Everyone may have heard about Schrödinger’s cat paradox, but its relation to quantum physics has become confused over time. Quite a few people see this as a supportive story of superposition, but the reality is that Schrödinger, like Einstein, was struggling to understand on a scientific level what phenomenon they were dealing with on a quantum level. He formulated this thought experiment to explore the truth about what they had observed and needed to explain as quantum physicists.
Let’s get out a box, Schrödinger suggested and put a living, healthy cat in it. We will also put in something that happens randomly. This quantum event would have to involve an unpredictable element, like uranium. If we put an atom of uranium in the box, it may decay at any moment. When the uranium’s atom decays, a device measuring the atom would cause a hammer to fall. The hammer would break a small glass vial that held cyanide, resulting in the death of the cat. If we closed the box and determined the cat would only die if the quantum event occurred, we are not sure if it is dead or alive. This is all dependent on whether the atom has decayed or not decayed. As a result, two binary realities exist at the same time: The cat is alive, or the cat is dead. Until the box is opened, and we look inside, we cannot know either way for certain.
Therefore, the cat, like the 38 subatomic particles unobserved by quantum physicists, exists in a state of superposition. It could be said to be both dead and alive at the same time. This leaves scientists in an unhappy position where they are not able to measure or carry out replicable experiments.
What many people might not realize is that Schrödinger’s thought experiment was never carried out as a live experiment. This idea was posed by Schrödinger to show how ridiculous and unacceptable certain approaches to the superposition ‘problem’ had become. There were two divisions that arose out of challenges to quantum physics: classical approaches to science and more experimental approaches. Classical approaches to science require researchers to follow specific steps to uncover patterns and laws within the cosmos with the aim to predict future events. As a result, verification of data requires experiments to be repeated with the same results many times. However, that is not entirely possible within the field of quantum physics. As a result, new approaches were suggested, which Einstein
and Schrödinger struggled to accept.
One of the new approaches suggested that the observer played a larger part in the formation of reality. Since the wave behavior of a particle collapses when a quantum physicist observes it, they argued that perhaps previous to observation, the wave-particle was spinning in both directions at the same time. As a result, the reality was indeterminate, undermining on a philosophical level, the scientist’s ability to gather data or even propose theories.
At first, Einstein and Schrödinger appeared to have lost the debate. Even Schrödinger’s cat paradox has been used to prove what he was arguing against! From this initial debate, different schools of thought have emerged, not only on the phenomenon of superposition but also on fundamental debates about reality and the basis for the scientific method.
Some of the first philosophers also considered the world and attempted to theorize about why natural events, like storms or drought, happened. However, for hundreds of years, science and philosophy were divorced from each other with science focusing on the material world alone and only looking at “hard data.” Out of these approaches to science, technology was able to flourish as well as improve forms of healthcare and medicine.
Quantum physics began to look like it was returning to its ancient, philosophical roots when superposition and quantum entanglement entered the debate. Four main schools of thought in the scientific community arose out of this academic discussion, which we can still find today. To start with, the “shut up and calculate” school of physicists focuses on measuring and data analysis. Instead of asking ‘why,’ these scientists prefer to stick to theorizing the outcomes of specific experiments and collecting data. Instead of speculating, they seek to find answers within the material world, relying on more traditional approaches to science.
On the far end of this spectrum, the “create a reality with observation” school of thought, often referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation, pushes the envelope of science into more experimental places. They argue that superposition and the collapse of the wave function that reveals the particle’s spin prove that reality does not exist unless we measure it. This has led to some interesting theories about our impact on the world around us. In between, two other methods exist that attempt to explain what is going on. Closer to the classical approach to science, “riding the wave,” known as the pilot-wave interpretation, suggests that the particles are determined by a pilot wave. Formulated by de Broglie and Bohm, the idea was an attempt to solve the superposition problem with more classical approaches. Still, this pilot wave has not been discovered or proved, but if it was found, it would help determine the particle’s position and state in a more easily verified kind of way.
Closer to the more experimental quantum physicists, the “many worlds exist” doctrine argues that when a quantum measurement is made, our observation results in only one reality of many. We might observe the spin of an electron to be up, but at the same time, another world exists where the spin is down. These parallel universes branch off into alternate realities. This way, to a certain degree, the superposition continues, but also resolves in a logical manner.
As you can see, however, all schools of thought still face various challenges and obstacles in order to prove their position. For those in the “shut up and calculate” group, a world of potential research may be closed off. However, alternative approaches like “riding the wave” have not yet been proven definitively. Similarly, “many worlds” cannot be absolutely demonstrated, nor does the cosmos seem to have the required amounts of energy to maintain alternative realities. On top of that, the “create a reality with observation” approach has spawned nonscientific exploration of philosophy and mysticism which not all scientists appreciate.
Overall, the phenomenon of superposition remains a challenge for quantum physicists. For now, the fate of Schrödinger’s cat is uncertain.
Комментарии