I Does Schrodinger's Cat contradict itself?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter SamuelCunningham3456
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Observer Schrödinger
SamuelCunningham3456
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
In the schrodinger's cat thought experiment is the cat technically the observer because The cat can observe if its alive or dyeing? Should schrodinger's thought experiment only work with non living objects?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Moderator's note: Thread moved to QM interpretations subforum, and thread level changed to "I".
 
SamuelCunningham3456 said:
is the cat technically the observer
In the modern decoherence viewpoint, yes, the cat can "observe" itself, meaning decohere itself, so it is either alive or dead before the box is opened.

However, exactly what that means in terms of the wave function depends on which interpretation of QM you adopt.
 
SamuelCunningham3456 said:
Should schrodinger's thought experiment only work with non living objects?
In terms of decoherence there is no difference between a cat and a nonliving macroscopic object like a rock. Both have a very large number of quantum degrees of freedom and can decohere themselves.
 
SamuelCunningham3456 said:
In the schrodinger's cat thought experiment is the cat technically the observer because The cat can observe if its alive or dyeing?
The cat is frequently misrepresented in the popular press. Schrodinger was not saying that's how he thought it worked, he was using the contradictions to show that something had to be wrong with the then-current (100 years ago, and we've figured out a lot more since then) understanding of QM.
Should schrodinger's thought experiment only work with non living objects?
That was sort of vaguely one resolution of the problem back then, more often stated as "consciousness causes collapse". It turns out that that approach just pushes the problem around (google for "Wigner's friend") without really clearing anything up. The bigger breakthrough came a few decades later with the discovery of quantum decoherence - David Lindley's book "Where does the weirdness go?" is laymanfriendly and a pretty decent explanation - give it a try.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and PeroK
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...

Similar threads

Replies
52
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
76
Views
9K
Replies
32
Views
4K
Back
Top