Jump to content

Schrödinger's cat

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Schrodinger cat)

Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source connected to a Geiger counter are placed in a sealed box. As illustrated, the quantum description uses a superposition of an alive cat and one that has died.

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment concerning quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This experiment viewed this way is described as a paradox. This thought experiment was devised by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935[1] in a discussion with Albert Einstein[2] to illustrate what Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In Schrödinger's original formulation, a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g. a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality resolves into one possibility or the other.

Although originally a critique on the Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's seemingly paradoxical thought experiment became part of the foundation of quantum mechanics. The scenario is often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly in situations involving the measurement problem. As a result, Schrödinger's cat has had enduring appeal in popular culture. The experiment is not intended to be actually performed on a cat, but rather as an easily understandable illustration of the behavior of atoms. Experiments at the atomic scale have been carried out, showing that very small objects may exist as superpositions; but superposing an object as large as a cat would pose considerable technical difficulties.[citation needed]

Fundamentally, the Schrödinger's cat experiment asks how long quantum superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse. Different interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different explanations for this process, but Schrödinger's cat remains an unsolved problem in physics.

Origin and motivation

Unsolved problem in physics:

How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive? Another way of stating this question regards the measurement problem: What constitutes a "measurement" that apparently causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state?

Schrödinger intended his thought experiment as a discussion of the EPR article—named after its authors Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen—in 1935.[3][4] The EPR article highlighted the counterintuitive nature of quantum superpositions, in which a quantum system for two particles does not separate[5]: 150  even when the particles are detected far from their last point of contact. The EPR paper concludes with a claim that this lack of separability meant that quantum mechanics as a theory of reality was incomplete.

Schrödinger and Einstein exchanged letters about Einstein's EPR article, in the course of which Einstein pointed out that the state of an unstable keg of gunpowder will, after a while, contain a superposition of both exploded and unexploded states.[4]

To further illustrate, Schrödinger described how one could, in principle, create a superposition in a large-scale system by making it dependent on a quantum particle that was in a superposition. He proposed a scenario with a cat in a closed steel chamber, wherein the cat's life or death depended on the state of a radioactive atom, whether it had decayed and emitted radiation or not. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-live cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics,[1] and thus he was employing reductio ad absurdum.

Since Schrödinger's time, various interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been advanced by physicists, some of which regard the "alive and dead" cat superposition as quite real, others do not.[6][7] Intended as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment remains a touchstone for modern interpretations of quantum mechanics and can be used to illustrate and compare their strengths and weaknesses.[8]

Thought experiment

A life-size cat figure in the garden of Huttenstrasse 9, Zurich, where Erwin Schrödinger lived from 1921 to 1926. Depending on the light conditions, the figure appears to be either a live cat or a dead one.

Schrödinger wrote:[1][9]

One can contrive even completely burlesque [farcical] cases. A cat is put in a steel chamber along with the following infernal device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny amount of radioactive substance, so tiny that in the course of an hour one of the atoms will perhaps decay, but also, with equal probability, that none of them will; if it does happen, the counter tube will discharge and through a relay release a hammer that will shatter a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would tell oneself that the cat is still alive if no atom has decayed in the meantime. Even a single atomic decay would have poisoned it. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or spread out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain turns into a sensually observable [macroscopic] indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. This prevents us from so naïvely accepting a "blurred model" as representative of reality. Per se, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

Schrödinger developed his famous thought experiment in correspondence with Einstein. He suggested this 'quite ridiculous case' to illustrate his conclusion that the wave function cannot represent reality.[5]: 153 The wave function description of the complete cat system implies that the reality of the cat mixes the living and dead cat.[5]: 154  Einstein was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:[5]: 157 

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides 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. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.[10]

Note that the charge of gunpowder is not mentioned in Schrödinger's setup, which uses a Geiger counter as an amplifier and hydrocyanic poison instead of gunpowder. The gunpowder had been mentioned in Einstein's original suggestion to Schrödinger 15 years before, and Einstein carried it forward to the present discussion.[4]

Analysis

In modern terms Schrodinger's hypothetical cat experiment describes the measurement problem: quantum theory describes the cat system as a combination of two possible outcomes but only one outcome is ever observed.[11]: 57[12]: 1269 The experiment poses the question, "when does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other?" (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a non-trivial linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begin to have a unique classical description?) Standard microscopic quantum mechanics describes multiple possible outcomes of experiments but only one outcome is observed. The thought experiment illustrates this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that the cat cannot be in more than one state simultaneously—yet the quantum mechanical description of the thought experiment requires such a condition.

Interpretations

Since Schrödinger's time, other interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed that give different answers to the questions posed by Schrödinger's cat of how long superpositions last and when (or whether) they collapse.

Copenhagen interpretation

A commonly held interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation.[13] In the Copenhagen interpretation, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This thought experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well-defined in this interpretation. In the Copenhagen interpretation simply provides no explanation for the nature of the cat while the box is closed. The wavefunction description of the system consists of a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat". Only when the box is opened and observed can we make a statement about the cat.[5]: 157

Von Neumann interpretation

In 1932, John von Neumann described in his book Mathematical Foundations a pattern where the radioactive source is observed by a device, which itself is observed by another device and so on. It makes no difference in the predictions of quantum theory where along this chain of causal effects the superposition collapses.[14] This potentially infinite chain could be broken if the last device is replaced by a conscious observer. This solved the problem because it was claimed that an individual's consciousness cannot be multiple.[15] Neumann asserted that a conscious observer is necessary for collapse to one or the other (e.g., either a live cat or a dead cat) of the terms on the right-hand side of a wave function. This interpretation was later adopted by Eugene Wigner, who then rejected the interpretation in a thought experiment known as Wigner's friend.[16]

Wigner supposed that a friend opened the box and observed the cat without telling anyone. From Wigner's conscious perspective, the friend is now part of the wave function and has seen a live cat and seen a dead cat. To a third person's conscious perspective, Wigner himself becomes part of the wave function once Wigner learns the outcome from the friend. This could be extended indefinitely.[16]

A resolution of the paradox is that the triggering of the Geiger counter counts as a measurement of the state of the radioactive substance. Because a measurement has already occurred deciding the state of the cat, the subsequent observation by a human records only what has already occurred.[17] Analysis of an actual experiment by Roger Carpenter and A. J. Anderson found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave function before any human knows of the result.[18] The apparatus indicates one of two colors depending on the outcome. The human observer sees which color is indicated, but they don't consciously know which outcome the color represents. A second human, the one who set up the apparatus, is told of the color and becomes conscious of the outcome, and the box is opened to check if the outcome matches.[14] However, it is disputed whether merely observing the color counts as a conscious observation of the outcome.[19]

Bohr's interpretation

One of the main scientists associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, Niels Bohr, offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer-induced collapse of the wave function, or of measurement; instead, an "irreversible" or effectively irreversible process causes the decay of quantum coherence, which imparts the classical behavior of "observation" or "measurement".[20][21][22][23] Thus, Schrödinger's cat would be either dead or alive long before the box is observed.[24]

Many-worlds interpretation

The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the many-worlds interpretation. In this interpretation, every event is a branch point. The cat is both alive and dead—regardless of whether the box is opened—but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe that are equally real but cannot interact with each other.

In 1957, Hugh Everett formulated the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not single out observation as a special process. In the many-worlds interpretation, both alive and dead states of the cat persist after the box is opened, but are decoherent from each other. In other words, when the box is opened, the observer and the possibly-dead cat split into an observer looking at a box with a dead cat and an observer looking at a box with a live cat. But since the dead and alive states are decoherent, there is no communication or interaction between them.

When opening the box, the observer becomes entangled with the cat, so "observer states" corresponding to the cat's being alive and dead are formed; each observer state is entangled, or linked, with the cat so that the observation of the cat's state and the cat's state correspond with each other. Quantum decoherence ensures that the different outcomes have no interaction with each other. Decoherence is generally considered to prevent simultaneous observation of multiple states.[25][26]

A variant of the Schrödinger's cat experiment, known as the quantum suicide machine, has been proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark. It examines the Schrödinger's cat experiment from the point of view of the cat, and argues that by using this approach, one may be able to distinguish between the Copenhagen interpretation and many-worlds.

Ensemble interpretation

The ensemble interpretation states that superpositions are nothing but subensembles of a larger statistical ensemble. The state vector would not apply to individual cat experiments, but only to the statistics of many similarly prepared cat experiments. Proponents of this interpretation state that this makes the Schrödinger's cat paradox a trivial matter, or a non-issue.

This interpretation serves to discard the idea that a single physical system in quantum mechanics has a mathematical description that corresponds to it in any way.[27]

Relational interpretation

The relational interpretation makes no fundamental distinction between the human experimenter, the cat, and the apparatus or between animate and inanimate systems; all are quantum systems governed by the same rules of wavefunction evolution, and all may be considered "observers". But the relational interpretation allows that different observers can give different accounts of the same series of events, depending on the information they have about the system.[28] The cat can be considered an observer of the apparatus; meanwhile, the experimenter can be considered another observer of the system in the box (the cat plus the apparatus). Before the box is opened, the cat, by nature of its being alive or dead, has information about the state of the apparatus (the atom has either decayed or not decayed); but the experimenter does not have information about the state of the box contents. In this way, the two observers simultaneously have different accounts of the situation: To the cat, the wavefunction of the apparatus has appeared to "collapse"; to the experimenter, the contents of the box appear to be in superposition. Not until the box is opened, and both observers have the same information about what happened, do both system states appear to "collapse" into the same definite result, a cat that is either alive or dead.

Transactional interpretation

In the transactional interpretation the apparatus emits an advanced wave backward in time, which combined with the wave that the source emits forward in time, forms a standing wave. The waves are seen as physically real, and the apparatus is considered an "observer". In the transactional interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction is "atemporal" and occurs along the whole transaction between the source and the apparatus. The cat is never in superposition. Rather the cat is only in one state at any particular time, regardless of when the human experimenter looks in the box. The transactional interpretation resolves this quantum paradox.[29]

Objective collapse theories

According to objective collapse theories, superpositions are destroyed spontaneously (irrespective of external observation) when some objective physical threshold (of time, mass, temperature, irreversibility, etc.) is reached. Thus, the cat would be expected to have settled into a definite state long before the box is opened. This could loosely be phrased as "the cat observes itself" or "the environment observes the cat".

Objective collapse theories require a modification of standard quantum mechanics to allow superpositions to be destroyed by the process of time evolution.[30] These theories could ideally be tested by creating mesoscopic superposition states in the experiment. For instance, energy cat states has been proposed as a precise detector of the quantum gravity related energy decoherence models.[31]

Applications and tests

Schrödinger's cat quantum superposition of states and effect of the environment through decoherence

The experiment as described is a purely theoretical one, and the machine proposed is not known to have been constructed. However, successful experiments involving similar principles, e.g. superpositions of relatively large (by the standards of quantum physics) objects have been performed.[32][better source needed] These experiments do not show that a cat-sized object can be superposed, but the known upper limit on "cat states" has been pushed upwards by them. In many cases the state is short-lived, even when cooled to near absolute zero.

  • A "cat state" has been achieved with photons.[33]
  • A beryllium ion has been trapped in a superposed state.[34]
  • An experiment involving a superconducting quantum interference device ("SQUID") has been linked to the theme of the thought experiment: "The superposition state does not correspond to a billion electrons flowing one way and a billion others flowing the other way. Superconducting electrons move en masse. All the superconducting electrons in the SQUID flow both ways around the loop at once when they are in the Schrödinger's cat state."[35]
  • A piezoelectric "tuning fork" has been constructed, which can be placed into a superposition of vibrating and non vibrating states. The resonator comprises about 10 trillion atoms.[36]
  • An experiment involving a flu virus has been proposed.[37]
  • An experiment involving a bacterium and an electromechanical oscillator has been proposed.[38]

In quantum computing the phrase "cat state" sometimes refers to the GHZ state, wherein several qubits are in an equal superposition of all being 0 and all being 1; e.g.,

According to at least one proposal, it may be possible to determine the state of the cat before observing it.[39][40]

