I've been interested in this theory for awhile now, but I just can't seem to understand it for the life of me, mainly due to the immense amount of scientific terms and wording everywhere I look, which is moonspeak to me. Can anyone here who actually understands the Schrodinger's Cat theory explain it for me in terms even an idjit like I could understand?

Oh, and just for those who are wondering what the Hell I'm talking about, Here's the wikipedia page for it.

In simplest terms as I understand it is:

You put a cat in a box and therefore the cat can't be affected by anything outside the box. In the box with the cat is such a small amount of a radioactive material that the possibility of it decaying at any moment in an hour is 50/50 and so the decay is random. A device called a Geiger Counter is also in the box and when it detects the decay of the material it, by means of relays and such, smashes a flask filled with poison which will kill the cat.

So until you open the box the cat is both dead and alive at the same time because you as the observer haven't observed the cat in either state until you open the box. That's the general thing.

But Schrodinger's Cat isn't a theory, it's a paradox.

The question is when actually, does the cat become dead or alive and not a mix of both. Can the cat be the observer? But then how would the cat know it is dead? Does the observer have to be from outside the box? It is all a matter of opinion, after all it is a paradox.

Hope that explains it a bit better with less of the jargon.

Damn, KP nailed it, very impressive!

...

KP answered whilst I was typing up my answer. XDD

Her explanation makes more sense, but I'll still give you mine, just because it took me about 10 minutes to write up. XD;

Spoiler:

I can give you my understanding of it; it might not necessarily be right, but it ought to give you the general idea. Basically, Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment made up by, well, Schrodinger. He made it up to demonstrate quantum superpositions, which is more or less the combination of all possible states of a system. [if it helps with my mangled definition, it comes from the word ‘superimpose’] Uh. Actually, I'll just say he made it up to point out exactly how confusing quantum physics can be. XD; Basically, to understand the 'experiment', you have to understand that the quantum physics/mechanics is bloody confusing. Rather than having a given measurement, quantum mechanics gives us the probability that we will make a given measurement. If you want to be specific, it explains particles in terms of probability using wave equations. So, in other words, particles are described in terms of a superposition of waves that represent its probable states. Now, Schrodinger complained bout this by stating that “the classical concept of state becomes lost”, and to highlight this problem, he came up with the cat paradox. Basically, he proposed this: First, you get a cat [poor kitty. >.<] and put it in a box shielded from any outside interference. [to quote, a “steel chamber”] Then, inside the box, you also place a radioactive substance that is “so small that perhaps in the course of an hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none.” Finally, he inserts a mechanism consisting of a Geiger counter that is connected to a hammer that is connected to small flask of poison. [Keep in mind, by the way, that the whole device is secured against direct intervention by the cat – basically, the cat can’t screw with the counter/hammer/poison.] Now, if the counter detects the radioactive decay of the atom, it’ll set off the hammer, which will shatter the flask of poison [hydrocyanic acid, to be specific] and the kitty will die. But if the counter doesn’t detect the decay, then the kitty gets to live. Okay, so an hour’s passed. But is the cat dead or alive? The only way to tell if the cat’s dead or alive, is to look. But the thing is that you can’t, because opening the box to look screws with the experiment. Let’s say you opened the box, and saw that the cat was dead. But was it dead when you looked, or was it your act of observing it that caused it to be dead? The catch is that you can’t actually tell. And that was the problem that Schrodinger was trying to show – to quote him, the system would “express this by having the living and the dead cat mixed/smeared out in equal parts. In other words, the cat would be defined as both living and dead simultaneously.” Which does not make sense. Hence the paradox. =]

Because I'm such a nerd I thought of the Pop'n song Schrodinger's Cat as soon as I saw the topic name. ):

But... it's odd. Makes you think... silly paradoxes. It definitely is confusing.

When I saw the topic name I thought of Lunar Knights, the space fighter Schrödinger, and Perrault, the dark terrenial that looks like a white cat.

But anyway... To me, it really doesn't make a load of sense, even with the explanations. To me, it sounds kinda stupid. But that's just me.

Don't worry if you can't understand it. It's on an entirely different level.

Ah, it's a paradox rather then a theory. Both midnyte's and KP's explanations help me understand it much, MUCH better. I think I have a full grasp of the paradox, now. Thanks, guys!! =D

I met this paradox before, it's actually quite funny in the consequences of arguments it sparks. I didn't meet it under the traditional version though. The one I read had a slightly different setup for the experiment...



There is a Kitty, a soundproof box, a gun and a line connecting its trigger to a small mirror of silver. When light falls on that mirror, the refraction rate is 50/50, the photon can either reflect off the mirror or penetrate it. One condition triggers the gun, the other does not. Of course, the cat cannot touch this setup.

And you need to open the box to find out how the cat is doing. But the act of observation, by introducing light, will make the photon refract (or NOT) and kill (or NOT) the cat.


This shows how the very act of observation influences the experiment, according to quantum mechanics. The state becomes determined at the moment of observation. It loses on the indeterminacy to stress another point of the theory.


>.> Funny...... that somehow came out more confusing than in my head.