• Blog
  • Eminent Physicists on Schrödinger’s Cat

Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics that has puzzled everyone. The experiment involves placing a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source connected to a Geiger counter in a sealed box. According to interpretations of quantum mechanics, the cat is considered to be both alive and dead at the same time until the box is opened and observed. In this short animation, we hear from Christopher Fuchs, Marc Seguin, Donald Hoffman and Sean Carroll. They share their thoughts on questions about the nature of reality, the role of observation in quantum mechanics, and the nature of consciousness raised by this paradoxical scenario.

Keywords: Schrödinger, Seguin, Hoffman Fuchs, Carroll, CPW Consciousness Physical World FFF

Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics that has puzzled everyone.

Not everyone:
A coin, floating in space, is also in two states, both "heads" and "tails", until an observer decides to call it either one or the other. But the mere act of making that call, did not change the nature of the coin, the cat, or anything else, in reality.

  1. If consciousness is the key and yet is an intangible thing in a Platonic realm somewhere, provide evidence of this non-material realm; a realm that no one can see or touch. If consciousness is a tangible thing (comes out of the matter and energy of the brain), then what collapses the cat into a certain state is just a physical entity. Personally, I have a hard time accepting as worth consideration intangible, Platonic entities that no one can see, point out, etc.

  2. If Everett's parallel universe theory is right, where are these parallel universes? Can anyone see them, point them out, experiment on them? Until then, they're no different than an intangible consciousness and not different than what a "crackpot" might come up with.

    My view is that whatever is going on with Schroedinger's cat is a physical process by physical entities, and we just haven't figured it out yet, or have so far assembled the pieces wrong as the previous poster said. I think physicists should focus on figuring out the physical mechanism that physical entities go through that could produce the same results.

The unseen absolute material cat in box. Template for all possible relative observation products, Temporarily prevented from being formed by the closed box preventing sensory information , that would be emitted if open by the existing, illuminated material cat reaching observer.
The material cat continues to exist in form and function of a cat, affected by local environmental conditions , even when not seen. (Object permanence, not recognized by quantum theory)

Replaced in thought by
The super-position. An abstract term. Both what will and what won’t be the outcome discovered as both are possibilities until confirmation of a singular outcome due to generation of a new relative observation product.

The seen cat-newly generated by observer visual system, eyes and CNS, relative semblance observation product within generated 3D +1 space time.
State outcome score like, alive or dead determination/conclusion.

    Georgina Woodward
    The material cat is observation independent. It is not associated with a singular relative bservation viewpoint of it . The orienation and separation of all parts at all all relevant scales are all in relation to each other and other local existing things . Which will effedt both internal and external environment and forces acting directly by contact of parts and via the environment. Potentia sensory data , existing material subject, apparatus and observer are all parts of Obbserver independent ,

      Georgina Woodward
      . Potential sensory data , existing material subject, apparatus and observer are all parts of Obbserver independent ,Object reality space.
      The relative observation product generated by an observer,with a viewpoint is not part of that space. Observation product space can be called Image reality space. It is a semblance generated by oganism or device. A clue is the perspective characteristic that always pertains to a particular viewpoint seen. The observation product is not experienced when not generated due to stopping sensory input eg. when eyes are closed

        Georgina Woodward
        The blidspot argumernt]. Further evidence that thing csan exist orc ontinue to exist while being unseenm . Collisions occur with material objects, not seen becsause the sensory inout that would otherwise form a visual image , ,falls on the blindspot .Where the optic nerve extends from the eye.

          Georgina Woodward
          Evidence for observation independent existence;

          1. Peeekaboo ,object permenance , argument
          2. Apparent materialization , apparent dematerialization and transformation illusions eg. rabbit from hat, dissapearing coin or elephant , doves from fire
          3. The blindspot argiment

          Donald Hoffman offers an interesting point of view that the seen/experienced is not the external reality. But I do not think it follows from that, that consciousness is primary, just that self generated observation products are different from the observation independent external reality (Object reality)
          Awareness can be self generated from memory. leading to what is called imagination (Usually recognized as such by the experiencer), hallucination (Which may or may not be recognized by the experiencer) or experienced as recalled events but actually confabulation .More usually sensory input, while awake and alert, of external origin, arriving at the CNS is used to generate the experience of ‘reality’. It is of course a limited relative viewpoint formed only from data available at that observer location, at the time of data receipt. It is possible that all sensory input is of virtual origin, such as when using virtual reality games hardware but I do nor think that should be our first assumption, without evidence, when thinking what observation independent external reality is, The blindspot argument , in which collisions with existing material objects occur because they have been unseen, tells us that there is an external reality existing whether or not it is sensed.

