Discover How We Came to Know the Cosmos

Chapter 19. Schrödinger’s Cat

18th December 2017 by Dr Helen Klus

19.1 The collapse approach

The collapse approach to quantum mechanics (discussed in Chapter 17) states that the measurement of a quantum system invokes a ‘collapse’ of the quantum wave function, from a superpositional state into a state that can be described classically, in accordance with the Born rule.[1] It suggests that instantaneous action at a distance (discussed in Chapter 18) should simply be accepted in quantum mechanics, as it was with English natural philosopher Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation.[2]

19.1.1 Problems with the collapse approach

There are a number of other problems with the collapse approach:

  • Firstly, it does not adequately define what constitutes a measurement, and so it does not adequately define when the collapse of the wave function occurs.
  • Secondly, there are no collapse dynamics within quantum theory itself, and so they need to be added.
  • Thirdly, the collapse approach cannot explain how the quantum world can make contact with the classical world at all, since both systems obey different physical laws.

The third problem is known as the measurement problem,[3] and it is analogous to the problem of causal interaction faced by French natural philosopher Rene Descartes in 1641[4] (discussed in Chapter 26).

19.2 The ‘Schrödinger’s cat’ thought experiment

These problems were highlighted in a thought experiment devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.[5] This was written as a response to the EPR paper (discussed in Chapter 18), which also criticised the collapse approach.[6]

Schrödinger considered an experiment where a cat is placed in a closed box with a radioactive atom. The atom has a chance of decaying - where the probability is determined by the Born rule - and when it does, it will trigger a device that will kill the cat.

The collapse approach suggests that quantum states do not collapse until they are measured, and so suggests that the cat is entangled with the radioactive atom in a superpositional state, where it is both dead and alive at the same time. The cat remains in this state until the experimenter opens the box, thereby measuring the system.

Illustration of the ‘Schrodinger’s cat’ thought experiment, showing both possible outcomes.

Figure 19.1
Image credit

Illustration of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment.

The cat itself cannot count as a measuring device according to the collapse approach; otherwise, it would collapse the state as soon as it became aware of what was happening.

Schrödinger claimed that this shows the collapse approach cannot adequately describe what happens when macroscopic objects become entangled, and German-Swiss-American physicist Albert Einstein agreed.

In a letter to Schrödinger written in 1950, Einstein stated:

“You are the only contemporary physicist, besides [German physicist Max von] Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality – if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality – reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. They somehow believe that the quantum theory provides a description of reality, and even a complete description; this interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + Geiger counter + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box, in which the [wave]-function of the system contains the cat both alive and blown to bits. . . it seems certain to me that the fundamentally statistical character of the theory is simply a consequence of the incompleteness of the description”.[7]

19.2.1 The ‘Wigner’s friend’ thought experiment

In 1961, Hungarian-American physicist Eugene Wigner popularised the idea that the collapse occurs when a measurement registers in the mind of a conscious observer. To illustrate this, he extended Schrödinger’s thought experiment to include another human observer: Wigner’s friend.[8]

If Wigner’s friend conducts Schrödinger’s experiment while Wigner waits outside the laboratory, then the state collapses earlier from the perspective of Wigner’s friend than for Wigner, who can consider his friend to be in a superpositional state until he interacts with them. Wigner did not accept this, and argued that a self-aware consciousness is what causes the collapse.[8]

The idea that consciousness causes the collapse was considered a possibility because the mind exhibits properties that cannot currently be explained using classical physical laws, such as subjectivity (discussed in Chapter 30), and Wigner suggested that scientists search for unusual effects of consciousness acting on matter.

Despite Wigner’s suggestion that something must occur at the level of consciousness, there are no collapse dynamics inherent to quantum mechanics, and nothing within it suggests that consciousness is special in any way.

In 1985, Italian physicists Giancarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, and Tullio Weber suggested that collapses can occur spontaneously,[9,10] and in 1994, British physicist Roger Penrose suggested that the force of gravity could cause the collapse.[11]

Quantum effects are now being demonstrated in larger and larger objects. In 2009, physicist Michal Karski and colleagues exhibited quantum effects in a single atom of caesium, allowing “the observation of the quantum-to-classical transition”,[12] and two groups of American physicists headed by John Jost and Keith Schwab have shown quantum effects in simple harmonic oscillators[13] (discussed in Book I).

Jost stated that:

“Such experiments may lead to the generation of entangled states of larger-scale mechanical oscillators...Mechanical oscillators pervade nature; examples include the vibrations of violin strings, the oscillations of quartz crystals used in clocks, and the vibrations of atoms in a molecule”.[13]

Schwab suggested that if large-scale objects don’t obey the laws of quantum mechanics, then whatever is happening must be due to a completely new set of physical laws.[14]

19.3 Decoherence theory

While the measurement problem remains unresolved for the collapse approach, decoherence theory can explain why macroscopic objects appear to exhibit classical behaviour.[15] Decoherence theory was first suggested by German physicist Heinz-Dieter Zeh, in 1970,[16] and was extended by American physicist Wojciech Zurek, in 1981.[17]

When describing the quantum state of a large number of objects, a mathematical device known as a density matrix is used to determine every possibility, some of these possibilities will include the results we expect but some will include the superposition of macroscopic objects.

