea that we are really finding out laws, and although we might not get them exactly right, there are laws there and we are trying to find them. Presumably this is based on the idea that if there weren't laws, our search for them would be fruitless. But I find that argument unconvincing-- we have no idea why the search is fruitful, it does not have to be because there actually are laws. In my opinion, the whole idea of a "law" is a construct of our intelligence, so constructed for all the same reasons that intelligence evolved: it works. But why it works is not necessarily because there actually are laws-- instead, we observe that there are various patterns and consistencies, but we have no idea why, and we never really get any idea why. We just penetrate deeper into the mystery, the mystery never goes away. So that puts me in the "physicists give rise to physics" school.

Anyway, decoherence isn't some kind of change in the physics of the situation, it is an approximation that becomes valid.

It is a function of the use of substates to do quantum mechanics, which is not well explained in my opinion. So much of quantum mechanics is based on the evolution of the state, it is easy to overlook that a large part of it has nothing to do with state evolution, it has to do with judicious substate projections. The physicist decides what projections are judicious, and it gives us the ability to recognize an alive or dead cat from a hopelessly complex array of atomic wave functions and entanglements.

Sort of like the thermodynamic limit is not a change in the physics of the situation (i.e. N-particle problem), it is an approximation that becomes valid. Both constitute a loss of information when the approximation is made.

All true, but that's in a sense the easy part-- the part that gets overlooked is the choice of a projection in the first place. The same holds for thermodynamic equilibrium-- in literal terms, there is never any system that is anywhere close to full thermodynamic equilibrium, we only get even approximate validity when we ignore certain differences we don't care about (like a particle here versus a particle there, which we don't care about when we are doing volume averages).

This means that you can, in principle, analyse a problem using pure QM wave functions, or you can make the decoherence approximation, just like you can, in principle, analyse a container of gas as an N-body problem, or you can make the thermodynamic approximation, and treat it as a much simpler thermodynamic system.

Yes, the physicist is making those choices, the physicist is doing the physics-- and all based on what questions they are trying to address.

If you do the SC problem as pure QM, then when you open the box, the wave function will collapse into a superposition of all the alive wave functions or a superposition of all the dead wave functions, which is all the scientist is really measuring upon opening the box.

I would take issue there, the way I would say it is, when you open the box, you are necessarily treating a projected subspace, because you will never include yourself in the physics there. Thus, you simply never have a superposition state at all when you open the box and look at the cat-- it would be wrong quantum mechanics to claim the state of what you see is a superposition state in regard to the history of that system (i.e., its unitary evolution). It would be all right to say that is a superposition state going forward-- as a boundary condition to some new calculation which will involve closing up the system again and following some new evolution. Decoherence never applies to the full wave function, it is a treatment of projections onto subspaces that are not isolated, and are chosen by the physicist. The theme in all this is how involved the choices of the physicist are.

 

[Rap]

in literal terms, there is never any system that is anywhere close to full thermodynamic equilibrium.

Well, I would disagree with that. Using Callen's approach, that would be tantamount to saying the equations of thermodynamics never come anywhere close to working

I would take issue there, the way I would say it is, when you open the box, you are necessarily treating a projected subspace, because you will never include yourself in the physics there. Thus, you simply never have a superposition state at all when you open the box and look at the cat-- it would be wrong quantum mechanics to claim the state of what you see is a superposition state in regard to the history of that system (i.e., its unitary evolution). It would be all right to say that is a superposition state going forward-- as a boundary condition to some new calculation which will involve closing up the system again and following some new evolution. Decoherence never applies to the full wave function, it is a treatment of projections onto subspaces that are not isolated, and are chosen by the physicist. The theme in all this is how involved the choices of the physicist are.

Yes, I agree - once you open the box, QM no longer can be used, the box is not isolated. But I don't understand the phrase "you are necessarily treating a projected subspace". What does that mean?

