Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T23:34:40.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Formal Statement of Schrödinger's Cat Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

James H. McGrath
James H. McGrath*
Affiliation:
Indiana University at South Bend
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Schrödinger's argument about a “cat penned up in a steel chamber” is a timely challenge to those concerned with the philosophy of quantum theory; the argument prompts difficult decisions about correlated quantum mechanical systems, locality, reality and completeness. Here Schrödinger's own text is reproduced and, in view of the text, several plausible axioms and formal rules are chosen. Then, beginning with the axioms and using the rules, a contradiction is derived. This result establishes that Schrödinger's argument can be viewed as a paradox, a derivation of a contradiction from plausible assumptions. A final section of the paper refines the paradox and treats two possible resolutions as representative of a watershed issue in the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Comments concerning the method of formalization were provided when I applied the method to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument (1978).

Type
Part IX. The Cat Paradox and Quantum Logic
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1980 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1980 , 1980 , pp. 250 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

In its earliest stages, this paper was encouraged by Bas C. van Fraassen and Roger T. Simonds and financial support was contributed by the Borden P. Bowne Foundation. Later, discussions with John D. Trimmer, Arthur Fine and Lonnie van Zandt influenced the course of research. Versions were read at physics colloquia at Purdue University and at the University of Notre Dame. For all this support it is a pleasure to acknowledge gratitude.

References

Amai, S. (1963). “Theory of Measurement in Quantum Mechanics.” Progress of Theoretical Physics 30: 550–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballentine, L. (1970). “The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 42: 358–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belinfante, F. (1975). Measurement and Time Reversal in Objective Quantum Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1957). “Discussion.” In Observation and Interpretation: A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists. Edited by Korner, S. New York: Academic Press. Pages 46–61. (Reprinted in Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics. Edited by Korner, S. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1962.)Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1974). “Superposition and Macroscopic Observation.” Synthese 29: 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Espagnat, B. (1971). Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Menlo Park: Benjamin. Pages 287–303.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1959). “Remarks to the Essays Appearing in this Collective Volume.” In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Edited by Schilpp, P. New York: Harper and Row. Pages 665-83.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935). “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47: 777–80. (Reprinted in S. Toulmin (ed.). 1970. Physical Reality. New York: Harper. Pages 122–130.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1970). “Insolubility of the Quantum Measurement Problem.” Physical Review D 2: 2783-87.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1976). “On the Completeness of Quantum Theory.” In Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics. Edited by Suppes, P. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pages 249–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, N. (1972). “Quantum Mechanics and Interpretation of Probability Theory.” Philosophy of Science 39: 451–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauch, J. (1968). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Jauch, J. (1973). Are Quanta Real? Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krips, H. (1976). “Foundations of Quantum Theory.” Foundations of Physics 6: 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. (1978). “A Formal Statement of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 17: 557–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehra, J. (1974). The Quantum Principle: Its Interpretation and Epistemology. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moldauer, P. (1972). “A Reinterpretation of von Neumann's Theory of Measurement.” Foundations of Physics 2: 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. (1968a). “Quantum Theoretical Concepts of Measurement.” Philosophy of Science 35: 225–31.Google Scholar
Park, J. (1968b). “The Nature of Quantum States.” American Journal of Physics 37: 217–22.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1935). “Die Gegenwartige Situation in der Quanten-mechanik.” Die Naturwissenschaften 23: 807-12, 823-28, 844-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1936a). “Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 32: 555–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1936b). “Probability Relations Between Separated Systems.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 32: 446–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Süssman, G. (1957). “An Analysis of Measurement.” In Observation and Interpretation: A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists. Edited by Korner, S. New York: Academic Press. Pages 131–136. (Reprinted in Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics. Edited by Korner, S. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1962. Pages 131–136.)Google Scholar
Trimmer, J. D. “Translation of Schrödinger's ‘Cat Paradox’ Paper.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1972). “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science.” In Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain. (University of Pittsburgh Series in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 5.) Edited by Colodny, R. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pages 303–366.Google Scholar
van Zandt, L. (1977). “A Separation of the Microscopic and Macroscopic Domains.” American Journal of Physics 45: 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigner, E. (1963). “The Problem of Measurement.” American Journal of Physics 31: 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar