That is an experimental result. If you set up a standard double slit diffraction experiment using electrons you will get the diffraction pattern. If you put some kind of detector into the experiment to determine through which slit an electron passes the diffraction pattern will disappear.
I think this is precisely the point that Schrodinger was trying to make. The question is, when does the wave function collapse. In the traditional form of the paradox, it is the conscious observer outside the box who does not know the situation until the box is opened. If you put a conscious observer inside the box then the wave function collapses as soon as the atom decays.
The same principle applies. The atom is in the superposition state of being decayed and undecayed at the same time until we actually look to see if it has decayed or not. Then the wavefunction collapses. That applied whether we open the box and or look at the output of a camera - live or on replay. It's when we observe the actual situation that the wave function collapses.
No. The difference is that before you look at a traffic light you don't know what colour it is. But when you look you not only know that it is, say, green, but that it was green before you looked (leaving aside that it might have just changed). The point about QM is that when you look for an electron and find it in location x, it does not mean that it was there immediately before you found it.
+Professor Time nor did he specify how long the cat is in there for. It could be only one day, in which case the cat emerges dehydrated and hungry but alive.
The postulate of Quantum Mechanics is that a sub atomic particle actually exists in a superposition of all states until you look for it. Then in materialises in one place. So by definition you cant see the multiplicity of states because as soon as you look for it, the wavefunction collapses to a single state.
The wave function collapses for the person or object which makes the observation. The intriguing question from a quantum mechanics point of view is whether if you open the box and thus cause the wave function to collapse, the wave function also collapses for people who are unaware of the result once you open the box. Or does it only collapse when they become aware.
My understanding is that Schrodinger was in fact joining in the criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. He appears to be saying that if an atom is both decayed and not decayed then the cat must be both dead and not dead, which is silly. And yet we now make the distinction between the classical world where something is either one thing or another and the quantum world where something can be in a quantum superposition of two states.
No. If we don't open the box all we can say is that the cat is in a superposition of states of being both dead and alive. It was precisely this which Schrodinger found to be a nonsense. But it is the logical consequence of having an atom in a superposition of being decayed and not decayed.
radioactive decay of an atom does not result in zero mass for the post decay atom. so 1kg does not decay to 500gm after 1 week. it just means 50% of the atoms have decayed to a different isotope or pair of fission products.
I think you have got it just right. And indeed this is what I think Schrodinger was trying to say. We would say that the light is either on or off; that the cat is either alive or dead; or that the atom is either decayed or not decayed. But in the quantum world, the atom is in the quantum state of being both decayed and not decayed until you look.
Finally a clear and gréât présentation on this expriment. Thanks very much from a non scientist. The explanation of the possible decay of the atom in the radio active material made things perfectly clear...fascinating! The implications of this experiment are mind-boggling and can be extended to more philosophical conundrums. Would you agree that this relates to Schopenhauer's observation on the observer effect or the interface between the observer and the observed relating to Taoist and Buddhist views?
I would say consider the possibility that within everything there is an awareness. Therefore we do not need to look into the box. The atom knows. The cat knows. The Geiger counter knows. The box knows. We are surplus spectators.
The particle is in a superposition of decayed and not decayed until observed. However, when it is measured by Geiger Counter. Is that not observation? Does Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics require observation by only a human being to collapse the wave function?
No. It remains in a superposition of states of being both dead and alive. That situation only collapses to one or the other when you can be certain, e.g. by looking, of the actual state.
Not really. HUP is about the inability to measure two related values at the same time (eg position and momentum). This is about the random nature of the decay of radioactive atoms and thus the inability to predict when any given atom will decay.
I think Schodinger's point was that if you say that the atom is in a quantum superposition of states then it must also be true that the cat is in a quantum superposition of states which is silly. But you are right. If the box were made of glass then we could see if the cat were alive or dead so there would be no quantum superposition of the states for the cat or indeed the atom.
This scenario is very similar to an astable multivibrator! When you simulated in a theoretic and perfect environment in a simulator the circuit doesn't work, because both sides are equally probable due to perfect symmetry of components, however, in the real world, there is not such thing as perfect symmetry, and thus, on side (reality) overcomes the other immediately when the simulation begins. I think we have the same situation here, the Schrodinger's Cat is the perfect environment simulation, like in a computer, which premises of perfect symmetry aren't existent in the real world...
As an analogy.If I were to toss and spin a fair coin upwards, it, when landing, woud show either a head or tail but when in the airi it would be indeterminate.just as with the cat?
Any mechanism whereby we “observe” that the cat is either alive or dead with certainty will cause the wave function to collapse. It is only while we are in a state of uncertainty that we get the superposition of states.
That's so interesting!! thanks DrPhysicsA Actually I love Physics a lot, but you know, people need to earn for their living so I choose a major in university which is not related to Physics but can make me easier in career. But I still wish I can have a chance to learn more about Physics even after I left my college, this channel is so great, thanks
if you look at the spin of an electron and you find it is up in one, say the z-direction, it can be that it was down in the y- or x-direction before measurement, but it definitely means that it was NOT down in the z-direction immediately before the measurement. One thing about measurements, even in quantum mechanis, is that they *can* be repeated with consistent results.
One of the best explanations I've ever heard of this material. It's very hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that a decaying atom is both there and not there until we look at it, yet obviously we can't know until we look at it firsthand for with some recording device. It resides in a place I call "the dimension of possibility" which is where anything possible under given physical conditions exists as a possibility, until a decision or observation creates a physical manifestation.
We must understand what happens when we look or what is the science of looking? We don't have to look to see whether coin is head or tail. We can have sensors which will determine coin has fallen hes or tail.
But Quantum Mechanics says that the observation (measurement to be more precise) is what makes the state of the particle determined, so in this case the Geiger counter would be the "observer" and so the wave function would be collapsed right from the start. No Schrodinger's cat wave function whatsoever.
It isn't only about the measurement but also about knowledge of the results. Since the Geiger counter was inside the box, no one outside the box knew about the results. Check Double Slit Experiment for further references.
Consciousness doesn't interfere with physics. This misconception is brought about by physicists refusing to take the implications of quantum theory seriously. The reality is that both possibilities actually happen in different universes. The uncertainty principle states that we don't know which universe we are in until we make a measurement. Schrodinger himself was the first to reference the multiverse. It was stated explicitly by Hugh Everett in the 50s.
It depends on how certain you can be about the outcome. If you can be sure that the bomb results in certain death of the cat, then that certainty causes the wave function to collapse. But if there is any doubt, then you are right that the cat will remain in a superposition of states until you open the box to reveal the certainty.
