English | 中文
1. I can't see you.
2. you can't see me.
3. the box is closed.
4. the box is steel.
5. steel is not transparent.
6. the box is not glass.
7. in reality, Schrödinger’s Cat is logically, physically, and practically Blind Physicist's Cat.
8. you are blind.
9. you may not hear the Geiger counter's click.
10. you can't hear well.
11. you are deaf.
12. you hear the Geiger counter's click, but you don't know what that sound means.
13. From logical, physical, and practical perspectives, Schrödinger's Cat is, in reality, the "cat of a deaf physicist."
14. you don't know.
You must open the box because the cat’s state is considered as both alive and dead simultaneously, defined or described as in superposition, until measurement.
Schrödinger put me in a steel box that you cannot see me.
You must open the box because you need to see me to know my state.
The steel box blocks your sight and makes you blind, and even your hearing and makes you deaf that cannot hear the beep of the Geiger counter.
If the box were glass, there would be no Schrödinger’s Cat.
The problem and answer are not superposition.
The problem and answer is indecision caused by insufficient information.
OR
You must open this box, for you have no way of knowing my current state.
Schrödinger has confined me within a steel box, rendering me invisible to your eyes.
This steel container not only obstructs your vision—leaving you blind—but even blocks your hearing, leaving you deaf from catching the ticking sound of the Geiger counter.
Had this box been made of glass, or you could hear the Geiger counter, the concept of "Schrödinger's Cat" would never have arisen in the first place.
The crux of the matter lies not in the so-called "superposition" but rather in the inability to make a determination due to a lack of information.
I know my own state.
You do not because you are outside the steel box, cannot see through it, and imagine I am both alive and dead simultaneously, call it superposition, until measurement.
For a two-state outcome, such as decay or no decay, or alive or dead, it does not matter whether it is a cat, a human, Erwin Schrödinger himself, or a device such as a Geiger counter that counts or does not count, a hammer that falls or does not fall, or a flask that breaks or does not break, with or without poison.
The problem is not the subject being the two states simultaneously or superposition.
The problem is the steel box rendering you both blind and deaf.
Atoms of the same radioactive isotope are not identical in all physical properties because their radioactive decay behaviors are different. Much like humans die at different times, radioactive atoms decay at different times.
Logically, it is safer to assume atoms are different rather than identical unless complete physical identity is proven. Their definitions are based mainly on chemical properties, such as numbers of electrons, protons, and neutrons, not on all physical properties, such as radioactive decay behavior.
Yes. Schrödinger’s Cat is repeatable in the same sense as other quantum experiments. Although the outcome may differ from one trial to another, the statistical behavior remains consistent and predictable over many repetitions.
No. Schrödinger’s Cat is not truly repeatable because the initial conditions are never completely identical. The radioactive world is like a river and is constantly changing. Each experiment is performed on a sample taken from this ever-changing river, so no two samples are exactly the same. The radioactive atoms are different, the timing of decay is different, and the physical conditions of each experiment are different. If these samples were all identical, the experimental results would also be identical; consequently, they would lose their characteristics of statistical behavior. Even if the setup appears statistically or chemically similar, the experiment itself is physically different each time.
Repeatability in Schrödinger’s Cat depends on what is assumed to be identical samples. Although the radioactive world possesses certain statistical properties, a single sample is not enough to fully reflect them, nor does the existence of many identical or similar samples prove complete physical identity. If complete physical identity is required, then Schrödinger’s Cat is not repeatable because the initial conditions are never exactly the same or reflect the statistical properties of the radioactive world.
Finally, we may never know the number of samples or experiments required to fully reflect the statistical properties of the radioactive world, just as no finite number of coin tosses is sufficient to prove that a coin is perfectly fair.
Yes. Using the half-life of the radioactive material, one can calculate or estimate an amount such that there is a 50% probability that at least one atom decays during the chosen time interval.
Not exactly. Schrödinger’s required amount is a statistical construction, not necessarily a physically exact amount. Radioactive material is made of a finite number of atoms, and decay occurs as discrete events. An amount calculated from half-life may give an expected probability, but it does not guarantee that the finite sample itself has exactly the required physical statistical behavior.
The required amount may exist mathematically as a probability calculation, but its exact physical existence is not guaranteed, and not by one sample. If radioactive decay is discrete and each sample is physically different, then Schrödinger’s amount is better understood as a fuzzy approximation, not a fixed physical object.
Each instance of Schrödinger's Cat is conducted upon a single sample; consequently, a solitary experiment fails to reflect statistical characteristics. Moreover, the requisite number of experiments remains indeterminate—that is, it is impossible to know how many trials must be performed to discern the 50% probability.
Finally, suppose the amount of radioactive material required for Schrödinger’s Cat existed exactly. Then,
1. for each radioactive isotope and each chosen time interval, there would be a unique amount: more material or less material would change the probability that at least one atom decays during that interval. But this leads to a contradiction.
Thus, for every radioactive isotope, this quantity is unique; it therefore reflects the radioactive properties of that isotope, and we shall call it the Schrödinger quantity of this isotope.
2. If the sample contains only one atom, the half-life gives no definite knowledge about whether that atom will decay during the chosen interval. If the sample contains two atoms, the half-life still describes only statistical behavior, not which atom will decay or whether one must decay in that interval.
3. For any finite number of atoms, the result remains probabilistic rather than exact. Therefore, the required amount cannot be a fixed physical object; it is only a statistical approximation.
Following the spirit of the Turing Test, we propose Schrödinger’s Test using the original text of Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment as a test of logical reasoning and independent thinking in artificial intelligence.
For a radioactive isotope, we introduce its Schrödinger’s Amount, the weight or quantity of its atoms equal to “a tiny amount” in the original text, and it is put in the steel box of Schrödinger’s Cat.
The test consists of a machine reading the text and answering several test questions. A higher level of the test is to have it write a report to see how many answers it contains.
Our questions are designed to dissect Schrödinger’s Cat part by part and step by step, a few of which are original. For example, why must the box be open? Are atoms identical? Is Schrödinger’s Cat repeatable? As a starting set that is not yet available on the internet, it is unknown to current artificial intelligence programs, and can therefore serve as test questions.
For each question, two answers are presented: a conventional answer reflecting standard interpretations in physics, and an unconventional answer derived through facts and logic.
Since Schrödinger’s Cat was introduced in 1935, with Einstein’s involvement, it has been extensively studied, taught, and debated for nearly 100 years, Schrödinger’s Test represents an extremely high-level of human intelligence.