Beyond Schrodinger's Cat - a Television Appearance

[Simon]

I have explored this idea on a couple of other forums.

 

The following is my own expansion on Schrodinger’s original thought experiment, but taken to another level. It is envisaged here as something that might be carried out and verified.

 

(Ethics demand that this should never be performed with a cat. It could easily be done with just the harmless decaying crystal. But for our purposes - as with Schrodinger’s original – the cat dramatises it perfectly.)

 

OK, we have our sealed room with the cat. Inside is the radioactive crystal, which might or might not decay. If it does decay, lethal gas will be released and the cat will die. If not, the cat will live. Now, the point at which the cystal decays is said to be the moment when a wave function between two possible outcomes is created - not unlike that which occurs in the twin-slit experiment.

 

In the twin-slit scenario, there is a superposition of states in which a single particle leaves evidence of having gone through both slits simultaneously, until it is actually detected. The superposition manifests itself as an interference pattern between the two possible outcomes.

 

The original Schrodinger thought experiment explored the idea of superposition in the macro world. If such a wave function does indeed occur, then before it collapses we have a similar superposition - the crystal has decayed and not decayed, gas has been released and not released, the cat is alive and dead. The classic quantum dilemma questions whether either situation - a dead cat or a live cat - is real unless somebody opens the door. As with the twin-slit experiement, it is claimed that both and neither version of reality exist until one version is squeezed into existence by direct observation.

 

Adherents to the multiverse will say that both versions of reality exist inside the sealed room. Staying consistent with the Copenhagen Interpretation, the multiverse view accepts that there is still an uncollapsed wavefunction which represents unobserved events. Thus, it remains a matter of probability which state of reality will connect with our's when the door is open.

 

The challenge here is to find the equivalent of a twin-slit interference pattern for everyone to see in Schrodinger's scenario. What other forms in the macro world could the effects of an uncollapsed wave function take?

 

In our version of the experiment, there is a television camera transmitting the event.

 

Like the canister of lethal gas, the camera is linked to the radioactive crystal. What the camera does will depend on whether the crystal decays.

 

The camera is designed to transmit on two possible frequencies, A or B. Its default setting is to transmit on Frequency A. If the crystal does not decay, nothing will change. If the crystal does decay, it will transmit on Frequency B.

 

Outside the room, the possible outcomes are ready to be witnessed by two monitor screens - respectively A and B.

 

If the crystal does not decay and the cat lives, this will be seen and recorded on Monitor A.

If the crystal does decay and the cat dies, this will be seen and recorded on Monitor B.

 

All observations are limited to these television wave transmissions.

 

Before the crystal passes it’s random crisis point, we get a transmission on Monitor A in which the cat is alive and well. Monitor B stays blank.

 

After the crystal passes it’s random crisis point, here is what might happen.

 

Our expected wave function of two possible events occurs inside the room. The only source of information is itself a series of wave transmissions. Consequently, the wave/duality of possible outcomes does not collapse. Instead we get an interference pattern that incorporates both. Two transmissions are faithfully sent on their respective frequencies – one to each monitor.

 

On Monitor A, we see the cat live.

On Monitor B, we see the cat die.

 

We remain in live contact with different versions of what might be happening inside the room. The two transmissions continue for as long as the room remains sealed.

 

When the door is opened, the wave function is reduced to a single reality. Naturally, only one outcome is discovered. At the same moment, one monitor goes blank. The other continues to show it's version of events - the version encountered inside the now unsealed room.

 

Nevertheless, we retain a recording of the alternative version.

 

This concludes the experiment.

 

Simon

[sebbysteiny]

When reading this, I was looking for two things. Firstly, how do you create a situation in the macro world where a quantum supersition of two realities creates a fundamentally different reality from either one or the other result in a way that can be directly measured.

 

By making each result produce a wave measurement, you may have gone some way to resolving this. But I'm not convinced restricting your external measurments to two screens is sufficient.

 

The reason Young's slits works is because the INTERFERENCE pattern is a third possible outcome completely different to either of the possible outcomes. This can only be explained by the electron interferring with iteself.

 

I can't see that your experiment detects any interference patterns observed between one version of duel reality and itself. I think it assumes both realities will produce realities incompatible with the circuitry of the apparatus which, from my memory, is not how the process works.

 

So please explain to me exactly how the interference between the dual reality is observed.

 

Secondly, I was looking to see how you contained the quantum system. I remember reading that Shroedinger's thought experiment was fundamentally flawed when it came to actually making the experiment in practice. I think the reason was that it is almost impossible to make a container that can only detect something as large as a cat dying by opening the box. For example, detecting infra red radiation and all other signals from the box may mean that one can tell if the cat is alive even without opening the box so it is not porperly sealed. And I'm sure there were other problems as well which I can't remember (not helpful I know).

