Schrodinger's Cat at Hand

Abstract

Letters from: [ Andras Malnasi Csizmadia and Achilles J. Sanchez ][1] [ Randy Morse ][1] [ Barbara A. B. Seiders ][1] [ Paul C. S. Hoaken ][1] [ Andrew Ahlgren ][1] When the Schrodinger cat paradox was first proposed in 1935, it was difficult to envision an experimental system in which to model Schrodinger's experiment. But C. Monroe et al. describe such a system in their research article “A ‘Schrodinger cat’ superposition state of an atom” ([24 May, p. 1131][2]). In an accompanying Research News article ([24 May, p. 1101][3]), Gary Taubes writes > … Erwin Schrodinger described a cat shut up in what he called a “diabolical device”: a closed box also containing a small amount of a radioactive substance. Over the course of an hour, the radioactive substance has a 50-50 chance of decaying. If it does, the decay is detected by a counter, which shatters a flask of deadly acid, killing the cat. If it doesn't, the cat lives. But for the experiment to be a true paradox, the box must contain only one radioactive atom, as specified by Schrodinger. If there are numerous atoms in the box, it is a statistical certainty that at least one atom (but we cannot know which one) will decay in the course of the experiment, and the unfortunate cat will undoubtedly be killed. If, on the other hand, there is only one or very few atoms in the box, we will not know whether the cat is dead or alive. # {#article-title-2} As a naive molecular biologist, I am perplexed by one facet of the problem of Schrodinger's cat as it is usually presented. Why can't the cat be considered an observer and therefore remove the uncertainty about its own life or death status? # {#article-title-3} My 12-year-old daughter Phoebe is a student of quantum paradoxes, but she was concerned about an error in the illustration accompanying the Research News article with regard to feline anatomy. Presumably, even Schrodinger's cat would have foreleg “elbows,” not “knees.” # {#article-title-4} The title of the Research News article “Schizophrenic atom doubles as Schrodinger's cat—or kitten” perpetuates a misconception about schizophrenia—which is nothing like split personality—and trivializes a potentially disabling mental disorder. # {#article-title-5} “Kitten,” as used by Taubes, seems needlessly macroscopic as a metaphor for a single trapped atom. How about “Schrodinger's furball”? [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.273.5277.857e [2]: /lookup/volpage/273/1131 [3]: /lookup/volpage/273/1101