The many meanings of Schrödinger's cat

9 philosophers and scientists interpret quantum theory's famous thought experiment

Nine leading thinkers interpret the meaning of Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment. Amanda GefterSheldon GoldsteinJenann IsmaelChiara MarlettoTim MaudlinAlyssa NeyTim PalmerCarlo RovelliLev Vaidman

Introduction

Contemporary versions of Erwin Schrödinger’s famous cat thought experiment often prefer to use sleeping gas instead of cyanide. But for a cat in a box to be both asleep and awake - as opposed to the original cat which was both dead and alive - is, if decidedly less cruel, just as strange.

Writing to Einstein in 1935, Schrödinger’s imaginary experimental set-up was designed to expose the critical flaws of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which holds that quantum systems stay in a superposition of two or more states until the system interacts with an external observer [1]].

We might be able to dismiss this effect as a peculiarity of the microscopic world of atoms, but what happens when that world has a direct consequence on the macroscopic, everyday world of tables, chairs, and cats? That’s what Schrödinger’s thought experiment sought to illuminate, and in the process expose the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics as absurd.  It’s one thing having particles be in a state of superposition. But cats? Cats are either one thing or another, dead or alive, they can’t be both, surely...  

Wave Function SUGGESTED READING Reality is just a quantum wave function By Alyssa Ney  “One can even set up quite ridiculous cases”, began Schrödinger as he outlined the equipment: “A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid.

If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function [wave-function] of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.”  

 

Schrödinger's cat. Source: Wikimedia by Dhatfield

 

Schrödinger didn’t believe that a cat in a smeared-out state of being dead and alive was a serious possibility. He wanted to show the absurd conclusions of the ways in which his ideas had been misunderstood.

Nearly 90 years later, the story of Schrödinger’s Cat still divides philosophers and physicists and gets to the heart of the big philosophical issues with interpreting quantum mechanics.

There are many contemporary versions and readings of the thought-experiment and its lasting implications. Some seem to restore order to a world made topsy turvy by quantum mechanics. Others, which see the creation of multiple cats in multiple universes, might be said to make the original ‘ridiculous case’ look rather mundane.

Here is a selection of the many meanings of Schrödinger’s Cat from some of our favourite thinkers.

Scroll down to read the answers or click to jump to:

___

Amanda Gefter on Schrödinger's QBist cat 

___

The tale of Schrödinger’s cat, told with a QBist twist, is not a story about a cat at all. In the usual telling, the wavefunction describes the boxed feline. In QBism, it describes an agent’s beliefs about what will happen if she opens the box.

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

Gabriel Vacariu 1 30 November 2022

On this topic, see Gabriel Vacariu article in Synthese (December 2005, USA), my 5 books 2008-2014 (all English, FREE), and my book from Springer (2016 Germany) “Illusions of human thinking” + PhD thesis 2007 (Philosophy webpage, UNSW, Australia) at my webpage With my EDWs perspective, I have changed completely the framework of thinking for ALL scientists (physics, cognitive science) and philosophers...
2020 Gabriel Vacariu Part 1 The world versus epistemologically different worlds (EDWs) About Nothing/Big Bang a FREE article here Gabriel Vacariu (0November 2022 to 2014) The UNBELIEVABLE SIMILARITIES between the ideas of some people (2011-2021) and my ideas (2002-2008) in physics (quantum mechanics, cosmology), cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and philosophy (this manuscript would produce a REVOLUTION in right international academic environment!)

Arten 7 April 2022

Who is the observer? Is it the scientist who opens the box? I say it is the Geiger counter.

It cannot be the instrument for reasons explained by Bernardo Kastrup.

Bhupinder Singh Anand 18 March 2022

In my paper [An16], I introduce a distinction between algorithmic verifiability, and algorithmic computability, to show that the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA is:

* Finitarily consistent as sought by Hilbert in the Second of his Millennium 1900 Twenty Problems (§6, Theorem 6.7);

* Categorical with respect to algorithmic computability (§7, Theorem 7.2).

Definition 1 (Algorithmic verifiability:). A number-theoretical relation F(x) is algorithmically verifiable if, and only if, for any given natural number n, there is an algorithm AL(F, n) which can provide objective evidence for deciding the truth/falsity of each proposition in the finite sequence {F(1), F(2), ..., F(n)}.

Definition 2 (Algorithmic computability:). A number-theoretical relation F(x) is algorithmically computable if, and only if, there is an algorithm AL{F} that can provide objective evidence for deciding the truth/falsity of each proposition in the denumerable sequence {F(1), F(2), ...}.

The significance of this distinction for mathematical representations of our observations/measurements of our 'common' natural phenomena in a language of categorical communication is reflected in the following excerpt from my book [An21]:

"22.D.h. Schrodinger's cat `paradox'

If [F(x)] is an algorithmically verifiable but not algorithmically computable Boolean function, we can take the query:

(i) Is F(n) = 0 for all natural numbers?

as corresponding to the Schrodinger question:

(ii) Is the cat dead or alive at any given time t?

We can then argue that there is no mathematical paradox involved in the assertion that the cat is both dead and alive at a select moment of time, if we take this to mean that:

Thesis 23. (Schrodinger's cat) I may either assume the cat in Schrodinger's gedunken to be alive until a given time t (in the future), or assume the cat to be dead until the time t, without arriving at any logical contradiction in my existing Quantum description of nature.

In other words:

(a) Once we accept Quantum Theory as a valid description of nature, then there is no paradox in stating that the theory essentially cannot predict the state of the cat at any moment of future time.

(b) The inability to predict such a state does not arise out of a lack of sufficient information about the laws of the system that Quantum theory is describing, but stems from the very nature of these laws.

The mathematical analogy for the above would be:

(c) Once we accept that Peano Arithmetic is strongly consistent (see §2.C.a., Theorem 2.16) and categorical (see §2.E.b., Corollary 2.18) then we cannot deduce from the axioms of PA whether F(n) = 0 for all natural numbers, or whether F(n) = 1 for some natural number."

Sincerely,

Bhupinder Singh Anand
Mumbbai

[An16] 2016. The truth assignments that differentiate human reasoning from mechanistic reasoning: The evidence-based argument for Lucas' Goedelian thesis. In Cognitive Systems Research. Volume 40, December 2016, 35-45.

[An21] 2021. The Significance of Evidence-based Reasoning in Mathematics, Mathematics Education, Philosophy, and the Natural Sciences. Limited First (Print) Edition archived at PhilPapers (Second edition, 2022, Forthcoming).

Steve Maricic 25 February 2022

I'm not a physicist, so I probably have this completely wrong.

Who is the observer? Is it the scientist who opens the box? I say it is the Geiger counter.

Schrödinger wrote: "in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges."

The Geiger counter patiently watches (observes) the radioactive substance. If one atom decays, the Geiger counter observes that decay and responds to it automatically. The GC "discharges". The discharge hits a relay, which triggers a hammer, which breaks the vial. Up until that time, the cat is alive. After it, the cat dies.

If no atom decays within the allotted hour, the cat lives.

The cat is never both alive and dead.