Would the cat in Schrodinger's famous thought experiment not be able to collapse the wave function itself?

Answer 1

depends on how you interpret a "wave function collapse". If it creates alternate universes then the cat will be dead in one universe and alive in the other. We don't know which universe we are in, so we ourselves are still dealing with a wave function even if the cat (alive or dead) is not. If wave function collapse is (as some believe) the product of conscious observation, then how could the cat collapse the wave function if it so happens that the cat is dead; thus, no longer possessing consciousness. This means that wether or not the cat can collapse the wave function depends upon how it collapses. this sounds like effect then cause to me, and doesn't jibe with basic logic. or you may argue that the instant before the cat dies, it collapses the wave function, but does this mean that the wave function (whether or not the cat is alive) "uncollapses" after it dies because there is no longer any conscious to observe it?

Thinking about it from both the view of the cat and the experimenter, you must conclude that since one observer can claim a wave collapse and the other may not, that it is a relative and not absolute feature of the universe. This does make a little more sense if we take the alternate universes approach. The discovery of the outcome of the dichotomy in the thought experiment can be thought of as the discovery of which universe we are in (which would be analogous to a wave function collapse). which would be the situation i first described.

So, yes the cat will collapse the wave function, but that doesn't have to mean that the wave function is collapsed for us (the experimenters).

Answer 2

Alright! Schoroder's Cat! Love Schoroder's Cat! MEOW! Well, if the cat in Scroder's experiment collapses the wave function, then you would be watching the collapse made by the cat. Else, you would collapse it for the cat. So either way, you or the cat are collapsing the wave functions!

Answer 3

Calling something that we do not yet understand 'God' does no longer change its nature interior in the slightest degree. that is only a semantic interest. "modern-day physicists each so often wax slightly mystical even as they take into consideration questions which incorporates why the vast bang got here about even as it did, why the regulations of physics are those regulations and by no ability those regulations, why the universe exists in any respect, and so on. each so often physicists might want to motel to declaring that there is an inner center of puzzle that we do not realize, and perchance by no ability can; and they could then say that perchance this inner center of puzzle is yet another call for God. Or in Stephen Hawkings's words, if we understand this stuff, we will perchance 'understand the ideas of God.' the problem is that God in this state-of-the-artwork, physicist's experience bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or the different faith. If a physicist says God is yet another call for Planck's consistent, or God is a superstring, we would want to continuously take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of declaring that the nature of superstrings or the cost of Planck's consistent is a profound secret. It has for sure no longer the smallest connection with a being able to forgiving sins, a being who may take heed to prayers, who cares about no matter if the Sabbath starts at 5pm or 6pm, no matter if you position on a veil or have a touch arm exhibiting; and no connection although with a being able to implementing a lack of life penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the international earlier and after he became born." - Richard Dawkins -

Answer 4

No, the wavefunction only collapses when the experimenter's PhD advisor pokes his nose through the door and causes the wave function of the graduate student running the experiment to collapse from a mixed state of petting a live cat and mourning a dead one.

Don't fret too much over that. Richard Feynman said that anyone who thinks he understands quantum mechanics doesn't understand quantum mechanics. To paraphrase Steven Hawking, science is just a way of organizing our observations. Two name drops in one post!

Answer 5

I never liked Schrodinger's cat. It is just a fancier way of saying that a tree falling in a forest with nobody around makes no sound. Nonsense! The existence of sound does not depend on someone to hear it!