Slit Experiment vs Schrodinger's Cat

  • Thread starter sanman
  • Start date
745
20
I've always been told about how that joke about whether Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead was merely intended to highlight the fact that "quantum fuzziness" does not scale up to macroscopic objects like a cat.

But when we do the slit experiment and observe that the photon is detected at both A and B, then aren't we seeing the "fuzziness" extending across a macroscopic distance? (ie. the photon is jumping/spanning across the distance between A and B)

Why is macroscopic object a no-no for showing the fuzziness, but macroscopic distance is fine for showing the fuzziness?
Are we saying that distance doesn't count at all, when it comes to tunnelling?

What is the probability of finding the photon anywhere in the space spanning between A and B?

Can we say that a wave object is an object of infinitely low density, since it is supposed to be spanning across the entire universe?
 

Doc Al

Mentor
44,813
1,076
But when we do the slit experiment and observe that the photon is detected at both A and B, then aren't we seeing the "fuzziness" extending across a macroscopic distance? (ie. the photon is jumping/spanning across the distance between A and B)
What do you mean when you say that "the photon is detected at both A and B"? In the double slit experiment, photons are always detected at a particular point.
 
745
20
Forgive me for my rusty memory, but I thought that the Double Slit Experiment was that the same photon shows up at both detectors (at points A and B)

I thought this is cited as proof of quantum fuzziness, so that the photon can be in 2 places at once.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
35,177
3,973
I've always been told about how that joke about whether Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead was merely intended to highlight the fact that "quantum fuzziness" does not scale up to macroscopic objects like a cat.

But when we do the slit experiment and observe that the photon is detected at both A and B, then aren't we seeing the "fuzziness" extending across a macroscopic distance? (ie. the photon is jumping/spanning across the distance between A and B)

Why is macroscopic object a no-no for showing the fuzziness, but macroscopic distance is fine for showing the fuzziness?
Are we saying that distance doesn't count at all, when it comes to tunnelling?

What is the probability of finding the photon anywhere in the space spanning between A and B?

Can we say that a wave object is an object of infinitely low density, since it is supposed to be spanning across the entire universe?
But there ARE experiments that are beginning to show "macroscopic" scale effects of superpositions. That is why the Delft and Stony Brook SQUID experiments are so important (do a search on here - a lot of water has flowed under those bridges). They showed superposition effects for at least 10^6 particles.

Zz.
 

Doc Al

Mentor
44,813
1,076
Forgive me for my rusty memory, but I thought that the Double Slit Experiment was that the same photon shows up at both detectors (at points A and B)
No, the photon is always detected by a single detector. (Perhaps you are confusing the two slits with two detectors?)
I thought this is cited as proof of quantum fuzziness, so that the photon can be in 2 places at once.
What it shows is that the state of the photon, as it passes through this system, must be viewed as being in a superposition of single slit states. That's the only way to correctly predict the distribution of photons arriving at the detectors.
 

Related Threads for: Slit Experiment vs Schrodinger's Cat

  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
919
Replies
34
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
588
Replies
40
Views
5K
Replies
55
Views
9K
Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
38
Views
28K

Hot Threads

Top