So, everyone knows about Schrodinger's Cat, right? I understand that that's common knowledge among you non-physical-sciences types.
You know, there's a cat in a sealed box with a flask of poisonous gas. The flask has a certain probability of breaking (the key to Schrodinger's argument is that the mechanism which (non-restrictive, I know (abrasive use of parentheses, I know)) determines the breaking of the glass must be governed by some process known to obey quantum mechanics), and according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics the flask exists in a probabilistic superposition of both brokenness and un-brokenness. Ergo, the cat exists as both dead and alive at the same time - until you open the box, anyway. If you don't like my explanation, Sheldon does a fantastic job:
This hypothetical experiment is now universally used on non-physicists to introduce some of the conceptual ideas surrounding quantum mechanics. I would bet that if I walked outside and asked non-physicists (they're everywhere) what comes to mind when they think about quantum mechanics, at least half of them would mention Schrodinger's cat. This way of thinking about quantum mechanics - that things exist simultaneously as multiple possibilities until they are examined - is usually known as the Copenhagen interpretation (or at least a part thereof) of quantum mechanics, but from hearing about Schrodinger's cat so much, you would think that it was his idea.
This brings me to the purpose of this post. This is what I want you know: when Schrodinger wrote about this cat, he was trying to say that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics - the very thing with which most people nowadays associate Mr. Schrodinger - was stupid. He thought it was absurd to think that a cat could be both dead and alive at the same time and that his example discredited the Copenhagen interpretation (Comp II told me that this is called reductio ad absurdum).
No comments:
Post a Comment