# radioactive decay and superpostion of states **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 9, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208 "2009-06-09T14:58:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208/21 "2009-06-10T14:05:26Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > After all, an electron isn’t just anywhere or in just any state. It is random, but both state and location are in a defined distribution, just like a roll of the dice is a random event within a defined curve. I’d like to think of an electron as an object. A roll of the dice is not an object, but an event with a set of possible outcomes. I’m trying to visualize an electron as “an event with a set of possible outcomes” but it’s not easy. ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208/22 "2009-06-10T14:11:43Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > As it stands, in the absence of observation the math states that the cat is neither alive nor dead, or, alternately, 50% and 50% dead. Wouldn’t it be simpler, and much more easily understood, and indeed truer, to state that there is a 50% chance of the cat being dead? I’ve always figured the statement that the cat is neither alive nor dead to be somewhat false, since it can’t be a portion of both. It probably confuses far too many people, or makes them reject the issue outright due to its absurdity. A dice under a cup is not 16.666% 1, 16.666% 2, etc.. Its got a 1 in 6 chance of being a number 1-6. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208/23 "2009-06-10T15:51:58Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > Wouldn’t it be simpler, and much more easily understood, and indeed truer, to state that there is a 50% chance of the cat being dead? It would be simpler and more easily understood. It wouldn’t be true. The entire reason that the problem is hard to the point of unsolvability is that it comes out of math stating explicitly that a superposition is 50% one thing and 50% another, not that there’s a 50% chance. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. People keep trying to change and simplify the problem to make it tractable. You can’t. If you make it simple then it’s no longer the problem. You have to play with the cards you’re dealt. The cat is alive and dead. If your mind is blown, welcome to the club. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208/24 "2009-06-10T16:15:25Z")
> [@](#): > > You have to play with the cards you’re dealt. Even if they’re dealt where they cannot be seen ;). > [@](#): > > The entire reason that the problem is hard to the point of unsolvability is that it comes out of math stating explicitly that a superposition is 50% one thing and 50% another, not that there’s a 50% chance. Actually 1/sqrt(2) one thing and 1/sqrt(2) another, since they’re orthogonal. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208/25 "2009-06-10T16:49:27Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > You just have to think of an electron as neither particle nor wave, but as a multi-dimensional probability distribution, that’s all. > > After all, an electron isn’t just _any_where or in just _any_ state. It is random, but both state and location are in a defined distribution, just like a roll of the dice is a random event within a defined curve. If I’m playing craps, I only have so many outcomes (integers 2-12), and I know that some outcomes are impossible (1, 6.5 and 13, for example). Likewise, an electron is more likely to do some things than others, and some things are considered impossible (or at least virtually impossible). I’m not sure this answers the question. Perhaps if you are trying to predict “where” it will be at a given time you use a probability calculation. However, the double-slit experiment shows that the photon is not 50% left-slit, 50% right-slit. It shows it goes through _both_ slits. The photon takes all possible paths to the destination…simultaneously. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208/26 "2009-06-10T17:46:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m not sure this answers the question. > > Perhaps if you are trying to predict “where” it will be at a given time you use a probability calculation. > > However, the double-slit experiment shows that the photon is not 50% left-slit, 50% right-slit. It shows it goes through _both_ slits. The photon takes all possible paths to the destination…simultaneously. But still, we’re talking about a defined probability distribution. It only took “all possible paths” because we defined two paths and put them both inside the probability distribution. What’s cool about that is the probability distribution has an option for “go through both holes at once” under those circumstances. If I put a slit in my living room and another in my bedroom, I don’t get the photon going through both at once. If I don’t cut any slits, I don’t get photons on both sides of the barrier. Those behaviors are outside the probability distribution. If you measure which slit the photon goes through, you’ve made another kind of change in the scenario, and you have (in some way we don’t fully understand) eliminated the probability of “go through both holes at once” but we still permit a probability of “go through one hole.” So, yes, there’s a great deal of fuzziness there, but it is still a _defined_ fuzziness with rules; it interacts with other defined fuzzinesses in a specific way that we describe with math even if we don’t understand it intellectually. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208/27 "2009-06-10T18:13:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I think the standard answer to the conundrum is that when an observer “collapses” the waveform, … I have seen this word - “collapse” - in many of the places that I’ve read about this stuff. I have no idea what it means. Wikipedia has some articles about superposition. [Superposition principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle) confirms much of my understanding about when two waveforms combine, but [Quantum superposition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition) was way over my head. But neither article used the word “collapse” even once. Can someone offer an explanation, or at least point me in some direction? Thanks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/radioactive-decay-and-superpostion-of-states/499208.md?page=1)