Comments on: Schrodinger’s Cat and the Study of Close Relationships: The Influence of Relationship Science Research on its Participants’ Relationships http://www.eharmony.com/labs/blog/2009/04/schrodingers-cat/ Hot Science Blog Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:14:21 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Joshua Poore, M.A. http://www.eharmony.com/labs/blog/2009/04/schrodingers-cat/comment-page-1/#comment-81986 Joshua Poore, M.A. Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:30:44 +0000 http://www.eharmony.com/labs/blog/?p=706#comment-81986 You are correct that Schrodinger did not originally intend for his "cat" metaphor to be used for "macroscopic" agents. However, the logic of his approach is also relevant to probability theory in as much as it informs us about the nature of probability for certain events with respect to the observation of such events. Regardless of the size or organization of matter--whether we're talking about it at the subatomic level, or at the level of complex life-forms--there is a certain probability associated with a given organization of some set of matter. Returning to our cat in its box housing a noxious agent, it may be more likely that the cat is alive than dead at observation time X, however, it is possible that the cat is dead. Therefore, until the box is opened and the "outcome" is observed, we can only assume that both states exist as possibilities. In the end, the same matter occupies the box, regardless of that matter's state or organization. Schrodinger's contribution was to illustrate a reconciliation between the nature of quantum theory with the existing laws of thermodynamics--no matter when you observe the outcome, or what the observed outcome is, nothing has really changed, the same matter exists in the box. I believe that Schrodinger's cat is a particularly useful metaphor for the scientific method of observation. Scientists in the physical and behavioral sciences are less interested in matter, per se. As humans it is more important to understand the circumstances that give rise to specific states and organizations of matter. In this respect, our job is to estimate the likelihood that matter takes one shape or another, one state or another. Given this, it is extremely important that we keep in mind the quantum possibilities of matter's organization regardless, which precisely why I think Schrodinger's insights are important for physicists and psychologists alike. Feel free to respond further, if you'd like. This is a very interesting debate. You are correct that Schrodinger did not originally intend for his “cat” metaphor to be used for “macroscopic” agents. However, the logic of his approach is also relevant to probability theory in as much as it informs us about the nature of probability for certain events with respect to the observation of such events. Regardless of the size or organization of matter–whether we’re talking about it at the subatomic level, or at the level of complex life-forms–there is a certain probability associated with a given organization of some set of matter. Returning to our cat in its box housing a noxious agent, it may be more likely that the cat is alive than dead at observation time X, however, it is possible that the cat is dead. Therefore, until the box is opened and the “outcome” is observed, we can only assume that both states exist as possibilities. In the end, the same matter occupies the box, regardless of that matter’s state or organization. Schrodinger’s contribution was to illustrate a reconciliation between the nature of quantum theory with the existing laws of thermodynamics–no matter when you observe the outcome, or what the observed outcome is, nothing has really changed, the same matter exists in the box.

I believe that Schrodinger’s cat is a particularly useful metaphor for the scientific method of observation. Scientists in the physical and behavioral sciences are less interested in matter, per se. As humans it is more important to understand the circumstances that give rise to specific states and organizations of matter. In this respect, our job is to estimate the likelihood that matter takes one shape or another, one state or another. Given this, it is extremely important that we keep in mind the quantum possibilities of matter’s organization regardless, which precisely why I think Schrodinger’s insights are important for physicists and psychologists alike.

Feel free to respond further, if you’d like. This is a very interesting debate.

]]> By: Todd I. Stark http://www.eharmony.com/labs/blog/2009/04/schrodingers-cat/comment-page-1/#comment-81600 Todd I. Stark Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:22:00 +0000 http://www.eharmony.com/labs/blog/?p=706#comment-81600 Interesting article, and important point that observing of a process often becomes part of that process. On hte other hand, I really think that the Schrodinger thing is bit hackneyed as an opener. Given the context in terms of his argument against the Copenhagen interpretation offered at the time, I really think Prof. Schrodinger was trying to show quite the opposite of the point you are making above, that it *doesn't* make sense to think of quantum effects as happening directly to macroscopic objects. I guess I'm trying to say that I think it's a really bad example of a really good point. Let the poor cat out of the box, he's suffered enough at our hands over the years. Interesting article, and important point that observing of a process often becomes part of that process.

On hte other hand, I really think that the Schrodinger thing is bit hackneyed as an opener. Given the context in terms of his argument against the Copenhagen interpretation offered at the time, I really think Prof. Schrodinger was trying to show quite the opposite of the point you are making above, that it *doesn’t* make sense to think of quantum effects as happening directly to macroscopic objects.

I guess I’m trying to say that I think it’s a really bad example of a really good point.

Let the poor cat out of the box, he’s suffered enough at our hands over the years.

]]>