更改

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first 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 smeared out in equal parts.

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first 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 smeared out in equal parts.

 

[https://archive.is/20121204184041/http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 Schroedinger: "The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics." 5. Are the Variables Really Blurred?]</ref>

[https://archive.is/20121204184041/http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html#sect5 Schroedinger: "The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics." 5. Are the Variables Really Blurred?]</ref>

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naïvely accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, 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.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naïvely accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, 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.

在这些情况下，典型的情况是，最初局限于原子域的不确定性转变为宏观不确定性，这种不确定性可以通过直接观察得到解决。这使我们无法轻易地接受代表现实的“模糊模型”作为有效的模型。它本身不会包含任何不清楚或矛盾的东西。'''<font color="#32CD32">摇晃的失焦的照片与云层和雾层的快照是有区别的。</font>'''

显然，这些实验中最初局限于原子域的不确定性转变为了宏观不确定性，这种不确定性可以通过直接观察得到解决。这使我们无法轻易地认为代表现实的“模糊模型”有效。它本身不会包含任何不清楚或矛盾的东西。'''<font color="#32CD32">摇晃或失焦照片与云层和雾层的快照是有区别的。</font>'''

Schrödinger's famous [[thought 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?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The thought experiment illustrates this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

Schrödinger's famous [[thought 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?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The thought experiment illustrates this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states—yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

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.

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.

除了劳厄之外，您是唯一的当代物理学家，他发现只有诚实的人才能绕开对现实的假设。他们中的大多数人根本不知道他们在玩什么样的冒险游戏-现实是独立于实验建立的东西。但是，你的系统——放射性原子+放大器+火药电荷+盒子里的猫优雅地驳斥了他们的解释，在这个系统里，psi功能既包含活的猫，也包含被炸成碎片的猫。没有人真的怀疑猫的存在或不存在与观察行为无关。<br>

除了劳厄之外，您是现在仅存的物理学家，劳尔认为只有诚实的人才能绕开对现实的假设。他们中的大多数人根本不知道他们在玩什么样的冒险游戏——现实是独立于实验的。但是，你的系统——放射性原子+放大器+火药+盒子里的猫优雅地驳斥了他们的诠释，在这个系统里，普西函数既包含活着的猫，也包含被炸成碎片的猫。没有人真的怀疑猫的存在与否与观察行为无关。<br>

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.

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.