 

The problem is, all that matters is whether the apperatus has within it enough information for one to work out which state the particle is in. In other words, if there is apparatus measuring the position of the electron, there will not be an interference pattern even if the scientists choose not to look at the results of that measurement. That it was measurable for anybody who cares to look is enough.

Since your intention is to create macroscopic quantum superimposition, I don't think you have allowed for the possibility of detection of the result by means other than the two monitors.

 

Having said this, I havn't studied QM for almost 2 years and I'm feeling quite tired today so I might be wrong.

[Little Bang]

If you have monitor A in one room and monitor B in a separate, each with an observer, each will see the same event, but there will still be two separate realities created.

[Pyrotex]

If you have monitor A in one room and monitor B in a separate, each with an observer, each will see the same event, but there will still be two separate realities created.

I don't know about you, but I'm watching "The Simpsons" on my monitor.

You got any beer?

[sebbysteiny]

I don't know about you, but I'm watching "The Simpsons" on my monitor.

You got any beer?

 

Yes I do. Why?

[Pyrotex]

Yes I do. Why?

Because we're going to need quite a lot. :)

 

My understanding of the Schroedinger Cat Scenario is that "observation" is NOT limited to physically opening the door. Any observation, any flow of information in any form from "cat" to "scientist" will collapse the state of the cat.

 

this may seem counter-intuitive but remember, Schroedinger is trying to build a working metaphor for what happens at the atomic scale. We don't get to have TVs at the atomic scale. So ANY observation of the cat "counts", no matter how serpentine, indirect or clever you make it. And therefore:

 

If you are observing the cat in any way, then its fate is determined the instant the crystal detects a cosmic ray. You cannot see the cat alive on one TV and dead on the other. ;)

 

Get me a beer, please.

[Simon]

Sebbysteiny wrote:

The reason Young's slits works is because the INTERFERENCE pattern is a third possible outcome completely different to either of the possible outcomes. This can only be explained by the electron interferring with iteself.

 

I'm not sure you could classify interference as a third outcome in the sense of being separate from the other two possibilites. Whether you witness interference depends on how you conduct the experiment. Whether a particle enters Slit A or Slit B remain possible outcomes, irrespective of being detected or undetected. Any interference is based on the probability value of those two outcomes at a given time.

 

Admittedly, strict adherents to the 1930s Copenhagen interpretation have claimed that neither of the two outcomes occurs when interference is witnessed. The many worlds model, more commonly applied today, says that both outcomes occur. In either case, the wave function of twin-slit interference still has to be expressed in terms of both possible outcomes.

 

Pyrotex wrote:

We don't get to have TVs at the atomic scale. So ANY observation of the cat "counts", no matter how serpentine, indirect or clever you make it.

 

My variation of Schrodinger's experiment is premised on one simple idea - that radio waves, tv signals and all forms of wave transmissions rely on quantum indeterminacy in a way that direct observation does not.

 

Simon

[Erasmus00]

My variation of Schrodinger's experiment is premised on one simple idea - that radio waves, tv signals and all forms of wave transmissions rely on quantum indeterminacy in a way that direct observation does not.

 

Ignoring all the entanglement problems that occur because of the macroscopic nature of things, your experiment is still doing measurements all over the place. Your camera (recording the event) continuously measures photons, forcing a collapse. Whatever picks up the broadcast also measures the signal, etc, etc. At any given measurement point, the wavefunction collapses.

-Will

[InfiniteNow]

Your camera (recording the event) continuously measures photons, forcing a collapse. Whatever picks up the broadcast also measures the signal, etc, etc. At any given measurement point, the wavefunction collapses.

... and generates new wavefunctions as well. [Latex]\rightarrow \psi[/math]

[Qfwfq]

Glad to see you here Pyro!

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

 

... and generates new wavefunctions as well. [Latex]\rightarrow \psi[/math]

But as you get to the macroscopic, even loooooong before you get to the size of the detector that breaks the bottle, you won't have coherent states.

 

Why is it difficult to have superconductivity at high temperatures? It's amazing enough that ferromagnetism can work at room temperature, but it still does have a Curie point...

[Pyrotex]

Sebbysteiny wrote:...My variation of Schrodinger's experiment is premised on one simple idea - that radio waves, tv signals and all forms of wave transmissions rely on quantum indeterminacy in a way that direct observation does not.

AHA!!! [he said pontifically]

But just HOW do we observe events at the atomic scale? Sure, we use electron detectors and alpha particle detectors sometimes, but MOSTLY we use electro-magnetic (EM) wave detectors: gamma, X-ray, UV, visible light, IR microwave.

 

What IS direct observation? You see the cat. That's just visible light, EM waves.

