Interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment, exploring the implications of quantum mechanics, particularly regarding superposition, decoherence, and the nature of probabilities in quantum systems. Participants engage in a technical examination of the philosophical and physical interpretations of quantum mechanics as they relate to the thought experiment.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the concept of a cat being both dead and alive is a fallacy without physical justification, emphasizing that Schrödinger's point was to highlight the absurdity of applying quantum mechanics to macroscopic objects.
  • Others propose that decoherence prevents the interference of "dead" and "alive" branches of the wave function but does not eliminate the superposition itself.
  • There is a contention about whether probabilities in quantum mechanics are inherent properties of objects or merely reflect our knowledge about them, with some asserting that Schrödinger believed probabilities are not imposed on the objects themselves.
  • Some participants mention that interpretations like the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) view the wave function as physically real, which leads to different implications regarding the nature of probabilities.
  • A later reply questions the compatibility of MWI with the assertion that probabilities do not reflect inherent properties of systems, noting that MWI does not treat probabilities as mere reflections of knowledge.
  • One participant emphasizes that the observable's value is objectively indeterminate in a superposition, challenging popular misconceptions about quantum states.
  • Another participant references Anthony Leggett's views on the implications of decoherence and the potential for interference at macroscopic levels, suggesting that technological feasibility should not dictate interpretive conclusions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on several key points, particularly regarding the nature of superposition, the role of decoherence, and the interpretation of probabilities in quantum mechanics. No consensus is reached on these issues.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion is influenced by varying interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the implications of decoherence are not universally accepted as definitive in resolving the thought experiment's paradoxes.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
As long as no measurement takes place, yes. Not once a measurement takes place. Ask anyone who actually does QM for a living.

Why are you being so persistent? I just told you that it's wrong, and quoted an actual physicist. I don't know if it's appropriate to reproduce lectures from Hawking since he is dead (is it still not allowed?), but you know where to find it (does god play dice). He explains how we still have determinism, but not Laplace kind in QM, and that includes observations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #33
Pleonasm said:
I just told you that it's wrong, and quoted an actual physicist.

You gave no link, so I have no idea what kind of source you're quoting from. You know the rules, and you've been warned before for not adhering to that one.

Pleonasm said:
I don't know if it's appropriate to reproduce lectures from Hawkings

You don't have to reproduce them, just link to them.

Pleonasm said:
He explains, if you read the full lecture, how we still have determinism, but not Laplace kind in QM, and that includes observations.

Do you mean this lecture?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

If so, it's not a textbook or peer-reviewed paper, so it's not a valid source. Pop science articles or lectures, even by scientists, are not reliable if you want to learn the actual science. Plus, even leaving that aside, the lecture does not say what you claim it says; note that at one point, Hawking says (referring to black holes) that not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they can't be seen.

Pleonasm said:
Rory is second

Quora answers aren't valid sources either. Plus, it says nothing whatever about measurement. Note that the first response does address precisely that point--and says what I have been saying, not what you have been saying. So even if this Quora page were a valid source, it wouldn't support your claim.

This thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy

Similar threads

Undergrad Bohmian interpretation of Schrodinger's Cat
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Graduate Schrodinger's Cat and the thermal interpretation
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
Graduate Schrödinger's original interpretation
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Undergrad Did Schrödinger himself take his "Cat Experiment" seriously?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Insights Schrödinger’s Cat and the Qbit
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
Graduate Everett's interpretations and Macroscopic quantum states
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Does Schrödinger's Cat Know Its Own Fate?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Graduate Dieter Zeh's MWI as Schrödinger equation + further assumptions
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Undergrad Understanding the Fundamental Difference in Interpretations of QM
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
Undergrad QFT made Bohmian mechanics a non-starter: missed opportunities?
  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
23K