294
M. Svrˇ cek
or just new ways to think about the same theory that avoid this problem. There is
no consensus on which approach is the correct one or even if some sort of repair is
needed.”
Norton describes the history of the Schrödinger’s cat problem, which followed
shortly after the appearance of the famous EPR paradox [1] in March 1935: “In
the aftermath of this paper, Einstein and Schrödinger exchanged letters in which
they aired their common concerns about quantum theory. In that correspondence,
Einstein put to Schrödinger what we now see is an early version of the cat paradox.
He outlined a “crude macroscopic example” in a letter to Schrödinger of August 8,
1935: “The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a pile of
gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously combust, and where
the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In principle this can quite easily be
represented quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the ψ-function characterizes a
reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, according to your equation, after
the course of a year this is no longer the case at all. Rather, the ψ-function then
describes a sort of blend of not-yet and of already-exploded systems. Through no art
of interpretation can this ψ-function be turned into an adequate description of a real
state of affairs; [for] in reality there is just no intermediary between exploded and
non-exploded” [19]”.
As can readily be seen, Santilli’s paradox previously mentioned, is a remake of the
old gunpowder pile account due to Einstein, as both paradoxes deal with the factual
irreversibility of chemical reactions. As we know that Einstein was not successful
with his famed EPR objection, this time he did formulate a problem still unresolved.
Norton continues [18]: “Erwin Schrödinger published his “cat” thought experiment in a lengthy paper in the November 29, 1935, issue of the journal Die Naturwissenschaften. Here’s the entirety of his original account: “One can even make quite
ludicrous examples. A cat is enclosed in a steel chamber, together with the following
infernal machine (which one must secure against the cat’s direct reach): in the tube
of a Geiger counter there is a tiny amount of a radioactive material, so small that
although one of its atoms might decay in the course of an hour, it is just as probable
that none will. If the decay occurs, the counter tube fires and, by means of a relay,
sets a little hammer into motion that shatters a small bottle of prussic acid. When the
entire system has been left alone for an hour, one would say that the cat is still alive
provided no atom has decayed in the meantime. The first atomic decay would have
poisoned it. The ψ-function of the total system would yield an expression for all this
in which, in equal measure, the living and the dead cat (sit venia verbo [“pardon the
expression”]) blended or smeared out. The characteristic of these examples that an
indefiniteness originally limited to atomic dimensions gets transformed into gross
macroscopic indefiniteness, which can then be reduced by direct observation. This
prevents us from continuing naively to give credence to a “fuzzy model” as a picture
of reality. In itself this contains nothing unclear or contradictory. There is a difference
between a blurred or unsharply taken photograph and a shot of clouds and mist.””
Due to the Schrödinger’s cat narrative, the scientific community was divided: some
believed that living and dead cats are really in the state of a quantum superposition
until the moment of a conscious measurement, others claimed that the cat had to
M. Svrˇ cek
or just new ways to think about the same theory that avoid this problem. There is
no consensus on which approach is the correct one or even if some sort of repair is
needed.”
Norton describes the history of the Schrödinger’s cat problem, which followed
shortly after the appearance of the famous EPR paradox [1] in March 1935: “In
the aftermath of this paper, Einstein and Schrödinger exchanged letters in which
they aired their common concerns about quantum theory. In that correspondence,
Einstein put to Schrödinger what we now see is an early version of the cat paradox.
He outlined a “crude macroscopic example” in a letter to Schrödinger of August 8,
1935: “The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a pile of
gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously combust, and where
the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In principle this can quite easily be
represented quantum-mechanically. In the beginning the ψ-function characterizes a
reasonably well-defined macroscopic state. But, according to your equation, after
the course of a year this is no longer the case at all. Rather, the ψ-function then
describes a sort of blend of not-yet and of already-exploded systems. Through no art
of interpretation can this ψ-function be turned into an adequate description of a real
state of affairs; [for] in reality there is just no intermediary between exploded and
non-exploded” [19]”.
As can readily be seen, Santilli’s paradox previously mentioned, is a remake of the
old gunpowder pile account due to Einstein, as both paradoxes deal with the factual
irreversibility of chemical reactions. As we know that Einstein was not successful
with his famed EPR objection, this time he did formulate a problem still unresolved.
Norton continues [18]: “Erwin Schrödinger published his “cat” thought experiment in a lengthy paper in the November 29, 1935, issue of the journal Die Naturwissenschaften. Here’s the entirety of his original account: “One can even make quite
ludicrous examples. A cat is enclosed in a steel chamber, together with the following
infernal machine (which one must secure against the cat’s direct reach): in the tube
of a Geiger counter there is a tiny amount of a radioactive material, so small that
although one of its atoms might decay in the course of an hour, it is just as probable
that none will. If the decay occurs, the counter tube fires and, by means of a relay,
sets a little hammer into motion that shatters a small bottle of prussic acid. When the
entire system has been left alone for an hour, one would say that the cat is still alive
provided no atom has decayed in the meantime. The first atomic decay would have
poisoned it. The ψ-function of the total system would yield an expression for all this
in which, in equal measure, the living and the dead cat (sit venia verbo [“pardon the
expression”]) blended or smeared out. The characteristic of these examples that an
indefiniteness originally limited to atomic dimensions gets transformed into gross
macroscopic indefiniteness, which can then be reduced by direct observation. This
prevents us from continuing naively to give credence to a “fuzzy model” as a picture
of reality. In itself this contains nothing unclear or contradictory. There is a difference
between a blurred or unsharply taken photograph and a shot of clouds and mist.””
Due to the Schrödinger’s cat narrative, the scientific community was divided: some
believed that living and dead cats are really in the state of a quantum superposition
until the moment of a conscious measurement, others claimed that the cat had to