 

In your experiment, you STILL rely on EM waves from the cat! What you DO with those waves (turn them into digital electrical signals) is irrelevant (IMHO). It doesn't matter if you collect that visible light with a TV camera, collect it with your eyeball, or collect it in a transducer that turns it into an audible noise.

[Pyrotex]

I have another point which I hope confounds this topic even further.

 

Shall we agree that if I "observe" the cat, its state collapses into either "dead" or "alive" because of MY observation? Fine! Jolly good show.

 

Now, if **I** were to replace the cat, and we do the cosmic ray thing, then since I am capable of observing myself, wouldn't I know immediately if I were living or dying? In other words, my SENTIENCE, my self-conscious-auto-observation would collapse the state. Right? So I would already be either 100% dead or 100% alive long before you opened the door. Got it?

 

Finally, you must ask the question, "is a cat self-aware enough to observe itself?". That is, HOW smart does a cat have to be in order to destroy the whole freakin' experiment? ;):):):):)

 

Now give me another beer!!!! :beer: And keep 'em coming!!!!

[InfiniteNow]

In other words, my SENTIENCE, my self-conscious-auto-observation would collapse the state. Right?

I will preface with the statement that I think your knowledge on the subject exceeds my own, however, I do not believe you would ever reach that superposition of states if you were your own observer. The wavefunction would never exist (already be collapsed?) if you were put into position of observing yourself.

 

 

Does this mirror make me look nonexistant?

[sebbysteiny]

 

Now give me another beer!!!! :beer: And keep 'em coming!!!!

 

Lol. That was worthy of a beer, but you will have to drink two fingers in penalty ;).

 

Shall we agree that if I "observe" the cat, its state collapses into either "dead" or "alive" because of MY observation? Fine! Jolly good show.

 

This was your innitial premise.

 

Now, if **I** were to replace the cat, and we do the cosmic ray thing, then since I am capable of observing myself, wouldn't I know immediately if I were living or dying? In other words, my SENTIENCE, my self-conscious-auto-observation would collapse the state. Right? So I would already be either 100% dead or 100% alive long before you opened the door. Got it?

 

Finally, you must ask the question, "is a cat self-aware enough to observe itself?". That is, HOW smart does a cat have to be in order to destroy the whole freakin' experiment? :):):):):)

 

In my view, if the innitial premise holds, i think it is perfectly possible to reconsile why the cat wouldn't collapse the wavefunction why the actual observer himself would.

 

It's not a matter of intelligence. Everything inside that infinately sealed box would be a quantum suppersition of alive and dead states whether it is a cat, a human or a super intelligent alien from the planet Zog. All that matters is what the OBSERVER sees, and since no signals resonate from the box, the box should act as a superposition.

 

However, if you were inside the box, now you would definately observe one state or the other. Your path has already been chosen. But the way you act and behave to the outside world would be as if no such path was chosen UNTIL the box is opened. It's like you have taken a path in an alternative reality, but the reality of the observer you left will not catch up until they open the box as to them, you are still both dead and alive.

 

Wow, I never thought the 'multiple universe' explanation, widely considered one of the worst scientific arguments ever, would ever come in handy for anything.

 

 

The problem of course with the whole experiment is that, I think even theoretically, your innitial premise that 'we should all accept' was false.

[pgrmdave]

Observation, as far as I can tell, has NOTHING to do with consciousness, or intelligent observation, but of interaction of one thing with another. Since the cat's molecules/atoms interact with other molecules/atoms, they are 'observed'.

[Simon]

Some of the previous comments remind me of the question that the 1930s 'Copenhagen' theorists could never agree on: what exactly is required to collapse a wave function?

 

Some said it was observation, with varying definitions. Others said that merely the right degree of physical interaction between two environments was sufficient. Others maintained that the wild card was consciousness itself. This lead to the curious position that no reality can exist outside our experience of it, and there were debates about whether the cat had sufficent sentience to qualify as a conscious observer.

 

Later came Everett's theory that, once a wave function collapses, all possibilities continue to get played out in a multiverse of separate continuums. Today this is widely endorsed as the working model that rescues Einstein's famous argument with Bohr - that reality is actually out there. As of this writing, the multiverse seems to be the only model of quantum theory that allows any reality to exist independently of observation/interaction.

 

Wow, I never thought the 'multiple universe' explanation, widely considered one of the worst scientific arguments ever, would ever come in handy for anything.

 

Really? According to a recent poll, 58% of leading quantum theorists now consider the multiverse view to be the most useful model - among them Steqhen Hawking. Of course this doesn't prove it is correct.