Extensions

In August 2020, physicists presented studies involving interpretations of quantum mechanics that are related to the Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend paradoxes, resulting in conclusions that challenge seemingly established assumptions about reality.[41][42][43]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Schrödinger, Erwin (November 1935). "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics)". Naturwissenschaften. 23 (48): 807–812. Bibcode:1935NW.....23..807S. doi:10.1007/BF01491891. S2CID 206795705. Man kann auch ganz burleske Fälle konstruieren. Eine Katze wird in eine Stahlkammer gesperrt, zusammen mit folgender Höllenmaschine (die man gegen den direkten Zugriff der Katze sichern muß): in einem Geigerschen Zählrohr befindet sich eine winzige Menge radioaktiver Substanz, so wenig, daß im Laufe einer Stunde vielleicht eines von den Atomen zerfällt, ebenso wahrscheinlich aber auch keines; geschieht es, so spricht das Zählrohr an und betätigt über ein Relais ein Hämmerchen, das ein Kölbchen mit Blausäure zertrümmert. Hat man dieses ganze System eine Stunde lang sich selbst überlassen, so wird man sich sagen, daß die Katze noch lebt, wenn inzwischen kein Atom zerfallen ist. Der erste Atomzerfall würde sie vergiftet haben. Die Psi-Funktion des ganzen Systems würde das so zum Ausdruck bringen, daß in ihr die lebende und die tote Katze (s.v.v.) [sit venia verbo] zu gleichen Teilen gemischt oder verschmiert sind. Das Typische an solchen Fällen ist, daß eine ursprünglich auf den Atombereich beschränkte Unbestimmtheit sich in grobsinnliche Unbestimmtheit umsetzt, die sich dann durch direkte Beobachtung entscheiden läßt. Das hindert uns, in so naiver Weise ein „verwaschenes Modell" als Abbild der Wirklichkeit gelten zu lassen. An sich enthielte es nichts Unklares oder Widerspruchsvolles. Es ist ein Unterschied zwischen einer verwackelten oder unscharf eingestellten Photographie und einer Aufnahme von Wolken und Nebelschwaden.
  2. ^ Fine, Arthur. "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 11 June 2020.
  3. ^ Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Archived 2006-02-08 at the Wayback Machine A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)
  4. ^ a b c Fine, Arthur (2017). "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 11 April 2021.
  5. ^ a b c d e Baggott, J. E. (2013). The quantum story: a history in 40 moments (Impression: 3 ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965597-7.
  6. ^ Polkinghorne, J. C. (1985). The Quantum World. Princeton University Press. p. 67. ISBN 0691023883. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19.
  7. ^ Tetlow, Philip (2012). Understanding Information and Computation: From Einstein to Web Science. Gower Publishing, Ltd. p. 321. ISBN 978-1409440406. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19.
  8. ^ Lazarou, Dimitris (2007). "Interpretation of quantum theory - An overview". arXiv:0712.3466 [quant-ph].
  9. ^ Trimmer, John D. (1980). "The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A Translation of Schrödinger's "Cat Paradox" Paper". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 124 (5): 323–338. JSTOR 986572. The English translation here is based on the German original, not on the inaccurate version in this source's translation of the entire article: Schrödinger: "The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics." 5. Are the Variables Really Blurred?
  10. ^ Maxwell, Nicholas (1 January 1993). "Induction and Scientific Realism: Einstein versus van Fraassen Part Three: Einstein, Aim-Oriented Empiricism and the Discovery of Special and General Relativity". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 44 (2): 275–305. doi:10.1093/bjps/44.2.275. JSTOR 687649.
  11. ^ Peres, Asher (January 1988). "Schrödinger's immortal cat". Foundations of Physics. 18 (1): 57–76. doi:10.1007/BF01882873. ISSN 0015-9018.
  12. ^ Schlosshauer, Maximilian (2005-02-23). "Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 76 (4): 1267–1305. arXiv:quant-ph/0312059. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267.
  13. ^ Wimmel, Hermann (1992). Quantum physics & observed reality: a critical interpretation of quantum mechanics. World Scientific. p. 2. ISBN 978-981-02-1010-6. Archived from the original on 20 May 2013. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
  14. ^ a b Hobson, Art (2017). Tales of the Quantum: Understanding Physics' Most Fundamental Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 200–202. ISBN 9780190679637. Retrieved April 8, 2022.
  15. ^ Omnès, Roland (1999). Understanding Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 60–62. ISBN 0-691-00435-8. Retrieved April 8, 2022.
  16. ^ a b Levin, Frank S. (2017). Surfing the Quantum World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 229–232. ISBN 978-0-19-880827-5. Retrieved April 8, 2022.
  17. ^ Puri, Ravinder R. (2017). Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. p. 146. ISBN 978-1-107-16436-9. Retrieved April 8, 2022.
  18. ^ Carpenter RHS, Anderson AJ (2006). "The death of Schrödinger's cat and of consciousness-based wave-function collapse" (PDF). Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie. 31 (1): 45–52. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-11-30. Retrieved 2010-09-10.