That was really clear. I have looked this up a few times and always felt a bit uncertain as to why anyone cares about the cat. Now it feels concrete . Thanks
The conundrum works where any one person is uncertain of the outcome. For example if I were inside the box instead of a cat and you were on the outside, then you could say that I was in a super position of being both dead and alive until you open the box to find out. Obviously, I would be aware of the situation, albeit not necessarily consciously, but you would not. So the wave function would collapse for me but not for you.
Thanks for a very simplistic explanation. During your video , it occurred to me that while tossing the coin, isn't coin in a superposition state? I mean it could a Head or Tail? This superposition ends when it lands, does not matter if you look at it or not. Can we say that our efforts of calculating the spin is actually the landing of coin? Our efforts end the superposition . Any thoughts? Thanks again!
Well in a sense that is what Schrodinger was getting at. But there is a difference. We use a coin toss to generate a random outcome because we do not have enough info to calculate whether the coin will land heads or tails. But in theory we could. The difference with quantum mechanics is that it is not lack of information - it is a genuine probability and that both states exist until we look to check.
Just a thought, entanglement might not be symmetric in both ways because if the cat dies before the atom decays, it doesn't necessarily influence the random decay of the atom.
In the case of the fridge the light is off, because you have created a mechanism that makes it turn off when you close the door.. an atom decaying though is purely random. Of course the mechanism can be broken, but we can still measure how much energy it is using.. so basically you are measuring without knowing it.
I saw a cute take on this called, "Schrodinger's Cookies", where if you have a round metal cookie tin, the odds of their either being cookies or a sewing kit inside are the same until you open it. Ha ha!
Consider a spinning coin, it could be considered in a superposition of heads and / or tails until it lays flat - perhaps analogous (also somewhat) with wave function collapse. In Schrodinger’s Cat experiment: the wave function could collapse without the cat being there (obviously), and therefore the superposition ceased before being measured but rather when it interacts with energy from other fields or dissipates (very gradually) its own energy.
Does this mean the elec keeps changing direction of spin? Or does this mean the electron always ever had the same spin and we upon looking just confirmed it ?
amazing video i finally understood what schrodinger was trying to say but i didnt get the practicallity of the experiment if u r saying that u have taken 1 atom of radioactive substance in the box why is there a 50% chance of it getting decayed why cant 50% weight of the atom get decayed which would lead to a 100% detection by the giga counter coz the problem is u said u took 1 atom in the box and not 1 kg due to which the fact that it has 50% chance of getting decayed is lost and now it has a 100% chance of getting decayed
What if, instead of a cat, we put a hammer on a hinge that is released when decay is sensed, after which it falls making an audible sound inside the closed box? Is gravity suspended so the hammer is in some released but not falling state? Is this experiment more about information than about happenings?
❤this is a classical thought experiment but it shows some weird kind of thought of Schrodinger and a cat.the facts: - none of quantum world of all subatomic constituents of materials could be able to stop from decaying thy time be, this mean everything is decaying with none stoppable time passing by, so even a thought of Schrodinger's Cat set box is always obsoleted in reality.⏳ - v.V.v....ect. anyhow many thanks Dr.PhysicsA 💛
Does the decay of the atom depend on the number of lives the cat has left? If you put a new cat in the box does the atom have to decay 9 times before the cat dies? Does that also mean we have to have 9 cyanide capsules connected to the Geiger counter? Maybe the experiment only works with old cats.
"(H)ow is it that we can't see both states once we observe say for example the flipped coin?" I'm going to guess at this one. The "heads" and "tails" that we assign to the coin is clearly defined prior to the actual flipping of the coin. All we have to do is flip the coin to see which one it will be. An atom on the other hand can be in either one state or the other, but the atom might not be two-sided like the coin. Imagine a coin that is blank on both sides prior to being flipped. And suppose that the coin has the potential to be either heads or tails once it is flipped and lands. Although an atom might be able to constantly alternate between two states prior to being measured.
So Schrodinger is saying that since the cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time, neither can the atom be both decayed and not decayed. So is he therefore saying that a super position of both up and down is not possible? If so then what is the rebuttle?
I've always wondered if there's more to it. I mean, can you do anything with schrödinger's cat, or is it just as useful as, i don't know, let's say "The traffic light is either red or green, but before I look I don't know which one it is."?
Can we just say the measurement of the Geiger counter rather than the cat is the "observation"? And then avoid the problem of what is the role of "observation"?
The probability of fridge´s inner light were off or on is 50% until you open the door. But that does not mean that the bulb is at the same time off and on. Is this correct?
What if we dont see it, but, investigate if the cat is dead or not by the cats meow?? Would it change the outcome if the sound was taken into consideration?? Its just really hard for me to swallow this absurd paradox even thought miles and miles of reasearch might have backed this up.
Schrödinger declared I am this whole world, cosmic consciousness, but not in connection with his work. His work, was brought down to the paradox of Schrödinger's cat which he never could solve. Only Von Neumann said yes consciousness is the answer but couldn't rise above a dualistic view of consciousness. He wasn't radical enough to think consciousness was the ground of being. Eugene winger, suspected the same thing but couldn't be radical and go far enough to recognize that consciousness is cosmic, not individual choice and got bogged down in his own paradox and could not solve it. We see the struggle these men went through. QP is giving us the answers.
Spooky action at a distance has been challanged over and again. It has always sounded like hollywood to me. An interesting article in Quanta ( June 18) pokes a few holes in the EPR Copenhagen debate. Or maybe humanity is well short of knowing whats going on. Faster than light hurts my brain.
why do you say it is both up and down at the same time? we just don't know. It is just a wave of probability which is not collapsed. If it is both up and down at the same time, it should shows properties which happen when it is up and properties which happen when it is down, but when it is in the wave form it does nothing to our world, till it collapse to one of options.
