Did Schrödinger himself take his "Cat Experiment" seriously?

[Suekdccia]

TL;DR Summary

Did Schrödinger himself take his "Cat Experiment" seriously at some moment in his life?

In 1935, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger was looking at a concept called a "superposition." Superposition is when two waves meet and overlap and interact, which can lead to different results based on the circumstances. The concept can be seen in the regular-sized world as well, in everything from water ripples on a lake to noise-canceling headphones.

Schrödinger wasn't a fan of the then-current understanding of quantum mechanics, which posited the idea of quantum superposition occurring until particles interacted with or were observed by the external world. To mock this idea, he created his own scenario, which he called "Cat Paradox":

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

Schrödinger meant for his scenario to mock quantum superposition, but in time, many physicists began to see the cat paradox as far less ridiculous than he imagined.

Did he do that as well? Did he seriously consider his own idea as time passed? Did he eventually accept a blurred model of reality as valid?

 

[ZapperZ]

Did he do that as well? Did he seriously consider his own idea as time passed? Did he eventually accept a blurred model of reality as valid?

This isn't really a physics question, is it?

Zz.

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Moved thread to quantum foundations and interpretations forum.

 

[Nugatory]

Schrödinger meant for his scenario to mock quantum superposition, but in time, many physicists began to see the cat paradox as far less ridiculous than he imagined.

I don’t think that’s an accurate representation of either Schrodinger or what “many physicists” came to believe.

Schrodinger wasn’t mocking anything, he was pointing out an open problem: the then-current understanding of quantum mechanics failed to explain the observed fact that superposition works for microscopic systems but not complex macroscopic ones.

 

[EPR]

It's still an unexplainable question. If electrons were classically real, according to electrodynamics, they would soon radiate all their energy and spiral into the nucleus.
The electron is not classically real. Nothing is.
All these decoherence approaches(where electrons are considered constantly real particles), BM, real MWI branches, etc. fail to account for the stability of 'matter'.
It's scientifically unknown what matter is. It's philosophy.
Schroendiger didn't know either.
The cat is quanta and quantum fields and so is the Moon.

 

[timmdeeg]

It's still an unexplainable question. If electrons were classically real, according to electrodynamics, they would soon radiate all their energy and spiral into the nucleus.
The electron is not classically real. Nothing is.

Are electrons accelerated in an accelerator real?

 

[PeterDonis]

If electrons were classically real, according to electrodynamics, they would soon radiate all their energy and spiral into the nucleus.

No, if electrons obeyed classical laws of physics, they would soon radiate all their energy and spiral into the nucleus. "Obeys classical laws of physics" is not the same as "classically real".

The electron is not classically real. Nothing is.

Baseballs obey classical laws of physics to a very good approximation, much better than electrons do.

All these decoherence approaches(where electrons are considered constantly real particles), BM, real MWI branches, etc. fail to account for the stability of 'matter'.

The stability of matter based on quantum laws of physics is well understood; the classic paper is that of Dyson & Lenard in, IIRC, 1967. Decoherence doesn't change any of that understanding.

It's scientifically unknown what matter is. It's philosophy.

Please do not confuse your personal opinion with science.

 

[EPR]

No, if electrons obeyed classical laws of physics, they would soon radiate all their energy and spiral into the nucleus. "Obeys classical laws of physics" is not the same as "classically real".

They certainly aren't classically real for the reasons stated above. They acquire a classical definiteness through measurement

Baseballs obey classical laws of physics to a very good approximation, much better than electrons do.

And? That approximation is wrong in certain regimes.

The stability of matter based on quantum laws of physics is well understood; the classic paper is that of Dyson & Lenard in, IIRC, 1967. Decoherence doesn't change any of that understanding.

It seems to be behind a paywall. Can you cite the relevant passage where it rebuts my claim that a classically real electron would quickly lose all of its energy?

Please do not confuse your personal opinion with science.

That's your opinion. What matter is interpretation dependent in science. Your opinion certainly matters but it's an opinion nonetheless.

 

[EPR]

Are electrons accelerated in an accelerator real?

They lose energy in the process of movement around the tunnel so they are real in the common sense of the world. Electrons in atoms behave differently - they are not moving and aren't stationary either. They are quantumly real(require measurement to manifest definite properties). If they had their properties at all times, the electrons would radiate and spiral into the nucleaus.

 

[PeterDonis]

They certainly aren't classically real for the reasons stated above. They acquire a classical definiteness through measurement

Do you have any references for your term "classically real" here? As far as I can tell, it's your personal invention. Personal theories are not allowed here.

That approximation is wrong in certain regimes.

Not any regime that baseballs occur in.

Can you cite the relevant passage where it rebuts my claim that a classically real electron would quickly lose all of its energy?

Once again, your usage of the term "classically real" appears to be your own invention. But in any case, you did not just claim that classical physics cannot explain the structure of matter (which is true); you claimed that "decoherence approaches" cannot account for the structure of matter, which, if true, would mean that quantum mechanics cannot account for the structure of matter. Which is false. It can.

What matter is interpretation dependent in science.

Please give references to support this claim.

They are quantumly real(require measurement to manifest definite properties). If they had their properties at all times, the electrons would radiate and spiral into the nucleaus.

Please give references to support this claim.

@EPR, you are getting close to a misinformation warning and a thread ban. Wherever you are getting your understanding of QM and QM interpretations from, it does not appear that your understanding is correct. But it's possible that you are not understanding things incorrectly, but are being clumsy in repeating valid things you have read. We need to see your sources.

 

[EPR]

Do you have any references for your term "classically real" here? As far as I can tell, it's your personal invention. Personal theories are not allowed here.

If it has definite properties at all times(even without measurement) it's classically real. Electrons are not classically real 'particles'.

Not any regime that baseballs occur in.

This regime is irrelevant in this thread as it's about a quantum scenario and topic(a more comprehensive theory).

Please give references to support this claim.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Please give references to support this claim.

Wikipedia has a nice entry:

Shortcomings

• A rotating charge, such as the electron classically orbiting around the nucleus, would constantly lose energy in form of electromagnetic radiation (via various mechanisms: dipole radiation, Bremsstrahlung,...). But such radiation is not observed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_modelThere is no theory of matter where electrons with definite properties are orbiting around the nucleus.

 

[PeterDonis]

If it has definite properties at all times(even without measurement) it's classically real.

This is just your personal definition unless you have a reference. Do you have one?

This regime is irrelevant in this thread as it's about a quantum scenario

The Schrodinger's Cat scenario involves macroscopic objects.

Wikipedia has a nice entry

Wikipedia is not a valid source. Do you have any references to actual textbooks or peer-reviewed papers?

There is no theory of matter where electrons with definite properties are orbiting around the nucleus.

Nobody was claiming that there was, so this is a straw man.

Either give valid references or stop posting.