Is Superposition Similar to Tossing a Coin?

[ƒ(x)]

Would an accurate analogy for superposition (e.g. Schrödinger's cat) be like tossing a coin? While it's in the air it could be heads or tails, no way to know for certain. But, as soon as it lands, one outcome emerges.

 

[San K]

Would an accurate analogy for superposition (e.g. Schrödinger's cat) be like tossing a coin? While it's in the air it could be heads or tails, no way to know for certain. But, as soon as it lands, one outcome emerges.

I can guess one difference:

the outcome of the coin can be predicted (if we know the angle, velocity, torque etc)
but that of a situation in quantum superpositions cannot.

a) if you asked Einstein he would not agree with above, he would say that even the outcome of the quantum can be predicted...if we knew initial conditions

b) if you asked Bell he would agree with above and prove with his theorem

 

[Bill_K]

San K is right, there's a fundamental difference between classical uncertainty like the coin flipping and quantum uncertainty like the cat. Classical uncertainty arises from a lack of knowledge, and the outcome can be resolved if we know exactly the position and velocity of the coin in midair. Quantum uncertainty cannot be resolved, even in principle, until the outcome has been observed.

 

[Demystifier]

the outcome of the coin can be predicted (if we know the angle, velocity, torque etc)
but that of a situation in quantum superpositions cannot.

b) if you asked Bell he would agree with above and prove with his theorem

No, Bell would not agree and this is not what he proved with his theorem. What he proved is (roughly) the following:
If there are some hidden variables which allow to predict the outcome, then these hidden variables must be nonlocal.

Besides, this nonlocality refers to cases with 2 or more particles. The original question of f(x) refers to a single particle, on which the Bell theorem has nothing to say. In the single-particle context a more relevant theorem is the one by Kochen and Specker, which proves that physical values of observables cannot be independent on measurements.

 

[ƒ(x)]

I'm even more confused now.