Schrödinger's cat question

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter leonid.ge
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, exploring its implications in quantum mechanics, particularly regarding entanglement and the interpretation of quantum states. Participants examine the original intent of the thought experiment, its popular interpretations, and the relationship between entanglement and the classical world.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if the cat moves away from the atom, the probability of the atom influencing the cat decreases, questioning the initial entanglement in the thought experiment.
  • There is a suggestion to modify the thought experiment to involve two cats in outer space, arguing that they would remain entangled despite being far apart, similar to entangled particles.
  • One participant emphasizes that the original purpose of the thought experiment was to highlight issues in the understanding of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, particularly the paradox of a cat being both dead and alive.
  • Another participant notes that the popularization of the thought experiment often misses its core issues, conflating it with discussions on superposition and decoherence.
  • Concerns are raised about the simplification of Schrödinger's cat to a coin flip, arguing that it does not adequately convey the complexities of quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation and implications of Schrödinger's cat, with no consensus reached on its significance or the best way to communicate its concepts. Some agree on the need for clarity in its purpose, while others challenge the common interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in popular interpretations of the thought experiment, noting that it may not effectively illustrate the differences between quantum mechanics and classical probability without additional context.

leonid.ge
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
In Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, am I right to say that the cat and the the atom are not truly entangled at the start?
So if the the room is large and the cat starts walking away from the atom, the probability of the decayed atom influencing the cat decreases...

When entangled particles are created, say a pair of electrons with opposite spins, they are truly entangled even when taken far apart.
So would it not be better for this thought experiment to use two cats which hug each other in outer space. At some stage the cats get angry and push each other apart and fly away from each other. So if we let them fly for a long time and suppose the vacuum is perfect and they don't emit or receive any radiation, both cats are still entangled, and measuring their spins when they are 10 light years away will produce correlating results.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
leonid.ge said:
TL;DR Summary: In Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, am I right to say that the cat and the the atom are not truly entangled at the start?

So if the the room is large and the cat starts walking away from the atom, the probability of the decayed atom influencing the cat decreases...

When entangled particles are created, say a pair of electrons with opposite spins, they are truly entangled even when taken far apart.
So would it not be better for this thought experiment to use two cats which hug each other in outer space. At some stage the cats get angry and push each other apart and fly away from each other. So if we let them fly for a long time and suppose the vacuum is perfect and they don't emit or receive any radiation, both cats are still entangled, and measuring their spins when they are 10 light years away will produce correlating results.
I think you've missed the point of the thought experiment.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Likes   Reactions: Delta Prime, phinds and bhobba
Thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
leonid.ge said:
So would it not be better for this thought experiment to use two cats….
The point of the thought experiment was to show that something was wrong with the then current (mid 1920s) understanding of QM - the math seemed to lead to the clearly incorrect result that we would end up with a cat that was neither dead nor alive.

You may be confusing this issue with the altogether-unrelated question of spin-entangled particles.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and PeterDonis
Nugatory said:
The point of the thought experiment

Which is also missed by most of popularisations, and unfortunately a lot of physicists.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ojitojuntos, mattt, bhobba and 1 other person
weirdoguy said:
Which is also missed by most of popularisations, and unfortunately a lot of physicists.
Indeed.

We now know the real issue is how the classical world of everyday experience emerges. Once the chain in the thought experiment is commonsense classical, there is no issue, and that occurs prior to the detector. After that, there is no mystery.

To be fair, it is a good thought experiment introducing entanglement for those learning QM.

The modern understanding of how the ordinary world emerges has advanced a lot since the 1920s:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/gell-mann-hartle-spin-quantum-narrative-about-reality

Thanks
Bill
 
There is a big gap on why the Schrödinger cat is interesting vs what is intended by popular physics.

How each community uses the Schrödinger cat:
  • Schrödinger (original): to show that quantum mechanics is absurd
  • Popular physics: to introduce superposition (this is possibly one of the worse thought experiments for that)
  • Actual physicists: to discuss decoherence (this requires understanding at least undergrad physics).
The popular physics route is very bad because Schrödinger's cat taken in its most simplified form is not different than a coin flip in terms of outcomes. With this experiment alone, you cannot use it to explain why it is different than uncertainty of a coin flip because the only basis in which you can measure is the live/dead basis.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K