Laying Schrödinger’s Cat to rest

4 Comments


Approximate reading time is 3 minutes

We’re talking about Quantum Physics today, and how one of the most difficult to understand concepts is made twice as confusing as is necessary by one of the most poular popular-science gedankenexperiments (that’s German for “thought experiment”). If you don’t know about Schrödinger’s Cat, then this post probably isn’t for you. Although if you are a fan of physics or popular science (for which I applaud you), then read on.

Firstly, I’m going to outline what the “Schrödinger’s Cat” gedankenexperiment is actually meant to demonstrate, then once we understand that, I’ll look at what’s wrong with how the gedankenexperiment is presented to the public.

The weirdness of elementary quantum theory

In quantum mechanics, we find that particles (which are on the quantum-size scale) seem to be able to be in two places at once (position being just one example). Certainly this is WEIRD and counter intuitive. Don’t feel dim for wondering how this can possibly happen, never feel dim. In fact, everyone from the physicists who came up with all this, to the best minds we have today, still don’t understand the mechanism by which this happens.

The important thing to keep in mind, and to some this may be intellectually unfullfilling, is that as scientists we come up with a theory and then check to see that it agrees with nature (i.e. experimental observations). We can never truly know if our theories are telling the real truth about nature, all we can know is that our theories describe the behaviour of nature, within the limits of our technology and ability to test that theory.

In quantum mechanics we have a terminology, in which we say a particle is in a “superposition of states”. This simply means that we think of the particle having more than one physical state superimposed upon it. This could be more than one position, or more than one energy, etc. Again, this is strange, weird, counter-intuitive. However, we find that we must accept it, because there are experiments that test for this very behaviour and they all come back positive. I’d love to explain the experiments, but then this post would end up being three times as long as intended!

What causes this superposition of states to collapse into a single state is interaction with another physical object (whether it be another particle or some measurement apparatus, it’s all the same). Therefore, a particle in a superposition of states could spontaneously collapse due to collision with a cosmic ray, or it could be collapsed purposefully by someone interacting with it, by means of measurement.

The many flaws of the Schrödinger’s Cat gedankenexperiment

Before I continue, I am going to assume you are familiar with Schrödinger’s Cat. If you are not, please read this.

In the simplest of terms, the objective of the Schrödinger’s Cat gedankenexperiment is to demonstrate two things to the lay person:

  1. That quantum systems can exist in a superposition of states.
  2. That measurement of a quantum system actually changes the system.

However, it is my opinion that the Schrödinger’s Cat gedankenexperiment only serves to confuse an already abstract and confusing concept, all the while distracting and misdirecting your attention with the plight of a cute kitty!

In my opinion, the following is all that is wrong with the the Schrödinger’s Cat gedankenexperiment:

  1. Leads the reader to think that the act of measurement is more meaningful than it really is.
    • Some people create the impression that the act of measuring, i.e. looking at, a quantum system is somehow a profound act, and that only by measurement can a superposition of states be collapsed. The reality is that measurement is simply introducing an external system to the object of our interest. Just because something is being introduced for means of measurement does not give it any special status in the theory. A photon emitted from a laser for purposes of measurement is no different than a photon of daylight. In the the Schrödinger’s Cat example, by opening the box and observing the contents we are lead to believe that simply looking into the box causes the superposition to collapse. Not at all! If anything, it is the daylight flooding in, interacting with the radioactive sample, that causes the collapse. Although, the sample could have already been forced to decay, or not, by cosmic rays entering the box, or infra-red photons (from the cat’s body heat), before we opened it!
  2. Misleads the reader into thinking that an effect only observed at the quantum level can apply to a macroscopic object, such as a living creature.
    • To the casual reader/listener, there is a very firm impression given that cat is alive and dead at the same time; this is an unforgivable error when trying to educate people about such an important subject. Such large, complex, objects cannot, exist in a superposition of states.

I think I shall leave it there now, but it is for these reasons that I would hope a better gedankenexperiment is thought up to educate the public about the strangeness of superposition of quantum states. I have yet to hear any TV/radio science pundit use Schrödinger’s Cat without totally confusing the issue.

Share this post

Share

4 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Jim
    Jan 10, 2009 @ 22:22:24

    The interpretation of quantum mechanics you espouse here isn’t really valid, though it’s not too far from certain “objective collapse” theories.

    The problem is your statement that “What causes this superposition of states to collapse into a single state is interaction with another physical object (whether it be another particle or some measurement apparatus, it’s all the same).” It is NOT true that a particle that interacts with another particle undergoes wavefunction collapse. According to quantum theory, the typical result of the interaction of two particles is the quantum entanglement of the two wavefunctions. A particle that interacts with a cosmic ray will find that its wavefunction becomes entangled with the wavefunction of the cosmic ray, but there’s no reason that it would undergo wavefunction collapse.

    The hard part is figuring out the circumstances under which wavefunction collapse occurs. What we know is, in every experiment that we have designed, the measuring instruments used by physicists to measure the state of a particle seem to precipitate wavefunction collapse. There are several theories about what’s going on, and in many of those theories the cat really does exist in a superposition of states. In the many-worlds interpretation, the wavefunction of the cat never collapses, but instead the wavefunction of the observer becomes entangled with the wavefunction of the cat when the observer opens the box!

    Reply

    • David
      Jan 10, 2009 @ 23:09:01

      Hi Jim,
      I’m interested to debate this with you. What is it that lead you to state that the typical result of quantum interactions is entanglement? My post graduate research just fell short of how one would go about actually creating an entangled state, but my understanding was that it was a very specific set up.

      I’m well aware of Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation. While it is an appealing idea for science fiction, I find it an unsatisfying theory because all of the alternate worlds have no interaction, and thus cannot be tested for. This is why it was excluded from my interpretation.

      Would you agree that there is no real discrimination between a measuring instrument and any other object in nature?

      Reply

  2. Jim
    Jan 11, 2009 @ 02:34:20

    According to quantum mechanics, the state space for a system with more than one particle is the “tensor product” of the state spaces for the individual particles. Any element of this tensor product that is not simply the tensor of two states is called “entangled”. All that this means is that the probabilities of measurements for the two particles are not independent.

    For example, whenever two particles collide, their wavefunctions become “entangled” in the sense that the later positions and momentums of the two particles will not be independent. After the collision, any measurement of the position or momentum of the first particle will change the probability distribution for the position and momentum of the second particle.

    For another example, the wavefunction for the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom is basically always entangled. If you measure the position of the proton, then there’s a high chance that you will find the electron nearby.

    I agree in principle that there cannot be any difference between measuring instruments and other objects in nature. This is what makes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics so frustrating: the wavefunction is supposed to collapse when you “measure” it, but no one knows quite what this means. Folks have proposed lots of possible fixes (see the “Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” article on Wikipedia for a nice overview), but physicists have yet to reach a consensus on the correct interpretation.

    I happen to like the many-worlds point of view, since it seems to be the interpretation that follows most easily and logically from the rules of quantum mechanics. However, I’m not here trying to argue for many worlds: I’m just pointing out that some interpretation of some kind is required, whether it be many-worlds, decoherence, consistent histories, objective collapse, or even the semi-voodoo “consciousness causes collapse”. It’s definitely not “any interaction causes collapse”, because there have been lots of experiments in which particles interacted without the wavefunctions collapsing.

    Reply

Other sites talking about this post:

  1. Laying Schrödinger’s Cat to rest at A chunk of my mind

Leave a Reply