 

[Ken G]

Well, I would disagree with that. Using Callen's approach, that would be tantamount to saying the equations of thermodynamics never come anywhere close to working

Sure, I was then not using Callen's pragmatic approach, but rather the theoretical definition of thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, I was supporting Callen's approach to thermo and Bohr's approach to QM by showing they are the only approaches that can actually be used in practice: they are both best seen as how physicists do physics, rather than "laws of nature" that don't need physicists. They appear as simplifications that emerge only once the physicist has decided what he/she cares about, whereas nature has to "care about" everything-- it's nature.

Yes, I agree - once you open the box, QM no longer can be used, the box is not isolated. But I don't understand the phrase "you are necessarily treating a projected subspace". What does that mean?

The state of the cat must be viewed as a substate of the whole system, it is a projection that does not obey the Schroedinger equation. That equation applies to the closed system on the Hilbert space, not open substates that are projections onto subspaces of the Hilbert space. The subspaces do not preserve the postulates of quantum mechanics (in particular, they evolve into mixed states under decoherence, not superposition states), and this is the source of a lot of misunderstanding about the cat paradox.

Indeed, that is perhaps the key difference between a micro system and a macro system, it is the meaning of the Heisenberg divide: a micro system, as a substate, can recover its status as a pure state by measuring it and isolating it-- even though it remains a substate of something larger, it can be treated as a pure state going forward (and exhibit interference and so on). But a macro system, once evolved into a mixed state via external interactions, can never recover its pure state status, it is forever a substate of something larger, and will never exhibit interference. It is just wrong to say that baseballs don't give two-slit patterns because their wavelengths are too small, they are simply not in pure states period. That is also what you said, focusing on the need for isolation, so what I'm saying can be cast as the remark that macro systems like cats can never be sufficiently isolated from their own histories to be treated as systems that obey the Schroedinger equation as the unitary evolution of a state vector in a Hilbert space-- it's just wrong quantum mechanics to describe them that way.

 

[Q-reeus]

Indeed, that is perhaps the key difference between a micro system and a macro system, it is the meaning of the Heisenberg divide: a micro system, as a substate, can recover its status as a pure state by measuring it and isolating it-- even though it remains a substate of something larger, it can be treated as a pure state going forward (and exhibit interference and so on). But a macro system, once evolved into a mixed state via external interactions, can never recover its pure state status, it is forever a substate of something larger, and will never exhibit interference. It is just wrong to say that baseballs don't give two-slit patterns because their wavelengths are too small, they are simply not in pure states period. That is also what you said, focusing on the need for isolation, so what I'm saying can be cast as the remark that macro systems like cats can never be sufficiently isolated from their own histories to be treated as systems that obey the Schroedinger equation as the unitary evolution of a state vector in a Hilbert space-- it's just wrong quantum mechanics to describe them that way.

Seems to me this puts in proper language what I had been groping at in #41. Assuming cat and everything else forming the closed box system is perfectly isolated, freezing box and all within to near perfect absolute zero would allow interference (but since the cat is now dead...), otherwise essentially classical behavior? Same for the baseball (obviously only temporal here, until it 'thawed')?
BTW - how do you understand the claims made in the link in #70 http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html "Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously...The environment is this huge, complex thing," says Cleland. "It's that interaction with this incredibly complex system that makes the quantum coherence vanish.""
And you would interpret this how - hype (more research funds please), misguided realism (they only imagine it to be actually in two states at once), or something else?

 

[Hivoyer]

Well in my opinion it shouldn't be labeled as a paradox but as an example how things can be in a superposition of states UNTIL someone or something makes an observation that breaks down the superposition.

For me all the cats of planet Earth that i don't or can't observe are in a superposition of states, i know that for any cat there is probably someone else (different for each cat) other than me observing that cat and he knows the state of the cat, but since he doesn't communicate with me to inform me, for me the cat is in superposition. I think when we intuitevely conclude that a cat can't be in superposition of dead and alive we kind of think of an invisible universal observer that knows the state of the cat, but that kind of observer doesn't necessarily exists.

