Is the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment a relevant analogy for things occurring on an atomic level?

Question

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but from what I have heard about Schrodinger's Cat, it is an analogy for how observation effects the outcome of an experiment. However, I still don't know if the example of a cat being both alive and dead effectively describes this. How can something that concerns things on an atomic (and subatomic?) level be compared to matters concerning an extremely complex, multicellular living thing?

Does anyone else have an opinion on this issue? Do you think the analogy works? If so, how/why?

Again, please forgive me if I misunderstand the experiment. I freely admit (though it's probably obvious) that I am not a physicist and probably need more knowledge in this area to completely understand it, but that's exactly why I'm asking about it.

Thanks.

Answer 1

I have an OPINION on this. I did aspire to be a physicist at one time, before this analogy was well-known. It was experimental thinking like this that kept me from becoming a physicist! But I have kept on studying and gotten into string theory rather than continuing with particle theory-- which gave rise to Schrodinger's Cat analogy. The analogy is very apt. It explains the problem with MEASURING the effect more than it explains the effect. It is very analogous to particle physics. Read some of Dr. Kaku's papers on string theory to understand more.

Answer 2

Oh- oh- oh - this was on Stargate the other day. You have to put a cat in a box with something which has a decay rate - is it a radioactive isotope? (anyway to continue) - and at any given time Schrodinger hypothesised the cat could be both dead and alive! Quantum Physics! I have absolutely no idea about this field but, I am aware of the theory that ther are an infinite number of parallel universes, (multi-verse), and if in each one you make a different decision you will cause another multiverse to appear, hence Schrodinger's Cat theory! lol-D

Answer 3

The only point behind Schrodinger's Cat experiment is that, until we look at the cat, it is actually neither dead nor alive. The 'wave function' that describes the cat is actually a superposition (an adding together) of the function for the 'dead' state and the function for the 'alive' state.

An analogous situation at the subatomic level is with the double-slit experiment. Until you look at a photon ( or an electron or any other particle ) that can 'logically' only go through one slit, it's wave function is a superposition of the two different wave functions, one going through slit A and one going through slit B.

The reason they use a cat is precisely because it is such a complex being. There is no way that we can actually calculate a wave function for an alive or dead cat, but at least we can have the idea of such a thing, and that idea is exactly analogous to the two-slit experiment. Which is one of the things you were asking.

I have to say that while I agree with the physics of superposition in the two-slit experiment (well I have to, because it has been repeatedly demonstrated) I actually have a hard time imagining that the cat literally has no defined state; it is neither alive nor dead, until we look at it. I mean - come on! Of course it's alive or dead!

But perhaps I am in the minority on this point :)

Answer 4

I disagree with the conclusion: the cat was either alive or dead; it was just not known which, until the box was opened, so instead of saying: " There is a 50% probability that the cat is alive, and a 50% probability that the cat is dead!", it would be more correct to state "The cat is either alive or dead, according to the outcome of the Quantum experiment, but it is not yet known which is the actual situation; there is an almost 50% probability of either, and a small probability that the experiment has failed for some unforeseen reason!". The observation of the collapse of the wave function is immaterial, a situation either is, or it isn't: IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED ALREADY, we just don't know which way, yet, until we observe. [also, the collapse of a wave function at a certain instant in time in this universe, implies a corresponding non collapse in another universe, and vice versa].

Answer 5

Basically the rules at the subatomic level operate quite differently than they do at an atomic level. The thought experiment aptly describes the odd world of quantum mechanics where things exist in a probabilistic sense. To put it another way, things are waves of possibilities until we observe them, at which they become particles of experience.

One way you could extrapolate the analogy to a macro level is that when we become aware of an event, the event itself has already passed into the future because it takes the human mind a certain amount of time to make sense of it. So, at the moment the event occurs, we have not yet fixed its nature in our experience. Only afterwards, do we know what it was that we observed, and we logically assume that it was the same back when it occurred as it is now when we acknowledge its existence..

As the saying goes, there is no sound in the forest if nobody is there to hear it. It takes an observer to "hear sound" or "see light" but until someone actually does, only the possibility of observation exists, and not the event that is observed.

Whenever we overlay our interpretation of the world, we change its nature because we can only perceive it in a limited number of ways.

Keep in mind, though, that one really cannot make direct causal comparisons between the subatomic and the atomic because of how differently they operate.

Answer 6

Schrodinger's Cat was meant to illustrate the quantum superposition of states, and the difficulty of the "measurement problem". According to the equations of quantum physics, there is no limit to the size of what can be in a superposition of states, including cats, which could theoretically be prepared in a quantum state of being both dead and alive. And that the cat can be either dead OR alive only after some measurement has been made, and that seemed to imply that a conscious measurement has to be made, else the cat remained in the state of being both dead or alive. Since then, more sophisicated decoherence theories of quantum physics have removed the necessity of a CONSCIOUS measurement, showing that random disturbances in the environment is sufficient to ultimately effect a state function reduction. Hence, the difficulty of preparing a specimen to make it enter a quantum state does rise exponentially with its size. So, yes, in theory a cat can be in a superposition of being dead or alive, but the difficulty is so high and the likelihood is so low, we need not concern ourselves with any practical realization of a cat being both dead and alive.

Answer 7

Forget the cat thing, here is how it actually is in physics (to the best of curent understanding)

noting actually happens until you measure it.

so for example if an attom could be here or there, its neither & both until you check.

Shroedinger's cat is an attempt to make an effect that occurs on the microscopic level more obvious to daily life (at least to cat haters)

It's ikind of like the old tree falling in the forest idea. But now ask did it fall left or right, and the answer is that until you check the univers doesnt decide, so its both

Answer 8

The analogy is not the point. The cat doesn't matter, it's just a cat. What matters is whether or not the proton or whatever it is opens the "poison." If it idoes, the cat dies. If it doesn't the caat lives. And the probability of the cat living or dying is what matters. In one universe the cat dies, and in an ulternate universe the cat lives all dependent on whether the probability of the atom or nucleus or whatever it is opens the poison.

Answer 9

I think that you may have it backwards. It illustrates the variables in a particle moving from a subatomic to macroscopic systems. This was performed in the very early days of discovery and there were no accurate measurements to quantify the change. The cat meerly illustrates that it is (was) chance that played the part in the recorded observations. In one, the cat would die, in another, the cat would live; this was random and depending upon which you observed, your recorded data would change.

Answer 10

WHOOAAAA, wtf, I thought I was in the trivia area.