 

Nevertheless, the many worlds view re-interprets the wave function and solves certain problems. For example, imagine a sealed room inside another sealed room. The innermost room holds the cat and the decaying crystal. When the cystal passes it's random crisis point, the cat becomes two beings - one dead, the other alive. Inside the room was a wave function that collapsed immediately - at which point both possiblities separated into two continuums. However from the point of view of someone outside, the wave function has been preserved and does not collapse until the door is opened. Opening the door creates a second quantum event which turns the observer himself into two beings - the one who finds a dead cat, the other who finds a live one. However, this is also happening inside a sealed room, beyond which there is another observer. From his point of view, there is still an uncollapsed wave function of two possibilities. He collapses it by opening the door. This creates a third quantum event in which the second observer has become two beings. And so on...

 

Whether the multiverse is the best model or not, the challenge here is to preserve the wave function and make contact with two possible states without collapsing it to only one of them.

 

We can agree that direct observation of an event means there is sufficient interaction between two systems for a wave function to collapse. However, you are not relying exclusively on EM waves. Your eyes receive photons that originate from the event itself. The same is not true of TV transmissions.

 

When we watch televison, what appears on the screen is a representation of an event, not the event itself. What is being transmitted is information. Naturally the waves by which it travels makes use of the existing energy and matter between the transmitter and the receiver. However it is not the original energy and matter that makes the complete journey. The pixels on every tv screen are composed of matter and energy that already exist at each destination, and change their form according to the information received. Such is the wavicle nature of tv and radio transmission.

 

To use a close analogy: when a tidal wave heads towards the coast, is it a single wall of water in motion? No. The water that finally breaks on the coast is not the same water that overturned a ship 30 miles away. So what is it that moves? You might call it an 'information wave', changing the form of the existing water as it travels, but it is not the water itself that is moving.

 

I'm saying there may be a difference between a random event directly observed and information about a random event sent via wave transmissions - transmissions that themselves depend on quantum uncertainty.

 

Pinning this down in our experiment: before any signals arrive at either of the two monitors we have a preserved state of indeterminacy in which the cat lived and died. Both states co-exist in an uncollapsed wave function. If so, then both transmissions have been sent out. These transmissions might be described as an interference pattern containing two waves of possible information, neither one of them reflecting the certainty of an event. There is no reason for either of the transmissions to be rejected, because there is no single observation or interaction taking place. Once the door is opened, this changes. We are left with one transmission because now there is only one possiblity left, and it is now a certainty. Just as in the twin slit experiment, the interference pattern dissapears as soon as the photon has been detected having entered one slit.

 

As far as I'm aware, no experiment has been performed in which a quantum event has been strategically placed in the proximity of a tv or radio transmitter.

 

I am still agnostic when it comes to establishing exactly what is required to collapse a wave function.

 

A precise measurement with a photon detector does this in the twin slit experiment. Without the detector, the human eye cannot discern which slit the particle entered - so for all intents and purposes the event remains unobserved. What is seen, however, is the interference pattern. You might call this a wave transmission of the two possible paths the photon could have taken. As we also know, this transmission stops the moment a precise measurement is made.

 

One thing we can agree on: it is not the consciousness of the observer that collapses a wave function, which many early Copenhagen theorists thought. Nevertheless a degree of observation or interaction does seem to hold the key. What degree remains unclear.

 

But here is the most important point: the collapse of a wave function - like the wave function itself - does not appear to be a single event in space time, but actually seems to depend on the point of view of an observer (conscious or otherwise). If I'm not mistaken, it's analogous to the way Einstein regarded time - as existing differently, relative to each perspective. A wave function may have collapsed to one state from a given point of view, but can still exist in relation to another observer who just sees the interference pattern.

 

There have been a number of variations of the twin slit experiment. Interestingly, you don't need the particle necessarilly to be detected in order to reduce the wave function. If you place your particle detector at Slit A, there is a 50/50 chance that you will get a reading if the particle entered Slit A. If it entered Slit B, no measurement will occur. However, no interference will occur either, because the probability that the particle entered Slit B is now almost 100%. So here we have curious situation in which the mere presence of a particle detector eliminates the interference, regardless of whether it detected the particle or not. It's potential to detect a particle, even if it didn't, was sufficient to reduce the wave function.

 

This may be why the role of observation or interaction has become so contentious in this area. Such anomolies have cried out for a demystifying explanation. The multiverse is one candidate.

 

In the case of being able to tell whether a cat is dead or alive, a photon detector seems slightly superfluous. The human eye ought to be sufficient to collapse any wave function that occurs. But now of course we're on a different scale. What precise level of interaction or observation is required? I don't know. We have yet to witness a quantum interference pattern that represents two possible events in the macro world.

 

The fate of Schrodinger's cat, transmitted via television waves to monitors, is my hypothetical creation of such a pattern.

 

Simon

[Qfwfq]

Playin' Wigner's friend Pyro? ;)

 

Now give me another beer!!!! :cup: And keep 'em coming!!!!

All the beer you want!!!!

:) :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: