New research - The cat really is both dead and alive

#1
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-wavefunction-schroedinger-cat.html
Researchers describe the wavefunction of Schroedinger's cat

Schrödinger's cat highlights a long-standing dilemma in quantum mechanics: is the cat really alive and dead, or is the weirdness just in our head?


Researchers at The University of Queensland have now made major progress in answering this question.

Using four-dimensional states of photons, and subjecting them to very precise measurements, they ruled out the popular view that describing the cat as dead and alive is just due to a lack of knowledge about its real state.

As with all objects in quantum physics, the cat is described by the quantum wavefunction.

Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi, from the UQ School of Mathematics and Physics, explains that although the quantum wavefunction is our central tool for describing physical systems in quantum mechanics, it is still unclear what it actually is.

"Does it only represent our limited knowledge about the real state of a system, or is it in direct correspondence with this reality?

"And is there any objective reality at all?"

This debate has remained purely theoretical for decades, until three teams of quantum theorists—including co-authors Dr Cyril Branciard and Dr Eric Cavalcanti—recently proposed experimental tests to answer this question.

"The new approach tests whether the competing interpretations of the wavefunction can explain why we cannot tell quantum states apart with certainty, which is a central feature of quantum mechanics," says lead author Mr Martin Ringbauer.

"Our results suggest that, if there is objective reality, the wavefunction corresponds to this reality."

In other words, Schrödinger's cat really is in a state of being both alive and dead.

As measurements improve further, physicists will be left with two possible interpretations of the wavefunction: either the wavefunction is completely real, or nothing is.
 
#6
I have never understood that Schroedinger's cat theory at all. Not even being close to understanding it. It's just about "the weirdness in our head".

One simple thing, for those with some kind of spiritual understanding, the cat and the experimenters are in subconscious connection, throughout, and there are no random influences.

The only one that gets a surprise is the punk who opens the box, because he then break the spell of going from not knowing to knowing. It is always a chock, more or less.
 
#7
One simple thing, for those with some kind of spiritual understanding, the cat and the experimenters are in subconscious connection, throughout, and there are no random influences.

The only one that gets a surprise is the punk who opens the box, because he then break the spell of going from not knowing to knowing. It is always a chock, more or less.
??? The experimenters like the cat exist in many states but let's simplify. Interconnection isn't "subconscious" and few people are objectively aware of the choices they're making on the (for want of a better term) soul level. So yes on that level the experimenter is choosing that she's going to open to a cat that's alive.
 
#8
??? The experimenters like the cat exist in many states but let's simplify. Interconnection isn't "subconscious" and few people are objectively aware of the choices they're making on the (for want of a better term) soul level. So yes on that level the experimenter is choosing that she's going to open to a cat that's alive.
I'm not claiming to understand this, but surely, this "Schroedinger's cat theory" is about knowing what is, at a given moment. That's why they use a box. The idea is that we can't know what is happening inside of a box. It is a "world of it's own". But only in a materialistic philosophy. It doesn't help that it is sophisticated materialism, looking at states of quanta, etc. it is still matter shielded from observation by a box.

If there exist "unknown and not recognised" communication between the parties then it overrides the apparent influence of later physical observations. I.e. the outcome was already known, starting from a subconscious level, as I claim all consciousness does.
 
#9
I'm not claiming to understand this, but surely, this "Schroedinger's cat theory" is about knowing what is, at a given moment. That's why they use a box. The idea is that we can't know what is happening inside of a box. It is a "world of it's own". But only in a materialistic philosophy. It doesn't help that it is sophisticated materialism, looking at states of quanta, etc. it is still matter shielded from observation by a box.

If there exist "unknown and not recognised" communication between the parties then it overrides the apparent influence of later physical observations. I.e. the outcome was already known, starting from a subconscious level, as I claim all consciousness does.
Hmmm. .I think I already explained it clearly but okay - I'll give it another go. On the level of primary consciousness - many states exist at once - cat dead, cat alive, cat never exists, cat always exists, etc. Now there is a material world (yeah we're living in it. :D) In that world as currently configured, the standard is that we physically materialize only one of those states at any point. That's it. Period. It's not about pre-knowing or not. It's about manifesting one state into the physical. Or in the terminology of physics - collapsing the wave form.

