[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't know about you, but I'm watching "The Simpsons" on my monitor.
You got any beer?

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

I don't know about you, but I'm watching "The Simpsons" on my monitor.
You got any beer?

Yes I do. Why?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

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]

Originally Posted by Simon

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]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

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.

[Qfwfq]

Glad to see you here Pyro!

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

... and generates new wavefunctions as well.

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...