# Physicists: Am I saying the right thing about Schroedinger's Cat? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 19, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075 "2010-03-19T22:50:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/61 "2010-07-08T09:23:45Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’ve an issue with that. Let’s suppose you replace the cat by me. As an observer, and a lucky one, I happen to note that the atom didn’t decay and that I’m still alive. > > But at the same moment, for you, I’m still in superposition. You then (say, two seconds later) open the box to collapse the function and notice that I’m in fact dead. > > So, am I dead or alive, and when does the function collapse? At different times for you and me? Do I keep going in a world where I’m alive while you’re attending my funerals in your own world? As I understand it, for the external observer, the **box+clairobscur** system is in superposition - it is this system that collapses into the state **box+living\_clairobscur** when opened. Si ---
**Author:** ![BACI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ce73a5/32.png) [@BACI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BACI)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/62 "2010-07-08T11:12:07Z")
Look, I’m a bit simple. Surely the cat/person in the box is actually alive or dead, we just won’t know which it is until the box is opened. The only answer to the question, “What is the state of the occupant” prior to opening the box is, “Could be dead or alive, dunno.” I can’t escape the feeling that it’s a contrived bullshit question that can only be answered by a contrived bullshit answer. But like I said, I’m a bit simple. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/63 "2010-07-08T11:42:55Z")
> [@si\_blakely](#): > > As I understand it, for the external observer, the **box+clairobscur** system is in superposition - it is this system that collapses into the state **box+living\_clairobscur** when opened. What if I open the box and look, but don’t tell you what I see? Is there then a **box+clairobscur+Gyrate** system that has yet to collapse? [I need a beer](http://www.angryflower.com/schrod.gif). ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/64 "2010-07-08T12:40:57Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > What if I open the box and look, but don’t tell you what I see? Is there then a **box+clairobscur+Gyrate** system that has yet to collapse. If we ensure that you forget what you saw, yes ([quantum eraser experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser)). How we do that, well … 😉 [QUOTE=BACI] Look, I’m a bit simple. Surely the cat/person in the box is actually alive or dead, we just won’t know which it is until the box is opened. The only answer to the question, “What is the state of the occupant” prior to opening the box is, “Could be dead or alive, dunno.” I can’t escape the feeling that it’s a contrived bullshit question that can only be answered by a contrived bullshit answer. But like I said, I’m a bit simple. [/QUOTE] It is contrived, deliberately so. But it reflects a problem quantum physicists had - quantum particles definitely behaved in an indeterminate manner, whereas macroscopic objects did not. Schrödinger created the Cat thought experiment to show how the Copenhagen interpretation failed at that scale, to prompt discussion and other theories. Physicists are still arguing about the theories, but are managing to demonstrate macroscopic systems that do exhibit superposition. Si ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/65 "2010-07-08T12:59:23Z")
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead. Schrodinger: Here’s one. The Dead Collector: That’ll be ninepence. Cat: I’m not dead. The Dead Collector: What? Schrodinger: Nothing. There’s your ninepence. Cat: I’m not dead. The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he’s not dead. Schrodinger: He kind of is. Cat: I’m not. The Dead Collector: He isn’t. Schrodinger: Well, he will be soon – just don’t look at him. Cat: I’m getting better. Schrodinger: No you’re not, you’re in superposition. The Dead Collector: Well, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations. Cat: I don’t want to go on the cart. Schrodinger: Oh, don’t be such a baby. The Dead Collector: I can’t take him. Cat: I feel fine. Schrodinger: Oh, do me a favor. The Dead Collector: I can’t. Schrodinger: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won’t be long as long as people stop peeking. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/66 "2010-07-09T14:31:36Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > So they could see that the thing they made was sometimes there and sometimes not there? Or was sort of half-there? :dubious: The oscillator was in a superposition of either having a single quantum of vibrational energy (a _phonon_) or having none. This caused it’s position to be uncertain by a value well below the diameter of an atom. Visible light gives too fuzzy an image to resolve the oscillator’s position that finely; and if you could use something like gamma ray photons, they would pump enough energy into the system to destroy the superposition. So no, no one saw the oscillator in a ghostly half-there mode. ETA: what’s significant is that we could see an object that we knew was in a state of superposition, and by a value that although tiny was still orders of magnitude larger than the ordinary uncertainy of an object of that mass. ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/67 "2010-07-09T20:15:02Z")
What if the cat is put in a tiny little plane, and this plane is put on a tiny little treadmill, all inside the box of course. Will the plane both fly and not fly? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Q](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/898d66/32.png) [@Johnny\_Q](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Q)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/68 "2010-07-09T21:02:33Z")
Is there a tiny snake on the tiny plane? ---