Aren't all entities on the planet including you and the cats connected trough something like a butterfly effect?If so,than you are in contact with the cats and observing them.It doesn't matter if the information enters your brain,you are having contact anyway,right?And we can also assume this whole planet is one observer to the rest of the universe,since we are all surrounded by atoms just like the atoms that bind the parts of the body,making you a whole.There's a lot of imagination in there :D

 

[yuiop]

The idea that a photon must have a polarization within 45 degrees of the polarizer before passing thru does not work. If I pass a beam of randomly polarized photons thru a polarizer oriented at zero degrees, then I guess we could say the polarization of the photons coming out are evenly distributed between +45 and -45. Next we pass them thru a polarizer at 45 degrees. Half of the ones out of the first polarizer will be between 0 and 45 degrees, and only these will make it thru the second polarizer, since they are between 45-45=0 and 45+45=90 degrees. Now we pass these thru a polarizer at 90 degrees - none will make it thru, because there are none in the beam that are between 90-45=45 and 90+45=135 degrees. In actual fact, something like 20 percent of the original photons make it thru all three polarizers.

Actually it more like 25% make it through, but you are correct that the actual result is non zero and the model does not work if you assume "the polarization of the photons coming out are evenly distributed between +45 and -45". However, if you assume that photons passing through the polariser are randomised so that they come out with a percentage distribution between any two angles a and b, described by:

$$100* \int_{\theta = a}^{\theta =b}cos(2*\theta)$$

then the percentage of photons that exit the first polariser and pass through a second polariser with an angle of \theta relative to the first would be given by:

$$100* \int_{\theta-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}cos(2*\theta)$$

This agrees with Malus's law. I am not saying that this is what happens and it certainly not the conventional explanation, but I am just trying to demonstrate that there can often be more than one way of explaining a given observation.

Some popular accounts of polarisation describe the component of the polarisation parallel to the polariser axis passing through and the component of the polarisation orthogonal to the polarisation axis being chopped off. This sorts of work on average for millions of photons, but when photons pass through one by one it unlikely that that they are sliced and diced like this as they pass through a polariser. It is more likely that they either pass through, or do not pass through, in a binary fashion with a probability of cos(theta)^2, so that individual photons have the same energy before and after passing through. After thinking about this way, I am coming round to that photons exiting a polariser do have a polarisation axis exactly equal to the last polariser they passed through.

 

[yuiop]

Seems to me this puts in proper language what I had been groping at in #41. Assuming cat and everything else forming the closed box system is perfectly isolated, freezing box and all within to near perfect absolute zero would allow interference (but since the cat is now dead...), otherwise essentially classical behavior? Same for the baseball (obviously only temporal here, until it 'thawed')?
BTW - how do you understand the claims made in the link in #70 http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html "Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously...The environment is this huge, complex thing," says Cleland. "It's that interaction with this incredibly complex system that makes the quantum coherence vanish.""
And you would interpret this how - hype (more research funds please), misguided realism (they only imagine it to be actually in two states at once), or something else?

I imagine that they do not make both measurements at the same time, but rather perform one measurement that demonstrates it is not vibrating and then at a later time perform a different kind of measurement that demonstrates it is is vibrating. In an analogous situation when we carry out out the double slit experiment (one kind of measurement) the photons behave like waves, but when we cover one slit so that we know which slit it passed through (another kind of measurement) then they appear to act a bit like particles. It seems we can not make measurements of location and momentum at the same time of a given individual photon (HUP). Having said that, the ingenious experiment of Afshar using a double slit, a lens and a grid of wires, has raised some controversy over this issue.