Zeh and Zurek showed that we never observe these possibilities because they decay exponentially. This means that they are not observable long enough for us to notice them. It takes about 10-27 seconds (a billionth, of a billionth, of a billionth of a second) for the interference effects of macroscopic objects to become unobservable. This process is said to be irreversible because it would be impossible for an observer to reconstruct the superpositional state after it has decayed.

Interference effects decay when quantum states become entangled with a large number of objects. Objects on Earth will become entangled with the atmosphere, for example, and so Schrödinger’s cat would die within 10-27 seconds of the atom decaying whether it is observed or not. In contrast to this, it takes about a year for the interference effects of isolated microscopic objects to disappear, and this is why it’s much easier to observe them.

Decoherence cannot solve the measurement problem for the collapse approach because it does not provide any collapse dynamics, or explain how quantum and classical objects could be composed of two distinct substances.

The measurement problem may be solved by applying decoherence theory to the Bohm interpretation, because here there is no collapse of the wave function. The Bohm interpretation faces other problems, however, as it still must explain why we only observe one of any number of possible results.

The Bohm interpretation attempts to solve this problem with hidden variables that suppress other possible brain states, yet, like collapse dynamics, these variables are not found within quantum theory itself and must be added.[18]

Both Zeh and Zurek suggest that the measurement problem can be solved by applying decoherence theory to the Everett, or many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics[19,20] (discussed in Chapter 20).

19.4 References

  1. Ghirardi, G. C., Collapse Theories, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016.

  2. Berkovitz, J., Action at a Distance in Quantum Mechanics, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007.

  3. Myrvold,W., Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016.

  4. Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy, translated by Bennett, J., Early Modern Texts, 2006 (1641).

  5. Schrödinger, E., Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 1935, 31, 555–563.

  6. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N., Physical Review 1935, 47, 777–780.

  7. Einstein, A. in Letters on Wave Mechanics: Correspondence with H. A. Lorentz, Max Planck, and Erwin Schrödinger, Open Road Media, 2011 (1950).

  8. Wigner, E. P. in Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1957 (1961). Copyright © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995. With permission of Springer.

  9. Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., Weber, T. in Quantum Probability and Applications II, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1985.

  10. Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., Weber, T., Physical Review D 1986, 34, 470–491.

  11. Penrose, R., The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press, 1999 (1989).

  12. Karski, M., Förster, L., Choi, J. M., Steffen, A., Alt, W., Meschede, D., Widera, A., Science 2009, 325, 174–177.

  13. Jost, J. D., Home, J. P., Amini, J. M., Hanneke, D., Ozeri, R., Langer, C., Bollinger, J. J., Leibfried, D., Wineland, D. J., Nature 2009, 459, 683–685.

  14. Svitil, K., Mechanics: Nano Meets Quantum, Caltech, 2009.

  15. Bacciagaluppi, G., The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2012.

  16. Zeh, H. D., Foundations of Physics 1970, 1, 69–76.

  17. Zurek, W. H., Physical Review D 1981, 24, 1516.

  18. Goldstein, S., Bohmian Mechanics, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013.

  19. Zeh, H. D., Foundation of Physics Letters 2000, 13, 221–233.

  20. Zurek, W. H., Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 1998, 1, 1793–1822.

Back to top

How We Came to Know the Cosmos: Light & Matter

I Pre 20th Century theories

1. Atoms and Waves

2. Reflection, Refraction, and Diffraction

3. Newton's theory of Light

4. Measuring the Speed of Light

5. 19th Century Wave Theories

6. 19th Century Particle Theories

7. Spectral Lines

II Quantum Mechanics

8. Origin of Quantum Mechanics

9. Development of Atomic theory

10. Quantum Model of the Atom

11. Sommerfeld's Atom

12. Quantum Spin

13. Superconductors and Superfluids

14. Nuclear Physics

15. De Broglie's Matter Waves

16. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

17. Schrödinger's Wave Equation

18. Quantum Entanglement

19. Schrödinger's Cat

20. Quantum Mechanics and Parallel Worlds

III Quantum field theories

21. The Field Concept in Physics

22. The Electromagnetic Force

23. The Strong Nuclear Force

24. The Weak Nuclear Force

25. Quantum Gravity

IV Theories of the mind

26. Mind-Body Dualism

27. Empiricism and Epistemology

28. Materialism and Conscious Matter

29. Material theories of the Mind

30. Material theories of the Mind vs. Descartes

31. The Mind and Quantum Mechanics

32. The Limitations of Science

V List of symbols

33. List of symbols

34. Image Copyright