I thought I would try this one more time after having had a kind of debate with someone, very intelligent but in my estimation, a bit prejudiced against any contradictions proposed of the conventional notions about superposition. I have adjusted my proposition a little to include what I thought were successful counters to his critique of my idea. So, here goes…….. A quick recap of the original argument and my proposition…Schroedings cat thought experiment modified slightly to show that there is no superposition of composite entities such as the cat. There is the box, the emitter, the collector, the hammer and the vile which would normally contain the poison but in my version, acid. So, the collector would at some time release the hammer and break the vile which would release the acid whose fumes would kill the cat. He would fall to the floor and a mechanism would cause the vile to tip over and release the acid to fall to the floor and begin to eat through it. The potential observer would be paying no attention to the box, it sitting on a nearby table perhaps. Suddenly, he would be alarmed by the odor of the acid and turn to observe it on the ground. Several relevant points; The observer’s attention was the “effect” of the experiment concluding, not the cause as in the original version, i.e., of his detecting the odor of the acid (outside the box), that being the consequence of the cat having to be only dead. The observer never looked into the box. The acid could only be outside the box if the cat were dead and only dead, not dead and alive at the same time. Some have tried to claim that by looking at the acid, the wave form would have collapsed and the cat then would have become dead. But this is a contradiction of the experiment as originally defined. The acid could not have been there to alert the observer so he would turn to it at which the wave form would collapse and cause the cat to die and fall over that the acid would eat through the box to alert him to look which it already had to begin with. This would make no sense. The cat had to have been dead already before the observer turned to see the acid which meant that the cat was never in superposition. The cat’s death was an event nested in a string of other deterministic events, those subsequent, impossible unless he were dead and only dead. The observer did not need to look in the box to see the cat for its state was fixed, that known to be true by the presence of the acid on the ground. Now I debated the above and certain counterpoints were made by my opponent that didn’t stand additional scrutiny. My opponent claimed that the cat was both dead and alive until the acid leaked (created a hole) through the box at which point the wave form collapsed. This would have meant that the original definition of the experiment to which he subscribed was in error. It was the unpredictability of the decaying matter in the emitter which created the condition of superposition, that the shedding of particles was random. So said Schroedinger. By definition then, it could only be that it was the observer’s observation of the cat by opening the box which caused the wave form to collapse. So be it. But then that the acid created a hole in the box which did “not” allow the observer to see the cat could not have cause the wave form to collapse. How then could the acid have eaten through the box, the reality of which was directly observed and whose effect in its presence alarmed the observer to turn to see “it”? If the claim that the mere presence of a hole in the box from the acid which did “not” allow the observation of the cat’s state was sufficient to cause the wave form to collapse were true then the original version of the thought experiment was in error in that the cat’s state was said to be a product of it having been observed by the opening of the box. When I suggested that my opponent might inform me whether or not the experiment would have worked as originally defined by Schroedinger had it taken place under an open bottom dome which though open would not permit the observer to see the cat unless it was lifted, he ran from the question. In any case, if any analysis of the reality of superposition does not require the observation of the cat to cause the wave form to collapse, it cannot be thought to be correct in its conclusions, “if” we are to remain true to the Copenhagen school’s claims as to how these wave forms function in materiality. One cannot have it both ways. Either the cat’s state is the product of direct observation or not. If the former is true then my version of the experiment shows superposition to be untrue. If the latter then I am in error. I have seen toys which are constructed around the double slit experiment in which the interference pattern is created. However, the observation of the open mechanism by the user does “not” cause the collapse/termination of the phenomenon. Why not? I do believe that “if” one were to truly and honestly deconstruct my argument in the context of the definitions of the reality of superposition by all scientists and most who study this kind of thing in some measure, he will find that there is no such phenomenon. If any of you think me arrogant and wrong, it should be a very simple matter to demonstrate how and why that is the case. To date, no one can including a few graduate students in physics. I find that astonishing. I also think that whomever posted this video would only have a great deal of fun discussion my proposition and if I am wrong, proving me so. This stuff is a blast to debate. I find it odd and troubling that most people take the challenge of it as such a personal affront. Why? The proposition of superposition is not theirs. So, what do you think? On the off chance I am correct in this (and I am “if” we are to respect the original author’s formulation), consider the physics that would fall away as a consequence such as all that nonsense about multiverses, etc.
Well its a bit more than that. It is saying not just that you dont know what's going on but that actually there is nothing to know until you actually look. If you look for me in my house you might find me in the kitchen. I was there before you found me, but you just didnt know. But when you find an electron in my kitchen it does not mean that it was in my kitchen before you found it. It was in a superposition of being in all the rooms of my house. That's quantum mechanics for you. Weird!
My understanding is that observation ends superposition. Are you saying that observation ends superposition but only for that observer and that the wave/particle remains in superposition with respect to all other potential observers? If one observation ends superposition regardless of the infinite number of other potential observers, then isn't the Geiger counter within the box the observer that ends superposition?
Observation is irreversible energy transfer. Yes, it ends superposition. After that energy transfer has taken place the quantum system is in a defined state. Where Schroedinger fell off the horse is that there are two types of uncertainty: classical uncertainty means that we don't know the state but nature does. Quantum uncertainty means that neither we nor nature know the state. Schroedinger simply does not differentiate carefully between the two cases (and neither do his critics, which is why nobody is, on average, any smarter after they discuss this bullshit). We don't need an infinite number of observers. We simply need to understand that once the decay in Schroedinger's cat has taken place the content of the box is in a classically uncertain state, rather than a state of quantum uncertainty. Schroedinger's cat is simply an example of shoddy thinking. I would even say it's just another boring false dichotomy fallacy. The same is true for Wigner's friend. It's pretty much the same mistake.
If the cat doesn't leave the box or does not emit a sound in three days, it's dead. The following week you will definetely start smelling the decomposition.
To me, this paradox does not make much sense :-). I believe that the act of observation (or measurement) takes place whenever a superposition of states is collapsed to a single state by an irreversible process (the definition of which should be linked to entropy). So there is no contrast between the act of observation from outside the box and the observation by the cat, as there is no particularly special place of the external observer in this process.
What if the substance decays but The Geiger counter doesn't pick it up and keeps the gas sealed or Or if the Geiger Counter works, maybe the release mechanism is faulty and fails to release the gas, Or the Gas is released but the Geiger Counter picked up nothing. you could technically say that The Cat, The Atom, The Gas Release and The Geiger Counter all have a Super Position in that box until you look inside.
so if one is not looking it means that it doesn't exist ! I see they relate an event with someone's/something's existence, why would be the entanglement a good model for describing an event ?
Ok so lets try a new experiment called the cats revenge. This is where we put shrodinger in the box. Same experiment except no poison gas. Now the particle decays and shrodinger observes it so no superposition. So it it still in a superposition for the cat outside the box? Next experiment, shrodinger in a box with the particle. That box goes in a box with the lab assistant and this outer box is closed. The particle decays with shro observing it, no super position. Yet someone will tell me shro is entangled with the particle and the particle is superpositioned for the assistant. The assistant opens shros box and becomed entangled and the particle loses its superposioning. But the cat is outside both boxes. And the particle is super/super positioned in how many states? Where does it end?