 

[Q-reeus]

I imagine that they do not make both measurements at the same time, but rather perform one measurement that demonstrates it is not vibrating and then at a later time perform a different kind of measurement that demonstrates it is is vibrating. In an analogous situation when we carry out out the double slit experiment (one kind of measurement) the photons behave like waves, but when we cover one slit so that we know which slit it passed through (another kind of measurement) then they appear to act a bit like particles. It seems we can not make measurements of location and momentum at the same time of a given individual photon (HUP). Having said that, the ingenious experiment of Afshar using a double slit, a lens and a grid of wires, has raised some controversy over this issue.

Not being able to 'freely' access the detailed paper, I'd say you're probably right yuiop about non-simultaneous measurements. It does say in the link given "Using a sequence of careful measurements...". Point though is these guys are adamant such shows simultaneous coexistence of two states in a macroscopic system. And there are many similar assumed superposed systems that have or are being studied in eg. quantum qubit circuits. I'm of the impression assumptions about things actually going on have to be made to make sense of behavior in such. I agree Afshar experiment is very interesting. Maybe the most interesting aspect is the wide disagreement amongst Afshar's many critics: "A number of scientists have published criticisms of Afshar's interpretation of his results. They are united in their rejection of the claims of a violation of complementarity, while disagreeing amongst themselves as to precisely why Afshar is wrong.", under 'Specific critiques' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment. Wait some more and see approach from me.

 

[Ken G]

Seems to me this puts in proper language what I had been groping at in #41. Assuming cat and everything else forming the closed box system is perfectly isolated, freezing box and all within to near perfect absolute zero would allow interference (but since the cat is now dead...), otherwise essentially classical behavior? Same for the baseball (obviously only temporal here, until it 'thawed')?

Yes, it does seem possible to "freeze" a previously macro system into its quantum ground state, though I don't know about the technical challenges there. It isn't the number of particles that make something "macro", it is the number of accessible modes or states for those particles. One might, for example, imagine a laser beam of a huge number of coherent photons all with the same polarization, which could exhibit interference even though there was a spectacular number of particles there, so would be fundamentally quantum mechanical because all those particles still had access to a very limited number of states across the laser bandwidth.

What I worry about is degeneracy-- it would seem that if the individual particles in some seemingly macroscopic paddle were in their ground states, the whole system still does not have a unique "ground state", as there can be any phase relationship among the parts, even before you account for the identical particle multiple wavefunctions. It would seem to generate a huge manifold of equal-energy "ground states" for the whole system, so if you started out with a mixture of those before you "froze" it, you'd still have a mixture after freezing it-- not a pure state. That might not affect its behavior as it evolves as in its frozen condition, but when you later interact it with something, or heat it up, one might imagine the mixed state would "pop out" again, like magnetic domains. For some kinds of interactions that might not matter, but for others it might, and it would still not be literally a superposition, it would be a mixture of ground states with great similarities.

BTW - how do you understand the claims made in the link in #70 http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html "Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously...

I can believe it, it depends on what those "careful measurements" were and what they mean by vibrating and not vibrating. It's not real coherent language, a more technical understanding of what they did would probably generate more precise terms. Anyway, I'm still not sure they got the paddle into a pure state, it might have been a mixture of degenerate ground states that nevertheless interacted with the quantum circuit so as to not destroy the distinction between "push" and "don't push." There's just not enough detail. I'll bet most of the coherences were destroyed, but maybe there's an energy mode in there that is preserved over the entire mixture, like how the "sweet" is preserved when you mix sugar and corn syrup.

And you would interpret this how - hype (more research funds please), misguided realism (they only imagine it to be actually in two states at once), or something else?

Hype is too harsh, it sounds like they are faithfully reporting what they did, but the language seems imprecise. I'm not even crazy aboug that language for clearly quantum mechanical systems, like the idea that a photon "goes through both slits", when instead it seems more economical to simply assert no opinion on anything that sounds like a photon path through the slits at all. So I wouldn't say the paddles was both vibrating and not vibrating at the same time, I would just say the classical notions of vibration or no vibration does not encompass the behavior of the paddle.