**Author:** ![Barking\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Barking\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barking_Dog)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/69 "2010-07-09T23:31:53Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > This comment somehow reminded me I was playing The Game, which I’ve now just lost. :smack: :mad: > > … or maybe there’s still an unobserved septimus somewhen who hasn’t lost The Game yet?? 😕 I dunno, but you just made me lose the Game too, you bastard. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/70 "2010-07-09T23:43:37Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Only as long as the cat is alive. Once the cat is dead, it’s no longer an observer. Which means, the cat is no longer dead. So, it’s alive. Until it dies again. Therefore, it’s alive… > > Ow, my head! The cat, from its point of view, never dies. [Quantum Immortality] ---
**Author:** ![goodie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@goodie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/goodie)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/71 "2010-07-09T23:57:04Z")
I don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout nuthin’, (this girl just found out last night that Plato has math in 'im), but, I have a suggestion to make anyway… Can’t we just assume that it’s only our current powers of observation and or conclusion drawing ability that make the quantum particles disappear/do that voodoo that they do? There is no “super-position”, there is no “existence/non-existence”. There is only “us/baby”, and the “particles/rattle”, being hidden behind the “other particles/blanket” by “God(Universe)/Mommy”. There is only one possible universe, everything that has ever existed still exists in some form, it is only our perception of things that changes. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/72 "2010-07-10T00:19:47Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > After all, as several have pointed out above in the thread, shouldn’t we treat the cat as an observer itself? That depends. There must be _some_ threshold of interpretive capacity that distinguishes “effective” observation, collapsing the quantum waveform, from mere physical proximity. Maybe cats meet it, maybe not. > [@ZenBeam](#): > > There can be multiple observers, some in superposition relative to others. Really? Is there published theory to this effect? ---
**Author:** ![Autolycus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Autolycus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autolycus)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/73 "2010-07-10T05:18:15Z")
> [@Johnny\_Q](#): > > Is there a tiny snake on the tiny plane? Yes, and a tiny badger, and a tiny Samuel L. ---
**Author:** ![alindallas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@alindallas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alindallas)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/74 "2010-07-10T05:52:33Z")
I always suspected Schrodinger of overly complicating the issue by choosing a cat for the test subject. Not only must one determine if the cat has been killed, but also whether it has suffered eight other deaths prior to the experiment… ---
**Author:** ![si\_blakely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@si\_blakely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/si_blakely)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/75 "2010-07-10T07:04:31Z")
> [@goodie](#): > > I don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout nuthin’, (this girl just found out last night that Plato has math in 'im), but, I have a suggestion to make anyway… > > Can’t we just assume that it’s only our current powers of observation and or conclusion drawing ability that make the quantum particles disappear/do that voodoo that they do? > > There is no “super-position”, there is no “existence/non-existence”. There is only “us/baby”, and the “particles/rattle”, being hidden behind the “other particles/blanket” by “God(Universe)/Mommy”. > > There is only one possible universe, everything that has ever existed still exists in some form, it is only our perception of things that changes. This is the _[Hidden Variable Theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory)_ - basically, there are variables influencing quantum behaviour that we have not characterised and taken into account. Experiments seem to show that _local_ hidden variables cannot influence quantum results, so the evidence seems to be against it. Si ---
**Author:** ![pharris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f1d935/32.png) [@pharris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pharris)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/76 "2010-07-10T12:18:41Z")
This might help: [![](http://www.angryflower.com/schrod.gif) ](http://www.angryflower.com/schrod.gif) ---
**Author:** ![panman\_1960](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@panman\_1960](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panman_1960)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/77 "2010-07-10T13:15:17Z")
I don’t usually jump into deep threads like this, but I have a genuine question. Considering relativity and spacetime, wouldn’t all of the 4 superposition states be true? later, Tom. ---
**Author:** ![goodie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@goodie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/goodie)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/78 "2010-07-10T14:11:57Z")
Thank-you for the link, interesting, and I DO like being able to agree with Einstein on a subject that I know virtually nothing else about, but…meh…I’m just going to go on tripping through life assuming that there are ways of explaining quantum “stuff” that we just don’t know, ways of observing these things that we just aren’t privy to, yet. Baby and Mommy are having fun with the rattle and blanket… ---
**Author:** ![llazzllo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a698b9/32.png) [@llazzllo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/llazzllo)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/79 "2010-07-10T18:18:01Z")
all I know is I want one of [these.](http://marionetteblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/shrdingers-cat-toy.html) ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075/80 "2010-07-10T18:51:48Z")
> [@llazzllo](#): > > all I know is I want one of [these.](http://marionetteblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/shrdingers-cat-toy.html) > [@Dance of the Puppets](#): > > It’ll drive collectors insane… Too late. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physicists-am-i-saying-the-right-thing-about-schroedingers-cat/533075.md?page=5)