            Georgina Woodward

            Sean Carroll, in the introductory video, says that “there’s nothing special about observers” I don’t think that is correct. |It used to be thought that something about consciousness could turn indefinite quasi reality into definite concrete reality. But inanimate detection also can result in a definite outcome So it is thinking about any interaction with the object under consideration, that has taken attention away from the ‘special’ role of observers.
            What ought to be considered an observer ,rather than just any material object? Observers, organisms and devices are a unique category of material objects. Observers need not be conscious but they have the characteristic of converting input sensory data into a product, that is an internally generated semblance of the external source of the data.T he product is materially different in composition, spatial location, size
            A polaroid photograph of the moon is for example a distribution of photographic emulsion distributed on paper, recognized as the Moon but not the Moon object from which the ‘light’ input originated. The nervous system of the observing organism is a reality interface between external observation independent reality, Object reality and internally generated, observer viewpoint dependent limited semblance, Image reality

              Georgina Woodward
              A detector such as a photomultiplier or Geiger counter produces a detection (measurement) product output that is newly generated not literally the particle input. But it is not an observer, it does not generate a semblance of the origin of the input.
              Sensory stimuli trasmit from the source object through the observation independent, Object reality, environment from where it may be absorbed by an observer, detector, or ordinary object belonging to neither of the former categories. Or it may continue travelling through the environment.

                Georgina Woodward
                Disappearing coin illusion. Not a dematerialization.
                Coin placed in hand. Material coin held out of view, between closed fingers. Empty palm is between coin and observer. Observation product of empty palm formed.

                Disappearing elephant illusion. Not a dematerialization. Elephant or large mirror is moved so that the mirror is between observer and the elephant. Observation product of the mirror is formed rather than the elephant. As the potential sensory data emitted by the surface of the elephant is intercepted by the back of the mirror.

                Doves from fire illusion. Not a transformation of (form of ) matter.
                A pan lid with attached release-able base (base not shown to observer) is quickly lowered over a fire, on a tray of same appearance as lid-base. Excluding the air and extinguishing the fire. The base of the pan lid is released , freeing the enclosed live doves , which fly away. Transformation illusion occurs as the pre existing doves, (for which there has, until release, been no observation product, relative semblance formed) are released, so appear, to coincide with extinguishing of the fire.

                  Georgina Woodward
                  Further evidence of object permanence
                  Not only an observation product (object semblance, relative viewpoint , usually semblance of surface) being generated before and after concealment, that appear to be the same object.
                  Apparatus; table clock that can stand unsupported on a base or feet. Clock has red coloured face and blue coloured back, a small blanket or a towel
                  Method; take the clock so looking at the red face , notice its appearance, and with eyes closed place , standing on its base or feet, under a small blanket or towel so that it is completely covered.
                  Use a hammer or other heavy object to smash the area covered by the blanket. Remove the blanket.
                  Results; The clock is broken open , as shown by the newly formed observation product. The internal mechanism of the clock is visible. More blue is visible among the fragments than mainly red seen from looking at the face.
                  Conclusion. The clock object continued to exist when covered by the blanket, though no corresponding observation product was generated at that time. It did not continue as a relative observation product in 3d space time. Its insides being among the exposed debris show that the object unlike the observation product had an inside even while out of sight. The blue fragments show that the object had a back surface. If the clock did not exist as an object when out of view, why is it broken?

                    Georgina Woodward
                    The last post was just about Object permanence-the idea that objects continue to have material existence when out of sight.
                    We can extend the method to make a clear comparison between material reality and abstract quantum theory.
                    Method 2 ; Person 1 takes the clock and places it , standing on its base or feet, under a small blanket or towel so that it is completely covered. Person 1 leaves the room. Person 2 enters the room, having a two sided coin. The coin is flipped and placed on back of one hand prior to exposure. If a head side of the coin is exposed, the person leaves the room without touching the blanket. If a tails side of the coin is exposed, the person smashes the blanketed area and then leaves the room.
                    Person 1 re-enters the room and removes the blanket.

                    Result. Either an intact OR a broken clocks seen.
                    There is either the material template to produce an observation product of an intact clock or a material template to produce an observation product of a broken clock when the ‘light’ from the exposed material structure is received and processed by the visual system of the observer.