So what would a computer simulation of this look like? Radioactive decay is prima facie a random process, and I will suggest that it really is what we see, so the computer simulation needs to make use of a random number generator. Now how can we add randomness to the wave function without obliterating it? I will suggest a way. The randomness is some sort of Brownian motion, and at short timescales an entity executing a Wiener process would be hopping through the light barrier. It is suggested that it does exactly that and that there is symmetry between the subluminal and superluminal worlds. The Schroedinger equation does actually look like an equation of tachyonic Brownian motion with its imaginary diffusion term. It is also a wave equation, but there is another way to travel faster than light which permits wavelike behaviour. These two ways are orthogonal to each other, so we can add tachyonic Brownian motion to our computer simulations without any grief. Often TBM will have little effect, since it is designed that way, but when matter interacts with the electromagnetic field then TBM does swing into action to give a random outcome. This is a classically random outcome which leads to a coin landing heads or tails, or a cat ending up either alive or dead, and neither the coin nor the cat is ever in any superposition of states. Perhaps there are other ways to use a random number generator. I think TBM is the simplest way which ticks all the boxes. Can anyone think of anything else?
@@schmetterling4477 You are merely being rude and childish. There is an argument that the type of simulation I have in mind is impossible in principle, but it hasn't been stated by you in any credible way. Don't bother me again.
@@david_porthouse OMG, David, you are feeling sorry for yourself! That means you are actually human and not just a script that posts the same bullshit every day. There is still hope. ;-)
Schrodinger proposed this thought experiment to point out the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation, after he had become disillusioned with it. He proposed it as a paradox. Oddly it has subsequently become a kind of flagship of quantum mechanics by those who rejoice in qm’s very absurdity. The function of human perception in the process of wave-function collapse was introduced by John von Neumann (in his textbook on the subject, Mathematical foundations of Quantum Mechanics). And Bohr adopted it into the Copenhagen interpretation. But (in my opinion) it is quite easy to show that this connection is absurd. However, it is this connection between physical events and (human) consciousness which furnishes us with the (living /dead) cat paradox. The paradox was subsequently “resolved” by Hugh Everett in the 1950s by saying that the universe (no less) splits into two with one version of the cat in each copy of the universe. There is nothing special about the cat. All wave functions must lead to splitting universes when they collapse, giving one definite result or another. You can generate a lot of universes this way. Believe it or not Everett has his supporters. I always think that it is KENNY Everett’s solution to the paradox.
The probability of cat being alive or dead reduces to joint probability of many events: P(cat dead) = P(1 atom decay).P(Geiger detecting 1 photon) . P(hammer actuating by 1 detection event) . P(Poison released by 1 hammer hit). P(Cat dying by the amount of gas released) The truth does remain that there is a finite probability that cat is alive and also finite probability that cat is dead. The sum of those two probabilities is one.
I'm kinda confused.. Hows the decaying atom is not in super position in relation to the cat , but it is to us outside the box. I imagine inside the box is dark , therefore the cat can't see the decaying atom.
That's the trivial physics mistake in Schroedinger's cat: once the decay takes place, the box is not dark. The energy of the atom is now in the electromagnetic field (if we are talking about an optical transition or about a gamma decay). Even without any other matter in the box the phase space for the optical photon/gamma is much, much larger than the phase space of the excited atom/nucleus, so the system will spend a much, much longer time in the de-excited atom/nucleus, excited field state than the other way around. It's a simple time scale separation problem. Stuff a cat in and it's way worse because dead cats stay dead for a very long time before they reconstitute themselves to living cats. The bigger problem is that the dead cat will, occasionally, also reconstitute into two kittens and a mouse, and very rarely it will form a Boltzmann brain. And if you don't know, yet, that this is all physics bullshit, then I can't help you. ;-)
It's about " uncertainty" you can control anyone ..through classical conditioning by applying " distractions" and giving them a better understanding on how to avoid distractions...if the cat survives..the cat would understand how to avoid " distractions" and thus saving his/her own life... also , if you go to a psychologist and bang away at the past and dread or predict the future..you have created a existence of uncertainty ....while the psychologist gets paid....based on uncertainty.... your money lost in the stock market based on uncertainty..... uncertainty is avoided by staying focused and avoiding distractions....
But isn't God always looking? I personally disagree with the assertion that you cannot know the motion of an electron until you look because this implies that electrons slip under the laws of causality.
for instance if we set off the bomb, leave and come back in a year. look inside the box and discover the cat is dead, does it not die until we look at it a year later?
This is the clearest and most concise explanation of Schroeder's Thought Experiment, I've seen on the internet. Thank you!
Tony Ahn, Jr. Same thoughts
That is an experimental result. If you set up a standard double slit diffraction experiment using electrons you will get the diffraction pattern. If you put some kind of detector into the experiment to determine through which slit an electron passes the diffraction pattern will disappear.
No. As soon as you hear the noise you have effectively "observed" the decay. So the wavefunction collapses.
I think this is precisely the point that Schrodinger was trying to make. The question is, when does the wave function collapse. In the traditional form of the paradox, it is the conscious observer outside the box who does not know the situation until the box is opened. If you put a conscious observer inside the box then the wave function collapses as soon as the atom decays.
The same principle applies. The atom is in the superposition state of being decayed and undecayed at the same time until we actually look to see if it has decayed or not. Then the wavefunction collapses. That applied whether we open the box and or look at the output of a camera - live or on replay. It's when we observe the actual situation that the wave function collapses.
Absolutely crystal! Thanks Dr P for clearing my headache🙏
No. The difference is that before you look at a traffic light you don't know what colour it is. But when you look you not only know that it is, say, green, but that it was green before you looked (leaving aside that it might have just changed). The point about QM is that when you look for an electron and find it in location x, it does not mean that it was there immediately before you found it.
thanks for having these tutorials available. the contents are crystal clear and extremely helpful!
The cat is dead. Schrodinger didn't put any food or water in the box.
You cannot gaurentee because you havent looked there yet
+Professor Time nor did he specify how long the cat is in there for. It could be only one day, in which case the cat emerges dehydrated and hungry but alive.
The postulate of Quantum Mechanics is that a sub atomic particle actually exists in a superposition of all states until you look for it. Then in materialises in one place. So by definition you cant see the multiplicity of states because as soon as you look for it, the wavefunction collapses to a single state.
The wave function collapses for the person or object which makes the observation. The intriguing question from a quantum mechanics point of view is whether if you open the box and thus cause the wave function to collapse, the wave function also collapses for people who are unaware of the result once you open the box. Or does it only collapse when they become aware.
My question is: when does the "look" start? What parameter of looking causes the state to become stable? How is 'looking' defined?
My understanding is that Schrodinger was in fact joining in the criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. He appears to be saying that if an atom is both decayed and not decayed then the cat must be both dead and not dead, which is silly. And yet we now make the distinction between the classical world where something is either one thing or another and the quantum world where something can be in a quantum superposition of two states.
No. If we don't open the box all we can say is that the cat is in a superposition of states of being both dead and alive. It was precisely this which Schrodinger found to be a nonsense. But it is the logical consequence of having an atom in a superposition of being decayed and not decayed.
radioactive decay of an atom does not result in zero mass for the post decay atom. so 1kg does not decay to 500gm after 1 week. it just means 50% of the atoms have decayed to a different isotope or pair of fission products.
I'm good in physics because of you. You have my sincerest gratitude.
I think you have got it just right. And indeed this is what I think Schrodinger was trying to say. We would say that the light is either on or off; that the cat is either alive or dead; or that the atom is either decayed or not decayed. But in the quantum world, the atom is in the quantum state of being both decayed and not decayed until you look.
what if the cat freaks out seeing the radio active chemical and shits on the geiger counter
PLOT TWIST! xD
Prakash Ghosh Then it doesn't follow protocol
Finally a clear and gréât présentation on this expriment. Thanks very much from a non scientist. The explanation of the possible decay of the atom in the radio active material made things perfectly clear...fascinating! The implications of this experiment are mind-boggling and can be extended to more philosophical conundrums. Would you agree that this relates to Schopenhauer's observation on the observer effect or the interface between the observer and the observed relating to Taoist and Buddhist views?
You are the best. Wish you were my teacher back in my schooldays.
I would say consider the possibility that within everything there is an awareness. Therefore we do not need to look into the box. The atom knows. The cat knows. The Geiger counter knows. The box knows. We are surplus spectators.
The particle is in a superposition of decayed and not decayed until observed. However, when it is measured by Geiger Counter. Is that not observation? Does Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics require observation by only a human being to collapse the wave function?
No. It remains in a superposition of states of being both dead and alive. That situation only collapses to one or the other when you can be certain, e.g. by looking, of the actual state.
Not really. HUP is about the inability to measure two related values at the same time (eg position and momentum). This is about the random nature of the decay of radioactive atoms and thus the inability to predict when any given atom will decay.
Love your videos! It's super fun to learn quantum mechanics with you. Thank you so much for making these amazing videos!
I think Schodinger's point was that if you say that the atom is in a quantum superposition of states then it must also be true that the cat is in a quantum superposition of states which is silly. But you are right. If the box were made of glass then we could see if the cat were alive or dead so there would be no quantum superposition of the states for the cat or indeed the atom.
This scenario is very similar to an astable multivibrator! When you simulated in a theoretic and perfect environment in a simulator the circuit doesn't work, because both sides are equally probable due to perfect symmetry of components, however, in the real world, there is not such thing as perfect symmetry, and thus, on side (reality) overcomes the other immediately when the simulation begins. I think we have the same situation here, the Schrodinger's Cat is the perfect environment simulation, like in a computer, which premises of perfect symmetry aren't existent in the real world...
As an analogy.If I were to toss and spin a fair coin upwards, it, when landing, woud show either a head or tail but when in the airi it would be indeterminate.just as with the cat?
Any mechanism whereby we “observe” that the cat is either alive or dead with certainty will cause the wave function to collapse. It is only while we are in a state of uncertainty that we get the superposition of states.
That's so interesting!! thanks DrPhysicsA
Actually I love Physics a lot, but you know, people need to earn for their living so I choose a major in university which is not related to Physics but can make me easier in career.
But I still wish I can have a chance to learn more about Physics even after I left my college, this channel is so great, thanks
if you look at the spin of an electron and you find it is up in one, say the z-direction, it can be that it was down in the y- or x-direction before measurement, but it definitely means that it was NOT down in the z-direction immediately before the measurement. One thing about measurements, even in quantum mechanis, is that they *can* be repeated with consistent results.
So does this mean reality is personal ?? It depends on who sees it and doesnot??
One of the best explanations I've ever heard of this material. It's very hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that a decaying atom is both there and not there until we look at it, yet obviously we can't know until we look at it firsthand for with some recording device. It resides in a place I call "the dimension of possibility" which is where anything possible under given physical conditions exists as a possibility, until a decision or observation creates a physical manifestation.
We must understand what happens when we look or what is the science of looking? We don't have to look to see whether coin is head or tail. We can have sensors which will determine coin has fallen hes or tail.
Will the atom die, if the cat decays?
But Quantum Mechanics says that the observation (measurement to be more precise) is what makes the state of the particle determined, so in this case the Geiger counter would be the "observer" and so the wave function would be collapsed right from the start. No Schrodinger's cat wave function whatsoever.
It isn't only about the measurement but also about knowledge of the results. Since the Geiger counter was inside the box, no one outside the box knew about the results. Check Double Slit Experiment for further references.
Matheus Adorni Dardenne That's somewhat amazing, because it means that consciousness interferes with physics,
Awesome, isn't it?
Some skeptics refuse to accept it, but there is no refutation to quantum mechanics so far... =]
Some skeptics are trying their best to avoid anthropic principle and in doing so they are trying twist the facts.
Consciousness doesn't interfere with physics. This misconception is brought about by physicists refusing to take the implications of quantum theory seriously. The reality is that both possibilities actually happen in different universes. The uncertainty principle states that we don't know which universe we are in until we make a measurement. Schrodinger himself was the first to reference the multiverse. It was stated explicitly by Hugh Everett in the 50s.
there is a similarity in that the nature of observation is a significant interaction that affects the observed subject
What about the Geiger Counter's perspective?
amihart The same as the cat
It depends on how certain you can be about the outcome. If you can be sure that the bomb results in certain death of the cat, then that certainty causes the wave function to collapse. But if there is any doubt, then you are right that the cat will remain in a superposition of states until you open the box to reveal the certainty.
Very concise explanation of a complicated concept.
Actually, the cat is dead. It suffocated.
That was really clear. I have looked this up a few times and always felt a bit uncertain as to why anyone cares about the cat. Now it feels concrete
. Thanks
The conundrum works where any one person is uncertain of the outcome. For example if I were inside the box instead of a cat and you were on the outside, then you could say that I was in a super position of being both dead and alive until you open the box to find out. Obviously, I would be aware of the situation, albeit not necessarily consciously, but you would not. So the wave function would collapse for me but not for you.
Thanks for a very simplistic explanation.
During your video , it occurred to me that while tossing the coin, isn't coin in a superposition state? I mean it could a Head or Tail? This superposition ends when it lands, does not matter if you look at it or not. Can we say that our efforts of calculating the spin is actually the landing of coin? Our efforts end the superposition .
Any thoughts?
Thanks again!
Well in a sense that is what Schrodinger was getting at. But there is a difference. We use a coin toss to generate a random outcome because we do not have enough info to calculate whether the coin will land heads or tails. But in theory we could. The difference with quantum mechanics is that it is not lack of information - it is a genuine probability and that both states exist until we look to check.
So the Schrodinger equation is a clever way of saying 'I don't know until I look at it'
Actually it is Schrodinger's cat thought experiment which does this. Schrodinger's equation is different
best explanation so far!
Just a thought, entanglement might not be symmetric in both ways because if the cat dies before the atom decays, it doesn't necessarily influence the random decay of the atom.
The best explanation I have come across on TH-cam!
In the case of the fridge the light is off, because you have created a mechanism that makes it turn off when you close the door.. an atom decaying though is purely random. Of course the mechanism can be broken, but we can still measure how much energy it is using.. so basically you are measuring without knowing it.
I saw a cute take on this called, "Schrodinger's Cookies", where if you have a round metal cookie tin, the odds of their either being cookies or a sewing kit inside are the same until you open it. Ha ha!
Robert Galletta asian schrodinger.
Consider a spinning coin, it could be considered in a superposition of heads and / or tails until it lays flat - perhaps analogous (also somewhat) with wave function collapse.
In Schrodinger’s Cat experiment: the wave function could collapse without the cat being there (obviously), and therefore the superposition ceased before being measured but rather when it interacts with energy from other fields or dissipates (very gradually) its own energy.
Does this mean the elec keeps changing direction of spin? Or does this mean the electron always ever had the same spin and we upon looking just confirmed it ?
can you explain why does somebody call this experiment is a paradox?
thanks you
amazing video i finally understood what schrodinger was trying to say but i didnt get the practicallity of the experiment if u r saying that u have taken 1 atom of radioactive substance in the box why is there a 50% chance of it getting decayed why cant 50% weight of the atom get decayed which would lead to a 100% detection by the giga counter coz the problem is u said u took 1 atom in the box and not 1 kg due to which the fact that it has 50% chance of getting decayed is lost and now it has a 100% chance of getting decayed
With Geiger counter connected by wires outside the box we can see whether the atom has decayed or not. No need to open the box?
What if, instead of a cat, we put a hammer on a hinge that is released when decay is sensed, after which it falls making an audible sound inside the closed box?
Is gravity suspended so the hammer is in some released but not falling state?
Is this experiment more about information than about happenings?
❤this is a classical thought experiment but it shows some weird kind of thought of Schrodinger and a cat.the facts:
- none of quantum world of all subatomic constituents of materials could be able to stop from decaying thy time be, this mean everything is decaying with none stoppable time passing by, so even a thought of Schrodinger's Cat set box is always obsoleted in reality.⏳
- v.V.v....ect. anyhow many thanks Dr.PhysicsA 💛
Does the decay of the atom depend on the number of lives the cat has left? If you put a new cat in the box does the atom have to decay 9 times before the cat dies? Does that also mean we have to have 9 cyanide capsules connected to the Geiger counter? Maybe the experiment only works with old cats.
"(H)ow is it that we can't see both states once we observe say for example the flipped coin?" I'm going to guess at this one. The "heads" and "tails" that we assign to the coin is clearly defined prior to the actual flipping of the coin. All we have to do is flip the coin to see which one it will be. An atom on the other hand can be in either one state or the other, but the atom might not be two-sided like the coin. Imagine a coin that is blank on both sides prior to being flipped. And suppose that the coin has the potential to be either heads or tails once it is flipped and lands. Although an atom might be able to constantly alternate between two states prior to being measured.
And could u please make a video on how does spin affect is related to the material getting decayed
So Schrodinger is saying that since the cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time, neither can the atom be both decayed and not decayed. So is he therefore saying that a super position of both up and down is not possible? If so then what is the rebuttle?
Wait wouldn't background radiation set off the GC anyway? Or is this model designed to only detect a specific type of radiation?
Some physics students have suggested that the cat's own consciousness may keep it alive.
thank you for the videos... can you please do some videos on electrodynamics? i,ll be grateful to watch your videos on electrodynamics
I am bit confused what exactly is concluded here but I guess everything depends on the viewpoint/perspective.
But what if we put a small camera in the box and then look at the replay?
I've always wondered if there's more to it. I mean, can you do anything with schrödinger's cat, or is it just as useful as, i don't know, let's say "The traffic light is either red or green, but before I look I don't know which one it is."?
Can we just say the measurement of the Geiger counter rather than the cat is the "observation"? And then avoid the problem of what is the role of "observation"?
Does heisenberg's uncertainty principle play a role in this experiment?
The probability of fridge´s inner light were off or on is 50% until you open the door. But that does not mean that the bulb is at the same time off and on. Is this correct?
What if we dont see it, but, investigate if the cat is dead or not by the cats meow?? Would it change the outcome if the sound was taken into consideration?? Its just really hard for me to swallow this absurd paradox even thought miles and miles of reasearch might have backed this up.
Schrödinger declared I am this whole world, cosmic consciousness, but not in connection with his work. His work, was brought down to the paradox of Schrödinger's cat which he never could solve. Only Von Neumann said yes consciousness is the answer but couldn't rise above a dualistic view of consciousness. He wasn't radical enough to think consciousness was the ground of being. Eugene winger, suspected the same thing but couldn't be radical and go far enough to recognize that consciousness is cosmic, not individual choice and got bogged down in his own paradox and could not solve it. We see the struggle these men went through. QP is giving us the answers.
great video but im just curious, how is it that we cant see both states once we observe say for example the flipped coin?
I don't think Schrodinger thought of that.
Spooky action at a distance has been challanged over and again. It has always sounded like hollywood to me. An interesting article in Quanta ( June 18) pokes a few holes in the EPR Copenhagen debate. Or maybe humanity is well short of knowing whats going on. Faster than light hurts my brain.
why do you say it is both up and down at the same time? we just don't know. It is just a wave of probability which is not collapsed. If it is both up and down at the same time, it should shows properties which happen when it is up and properties which happen when it is down, but when it is in the wave form it does nothing to our world, till it collapse to one of options.
I thought I would try this one more time after having had a kind of debate with someone, very intelligent but in my estimation, a bit prejudiced against any contradictions proposed of the conventional notions about superposition. I have adjusted my proposition a little to include what I thought were successful counters to his critique of my idea. So, here goes……..
A quick recap of the original argument and my proposition…Schroedings cat thought experiment modified slightly to show that there is no superposition of composite entities such as the cat. There is the box, the emitter, the collector, the hammer and the vile which would normally contain the poison but in my version, acid. So, the collector would at some time release the hammer and break the vile which would release the acid whose fumes would kill the cat. He would fall to the floor and a mechanism would cause the vile to tip over and release the acid to fall to the floor and begin to eat through it. The potential observer would be paying no attention to the box, it sitting on a nearby table perhaps. Suddenly, he would be alarmed by the odor of the acid and turn to observe it on the ground. Several relevant points;
The observer’s attention was the “effect” of the experiment concluding, not the cause as in the original version, i.e., of his detecting the odor of the acid (outside the box), that being the consequence of the cat having to be only dead.
The observer never looked into the box.
The acid could only be outside the box if the cat were dead and only dead, not dead and alive at the same time. Some have tried to claim that by looking at the acid, the wave form would have collapsed and the cat then would have become dead. But this is a contradiction of the experiment as originally defined. The acid could not have been there to alert the observer so he would turn to it at which the wave form would collapse and cause the cat to die and fall over that the acid would eat through the box to alert him to look which it already had to begin with. This would make no sense. The cat had to have been dead already before the observer turned to see the acid which meant that the cat was never in superposition.
The cat’s death was an event nested in a string of other deterministic events, those subsequent, impossible unless he were dead and only dead.
The observer did not need to look in the box to see the cat for its state was fixed, that known to be true by the presence of the acid on the ground.
Now I debated the above and certain counterpoints were made by my opponent that didn’t stand additional scrutiny.
My opponent claimed that the cat was both dead and alive until the acid leaked (created a hole) through the box at which point the wave form collapsed. This would have meant that the original definition of the experiment to which he subscribed was in error. It was the unpredictability of the decaying matter in the emitter which created the condition of superposition, that the shedding of particles was random. So said Schroedinger. By definition then, it could only be that it was the observer’s observation of the cat by opening the box which caused the wave form to collapse. So be it. But then that the acid created a hole in the box which did “not” allow the observer to see the cat could not have cause the wave form to collapse. How then could the acid have eaten through the box, the reality of which was directly observed and whose effect in its presence alarmed the observer to turn to see “it”?
If the claim that the mere presence of a hole in the box from the acid which did “not” allow the observation of the cat’s state was sufficient to cause the wave form to collapse were true then the original version of the thought experiment was in error in that the cat’s state was said to be a product of it having been observed by the opening of the box. When I suggested that my opponent might inform me whether or not the experiment would have worked as originally defined by Schroedinger had it taken place under an open bottom dome which though open would not permit the observer to see the cat unless it was lifted, he ran from the question. In any case, if any analysis of the reality of superposition does not require the observation of the cat to cause the wave form to collapse, it cannot be thought to be correct in its conclusions, “if” we are to remain true to the Copenhagen school’s claims as to how these wave forms function in materiality. One cannot have it both ways. Either the cat’s state is the product of direct observation or not. If the former is true then my version of the experiment shows superposition to be untrue. If the latter then I am in error.
I have seen toys which are constructed around the double slit experiment in which the interference pattern is created. However, the observation of the open mechanism by the user does “not” cause the collapse/termination of the phenomenon. Why not?
I do believe that “if” one were to truly and honestly deconstruct my argument in the context of the definitions of the reality of superposition by all scientists and most who study this kind of thing in some measure, he will find that there is no such phenomenon. If any of you think me arrogant and wrong, it should be a very simple matter to demonstrate how and why that is the case. To date, no one can including a few graduate students in physics. I find that astonishing. I also think that whomever posted this video would only have a great deal of fun discussion my proposition and if I am wrong, proving me so. This stuff is a blast to debate. I find it odd and troubling that most people take the challenge of it as such a personal affront. Why? The proposition of superposition is not theirs.
So, what do you think? On the off chance I am correct in this (and I am “if” we are to respect the original author’s formulation), consider the physics that would fall away as a consequence such as all that nonsense about multiverses, etc.
So if we don't open the box we can say the car is alive? ie we are only forcing the atoms hand by opening the box?
Well its a bit more than that. It is saying not just that you dont know what's going on but that actually there is nothing to know until you actually look. If you look for me in my house you might find me in the kitchen. I was there before you found me, but you just didnt know. But when you find an electron in my kitchen it does not mean that it was in my kitchen before you found it. It was in a superposition of being in all the rooms of my house. That's quantum mechanics for you. Weird!
what if the box is made out of glass? Or there is a camera in the box?
Thank you Internet. Now I can listen to my uncle the scientist. Relativistic superposition.
My understanding is that observation ends superposition. Are you saying that observation ends superposition but only for that observer and that the wave/particle remains in superposition with respect to all other potential observers? If one observation ends superposition regardless of the infinite number of other potential observers, then isn't the Geiger counter within the box the observer that ends superposition?
Observation is irreversible energy transfer. Yes, it ends superposition. After that energy transfer has taken place the quantum system is in a defined state. Where Schroedinger fell off the horse is that there are two types of uncertainty: classical uncertainty means that we don't know the state but nature does. Quantum uncertainty means that neither we nor nature know the state. Schroedinger simply does not differentiate carefully between the two cases (and neither do his critics, which is why nobody is, on average, any smarter after they discuss this bullshit). We don't need an infinite number of observers. We simply need to understand that once the decay in Schroedinger's cat has taken place the content of the box is in a classically uncertain state, rather than a state of quantum uncertainty. Schroedinger's cat is simply an example of shoddy thinking. I would even say it's just another boring false dichotomy fallacy. The same is true for Wigner's friend. It's pretty much the same mistake.
If the cat doesn't leave the box or does not emit a sound in three days, it's dead.
The following week you will definetely start smelling the decomposition.
So the cat exists in a closed system but we are(relatively) not.
Thank you, my understanding is cleare now.
can you make a video on the delayed choice quantum eraser
To me, this paradox does not make much sense :-). I believe that the act of observation (or measurement) takes place whenever a superposition of states is collapsed to a single state by an irreversible process (the definition of which should be linked to entropy). So there is no contrast between the act of observation from outside the box and the observation by the cat, as there is no particularly special place of the external observer in this process.
What if the substance decays but The Geiger counter doesn't pick it up and keeps the gas sealed or Or if the Geiger Counter works, maybe the release mechanism is faulty and fails to release the gas, Or the Gas is released but the Geiger Counter picked up nothing. you could technically say that The Cat, The Atom, The Gas Release and The Geiger Counter all have a Super Position in that box until you look inside.
I think yes. Because until you look you don't actually know what has happened.
Excellent series of videos though, very helpful accompaniment to reading Heisenberg's "Physics & Philosophy".
so if one is not looking it means that it doesn't exist ! I see they relate an event with someone's/something's existence, why would be the entanglement a good model for describing an event ?
Ok so lets try a new experiment called the cats revenge. This is where we put shrodinger in the box. Same experiment except no poison gas. Now the particle decays and shrodinger observes it so no superposition. So it it still in a superposition for the cat outside the box?
Next experiment, shrodinger in a box with the particle. That box goes in a box with the lab assistant and this outer box is closed. The particle decays with shro observing it, no super position. Yet someone will tell me shro is entangled with the particle and the particle is superpositioned for the assistant. The assistant opens shros box and becomed entangled and the particle loses its superposioning.
But the cat is outside both boxes. And the particle is super/super positioned in how many states? Where does it end?
So what would a computer simulation of this look like? Radioactive decay is prima facie a random process, and I will suggest that it really is what we see, so the computer simulation needs to make use of a random number generator. Now how can we add randomness to the wave function without obliterating it? I will suggest a way.
The randomness is some sort of Brownian motion, and at short timescales an entity executing a Wiener process would be hopping through the light barrier. It is suggested that it does exactly that and that there is symmetry between the subluminal and superluminal worlds. The Schroedinger equation does actually look like an equation of tachyonic Brownian motion with its imaginary diffusion term.
It is also a wave equation, but there is another way to travel faster than light which permits wavelike behaviour. These two ways are orthogonal to each other, so we can add tachyonic Brownian motion to our computer simulations without any grief. Often TBM will have little effect, since it is designed that way, but when matter interacts with the electromagnetic field then TBM does swing into action to give a random outcome. This is a classically random outcome which leads to a coin landing heads or tails, or a cat ending up either alive or dead, and neither the coin nor the cat is ever in any superposition of states.
Perhaps there are other ways to use a random number generator. I think TBM is the simplest way which ticks all the boxes. Can anyone think of anything else?
One can't simulate quantum mechanics with random number generators. You simply didn't pay attention in QM 101. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 You don't provide any explanation as to why not.
@@david_porthouse Because you weren't paying attention the first time, you won't get it now, either. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 You are merely being rude and childish. There is an argument that the type of simulation I have in mind is impossible in principle, but it hasn't been stated by you in any credible way. Don't bother me again.
@@david_porthouse OMG, David, you are feeling sorry for yourself! That means you are actually human and not just a script that posts the same bullshit every day. There is still hope. ;-)
Thank you for these lectures
Schrodinger proposed this thought experiment to point out the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation, after he had become disillusioned with it. He proposed it as a paradox. Oddly it has subsequently become a kind of flagship of quantum mechanics by those who rejoice in qm’s very absurdity.
The function of human perception in the process of wave-function collapse was introduced by John von Neumann (in his textbook on the subject, Mathematical foundations of Quantum Mechanics). And Bohr adopted it into the Copenhagen interpretation. But (in my opinion) it is quite easy to show that this connection is absurd.
However, it is this connection between physical events and (human) consciousness which furnishes us with the (living /dead) cat paradox.
The paradox was subsequently “resolved” by Hugh Everett in the 1950s by saying that the universe (no less) splits into two with one version of the cat in each copy of the universe. There is nothing special about the cat. All wave functions must lead to splitting universes when they collapse, giving one definite result or another. You can generate a lot of universes this way.
Believe it or not Everett has his supporters. I always think that it is KENNY Everett’s solution to the paradox.
The probability of cat being alive or dead reduces to joint probability of many events:
P(cat dead) = P(1 atom decay).P(Geiger detecting 1 photon) . P(hammer actuating by 1 detection event) . P(Poison released by 1 hammer hit). P(Cat dying by the amount of gas released)
The truth does remain that there is a finite probability that cat is alive and also finite probability that cat is dead. The sum of those two probabilities is one.
So if we never look at the cat, does it not die?
I'm kinda confused.. Hows the decaying atom is not in super position in relation to the cat , but it is to us outside the box.
I imagine inside the box is dark , therefore the cat can't see the decaying atom.
That's the trivial physics mistake in Schroedinger's cat: once the decay takes place, the box is not dark. The energy of the atom is now in the electromagnetic field (if we are talking about an optical transition or about a gamma decay). Even without any other matter in the box the phase space for the optical photon/gamma is much, much larger than the phase space of the excited atom/nucleus, so the system will spend a much, much longer time in the de-excited atom/nucleus, excited field state than the other way around. It's a simple time scale separation problem. Stuff a cat in and it's way worse because dead cats stay dead for a very long time before they reconstitute themselves to living cats. The bigger problem is that the dead cat will, occasionally, also reconstitute into two kittens and a mouse, and very rarely it will form a Boltzmann brain. And if you don't know, yet, that this is all physics bullshit, then I can't help you. ;-)
It's about " uncertainty"
you can control anyone ..through classical conditioning by applying " distractions" and giving them a better understanding on how to avoid distractions...if the cat survives..the cat would understand how to avoid " distractions" and thus saving his/her own life...
also , if you go to a psychologist and bang away at the past and dread or predict the future..you have created a existence of uncertainty ....while the psychologist gets paid....based on uncertainty....
your money lost in the stock market based on uncertainty.....
uncertainty is avoided by staying focused and avoiding distractions....
But isn't God always looking? I personally disagree with the assertion that you cannot know the motion of an electron until you look because this implies that electrons slip under the laws of causality.
Hunger Cult Films Ltd That is why you don't mix God with science. He isn't. Don't mix religion.
for instance if we set off the bomb, leave and come back in a year. look inside the box and discover the cat is dead, does it not die until we look at it a year later?