Beyond that your comments also show a materialist bent in the "outcome was already known". That presupposes that there is only one outcome. It would be more accurate to realize that the influence happens in non-physical ways. IOW Although within the experiment we're discussing, observation is defined as physical, the observation really is whatever process selects one of the outcomes.
 
#10
As with all objects in quantum physics, the cat is described by the quantum wavefunction.
Yes but the physics always underestimate the risks of extrapolating: quantum mechanics is abstraction, a mathematical model; we can not know if it extrapolated to the macroscopic or the living beings.

In other words, Schrödinger's cat really is in a state of being both alive and dead.
So why we only perceive one of those states at a time?
 
#11
Hmmm. .I think I already explained it clearly but okay - I'll give it another go. On the level of primary consciousness - many states exist at once - cat dead, cat alive, cat never exists, cat always exists, etc. Now there is a material world (yeah we're living in it. :D) In that world as currently configured, the standard is that we physically materialize only one of those states at any point. That's it. Period. It's not about pre-knowing or not. It's about manifesting one state into the physical. Or in the terminology of physics - collapsing the wave form.

Beyond that your comments also show a materialist bent in the "outcome was already known". That presupposes that there is only one outcome. It would be more accurate to realize that the influence happens in non-physical ways. IOW Although within the experiment we're discussing, observation is defined as physical, the observation really is whatever process selects one of the outcomes.
We're looking at this from different perspectives. One thing is: You are mentioning "primary consciousness"; And then also "On the level of primary consciousness - many states exist at once". To me there is no such thing as primary consciousness. Consciousness just fits within the causal chain, and there is nothing primary about it.

If the observation is the event causing the outcome, but the observation is not random, then the outcome is not random. I'm equating "random" with things like "probable" and "virtual" and the such.
 
#12
To me there is no such thing as primary consciousness. Consciousness just fits within the causal chain, and there is nothing primary about it..
With that materialist (aka woefully inaccurate) view, you won't get to what's actually going on.

If the observation is the event causing the outcome, but the observation is not random, then the outcome is not random. I'm equating "random" with things like "probable" and "virtual" and the such.
??? As I said, you don't seem to get what's being discussed. Even within your own parameters. Using only those parameters - this has nothing to do with randomness, it has to do with moving a system from quantum superposition to a physically observed single state.
 
#13
So why we only perceive one of those states at a time?
Because it's like that in the standard physical reality. You may as well ask "so why let only the queen move freely?" It is possible to perceive more than one state at a point but few venture there. And the many then do their best to tell those few that they didn't do it anyway. :D
 
#14
Schrodinger's cat is an anecdote demonstrating the measurement problem in quantum physics. There is still a lot of ongoing debate regarding it. A lot of interpretations of the scientific data, though nobody disputes the actual data. I found studying and understanding the classic two-slit experiment the best way to get a grasp on what is going on. But it still is pretty spooky. Flies against so many of our accepted preconceived notions of reality. Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen were so upset by the Copenhagen interpretation of the measurement problem they created the Hidden Variables (EPR) theory as a rebuttal. EPR since then - has been disproven.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
#16
Your know cases of humans who claim to have perceive superpositions of mutually exclusive states?
Ahh. Are you being "tricky"? The whole point is that the states are not mutually exclusive. It's simply that in standard physical mode we filter to a "only one" perspective.

So, do I know people who have perceived superpositioned states? Yes.
 
#19
"Anecdote" is used correctly in this situation. The cat in the box scenario is a story meant to illustrate a point.
That's what analogies and metaphors do.

Anecdote generally refers to: (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=anecdote)
an·ec·dote
ˈanəkˌdōt/
noun
  1. a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
    "told anecdotes about his job"
    synonyms:story, tale, narrative, incident; More

    • an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
      "his wife's death has long been the subject of rumor and anecdote"
    • the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.
 
#20
That's what analogies and metaphors do.

Anecdote generally refers to: (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=anecdote)
an·ec·dote
ˈanəkˌdōt/
noun
  1. a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
    "told anecdotes about his job"
    synonyms:story, tale, narrative, incident; More
    • an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
      "his wife's death has long been the subject of rumor and anecdote"
    • the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.
The word "anecdote" is used in many ways, a few of which you have outlined. You should not take these definitions to be the only ones available. Bertha Huse also used it correctly.
 
Top