  19. ^ Okón E, Sebastián MA (2016). "How to Back up or Refute Quantum Theories of Consciousness". Mind and Matter. 14 (1): 25–49.
  20. ^ John Bell (1990). "Against 'measurement'". Physics World. 3 (8): 33–41. doi:10.1088/2058-7058/3/8/26.
  21. ^ Niels Bohr (1985) [May 16, 1947]. Jørgen Kalckar (ed.). Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926-1932). Niels Bohr: Collected Works. Vol. 6. pp. 451–454.
  22. ^ Stig Stenholm (1983). "To fathom space and time". In Pierre Meystre (ed.). Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation, and Measurement Theory. Plenum Press. p. 121. The role of irreversibility in the theory of measurement has been emphasized by many. Only this way can a permanent record be obtained. The fact that separate pointer positions must be of the asymptotic nature usually associated with irreversibility has been utilized in the measurement theory of Daneri, Loinger and Prosperi (1962). It has been accepted as a formal representation of Bohr's ideas by Rosenfeld (1966).
  23. ^ Fritz Haake (April 1, 1993). "Classical motion of meter variables in the quantum theory of measurement". Physical Review A. 47 (4): 2506–2517. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.2506H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.2506. PMID 9909217.
  24. ^ Faye, J (2008-01-24). "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Retrieved 2010-09-19.
  25. ^ Zurek, Wojciech H. (2003). "Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical". Reviews of Modern Physics. 75 (3): 715. arXiv:quant-ph/0105127. Bibcode:2003RvMP...75..715Z. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.75.715. S2CID 14759237.
  26. ^ Wojciech H. Zurek, "Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical", Physics Today, 44, pp. 36–44 (1991)
  27. ^ Smolin, Lee (October 2012). "A real ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics". Foundations of Physics. 42 (10): 1239–1261. arXiv:1104.2822. Bibcode:2012FoPh...42.1239S. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9666-4. ISSN 0015-9018. S2CID 118505566.
  28. ^ Rovelli, Carlo (1996). "Relational Quantum Mechanics". International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 35 (8): 1637–1678. arXiv:quant-ph/9609002. Bibcode:1996IJTP...35.1637R. doi:10.1007/BF02302261. S2CID 16325959.
  29. ^ Cramer, John G. (July 1986). The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Vol. 58. Reviews of Modern Physics. pp. 647–685.
  30. ^ Okon, Elias; Sudarsky, Daniel (2014-02-01). "Benefits of Objective Collapse Models for Cosmology and Quantum Gravity". Foundations of Physics. 44 (2): 114–143. arXiv:1309.1730. Bibcode:2014FoPh...44..114O. doi:10.1007/s10701-014-9772-6. ISSN 1572-9516. S2CID 67831520.
  31. ^ Khazali, Mohammadsadegh; Lau, Hon Wai; Humeniuk, Adam; Simon, Christoph (2016-08-11). "Large energy superpositions via Rydberg dressing". Physical Review A. 94 (2): 023408. arXiv:1509.01303. Bibcode:2016PhRvA..94b3408K. doi:10.1103/physreva.94.023408. ISSN 2469-9926. S2CID 118364289.
  32. ^ "What is the world's biggest Schrodinger cat?". stackexchange.com. Archived from the original on 2012-01-08.
  33. ^ "Schrödinger's Cat Now Made Of Light". www.science20.com. 27 August 2014. Archived from the original on 18 March 2012.
  34. ^ Monroe, C.; Meekhof, D. M.; King, B. E.; Wineland, D. J. (1996-05-24). "A "Schrödinger's cat" Superposition State of an Atom". Science. 272 (5265): 1131–1136. Bibcode:1996Sci...272.1131M. doi:10.1126/science.272.5265.1131. PMID 8662445. S2CID 2311821.
  35. ^ "Physics World: Schrödinger's cat comes into view". 5 July 2000.
  36. ^ Scientific American : Macro-Weirdness: "Quantum Microphone" Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once: A new device tests the limits of Schrödinger's cat Archived 2012-03-19 at the Wayback Machine
  37. ^ Romero-Isart, O.; Juan, M. L.; Quidant, R.; Cirac, J. I. (2010). "Toward Quantum Superposition of Living Organisms". New Journal of Physics. 12 (3): 033015. arXiv:0909.1469. Bibcode:2010NJPh...12c3015R. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/3/033015. S2CID 59151724.
  38. ^ "Could 'Schrödinger's bacterium' be placed in a quantum superposition?". physicsworld.com. Archived from the original on 2016-07-30.
  39. ^ Najjar, Dana (7 November 2019). "Physicists Can Finally Peek at Schrödinger's Cat Without Killing It Forever". Live Science. Retrieved 7 November 2019.
  40. ^ Patekar, Kartik; Hofmann, Holger F. (2019). "The role of system–meter entanglement in controlling the resolution and decoherence of quantum measurements". New Journal of Physics. 21 (10): 103006. arXiv:1905.09978. Bibcode:2019NJPh...21j3006P. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab4451.
  41. ^ Merali, Zeeya (17 August 2020). "This Twist on Schrödinger's Cat Paradox Has Major Implications for Quantum Theory - A laboratory demonstration of the classic "Wigner's friend" thought experiment could overturn cherished assumptions about reality". Scientific American. Retrieved 17 August 2020.
  42. ^ Musser, George (17 August 2020). "Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality". Science Magazine. Retrieved 17 August 2020.
  43. ^ Bong, Kok-Wei; et al. (17 August 2020). "A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox". Nature Physics. 27 (12): 1199–1205. arXiv:1907.05607. Bibcode:2020NatPh..16.1199B. doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x.

Further reading

External links