                    The seen intact template exists from the start of the experiment until the end unless it is smashed into a different configuration of constituent parts. If tails face of coin is seen; The intact seen clock template is superseded or replaced in material reality. The configuration of the pattern of all existing has altered, meaning foundational time has passed, the former configuration is superseded by the new. Former and currently existing configurations do not co-exist, which would be a violation of energy conservation. As a consequence either an intact clock or a broken clock is seen, not an intact clock and a broken clock.
                    The superposition of intact clock and a broken clock outcome state can represent mental uncertainty of which future material reality will exist to provide a visual observation product. It does not have a material reality as explained. Ie can not be in different places simultaneously , as it doesn’t exist. Mental uncertainty for person 1 begins a few seconds after person 2 enters the room. Person 2 ( is acting like the radioactive decay and poison release mechanism) and ends when the blanket is removed. Person 2 does not have the same uncertainty. They know the clock is intact until / if they smash it. Or they do not know what is under the blanket only that they have or have not certainly broken it.
                    Mental uncertainty of the future configuration of material reality under certain circumstances should not call into doubt the singular reality of existing things. Taking care not to credit a mathematical place holder for an unkmown with existential reality.

                      Georgina Woodward
                      Consequences;

                      1. this means that there is no need for Einstein's proposed 'entanglement' to explain correlations not explained by normal quantum theory. State outcome for each particle , of the pair, is not random but determined by same or opposite 'seen this way' relative measurement of pre existing single material object without inherent veiwpoint.
                        2, No need to combine quantum theory and gravity. As quantum mechanics theory is not objective reality.
                      2. Fields transmitted through the environment by disturbance or deformation of it due to presence and motion of charged particles and matter. Deformation of the content of object reality space. (No inherent dimensions- all existing objects parts and particles with unmeasured separaration and orientation to every other existing objects parts and particles. ) by the presence and movement of matter at a large scale , leading to large scale deformation , is hardlly experienced at the particle scale.

                        Georgina Woodward
                        Thinking about concealed possibilities;
                        Possibility, defined by Oxford languages 1. “noun
                        a thing that may happen or be the case.”
                        The Schrodinger cat thought experiment showcases the type of situation where a possibility may have been extinguished but this is not known so the now impossible is retained as a possibility, though this is incorrect. Smelling poison fumes escaping the closed box could be used as an indication that the live possibility has been extinguished.

                        Viewpoint or context ‘seen this way’ measurement protocol yet to be established is a different situation. The possibilities remain vital, only being extinguished when a relative viewpoint or measurement protocol is used to give a new singular observation or measurement outcome.

                        For a macroscopic object subsequent observation or measurement is still possible, depending on how the experiment is conducted. So to say that other possible outcomes have been extinguished is not necessarily true. It is true where only one outcome can be obtained. Such as in subatomic scale experiments or a destructive measurement protocol. At any scale is used. Application of different viewpoints or different measurements can give different outcomes.
                        This is relativity, an extraction from the absolute, existing, material template that embodies many possibilities. The ‘many worlds’ of possibility are not in the limited relative outcomes, but preceding them as a material. observation independent, Object reality.

                          Georgina Woodward
                          Thus the superposition is representing different scenarios; ''cat' experiment like, unknowh to the observer an impossibility (an extinguished possibility) and the outcome that will be found ,in the first case , and the other situation is a combination of the outcome that will be found and others that won't be are still vital /active possibilitioes not yet extinguished

                            Georgina Woodward
                            I apologize for the spelling errors and lack of clarity.
                            I was trying to point out two different situations both represented by a wave function.
                            In both cases the observer has not made a limited 'seen his way' observation or measurement product informing what is concealed, or for other reasons, not visible.
                            Instead of what’s there pre-observation / measurement being represented, we have possible outcomes, as far as the excluded observer is aware.
                            Observation independent material reality is what exists regardless of the excluded observer
                            Two different situations both represented by a wave function.

                            1. Includes an outcome, still considered possible from outside that has been superseded eg, live cat dies, so only dead cat is possible outcome.
                            2. All outcomes are still possible but no ‘seen this way’, relative context for production of singular outcome has been chosen.

                              Georgina Woodward
                              Isn't quantum superposition needed to explain the outcome of various experiments, involving beam splitters? No ,they can all be explained by a wave carrier of a photon being divisible into wave and photon and separated wave. Undivided carrier wave and carried particle is the normal structure of pre-light. This helps explain the double slit experiment and also why in classical physics , speed of source or recipient does not affect speed of light transmission.