Schrödinger's cat paradox

>>8432243
No, because the cat has no consciousness.

>>8432243
Have you actually read up on the topic? It's an example of superpositions. A cat doesn't interact with an unstable isotope

>>8432243
You missed the point. And most pop-sci that brings it up also misses the point, so I guess it is forgivable. The point Schrodinger was making is this: superpositions are stupid because they let stupid shit like my cat thought experiment happen on macroscopic scales. Luckily for quantum mechanics, Bohr came along and went "No it doesn't! Superposition states generally off at a rate proportional to the size of the system and so macroscopic objects can't be in a superposition state for any meaningful length of time!"

[This, of course, ignores some actual macroscopic states, like topological liquids and superfluids/superconducting states, but these are special circumstances that manage to get around the "general" rules]

>>8432332
>The point Schrodinger was making is this: superpositions are stupid
Another ignorant pop sci fag detected. Please stop spreading ignorance. Schrodinger was the INVENTOR of the concept of superposition.

>>8432339
Yes, he developed the underlying wave-mechanics, but that doesn't mean he liked the idea of superposition and would rather have had them done away with by a local hidden variables interpretation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#Origin_and_motivation

>>8432290
Nice bait
>>8432243
If the cat is to be considered an observer there's no paradox. Hence there is no point in this gedanken.

>>8432243
>Schrödinger's cat paradox

That cat is alive until the atom decays, which kills the cat.

There is no quantum superposition of the cat, okay?

besides, they have nine lives anyway.

>>8432332
>macroscopic objects can't be in a superposition state for any meaningful length of time
this.

>>8433368
That's using the cat as an observer though, which is an existing explanation. It just discards the paradox by saying things are what they are despite observation. The problem is that we cannot observe something as a different observer, so our perspective of the paradox is stuck with only one observer.

>>8433859
The cat, as a macroscopic object is an observer. A more appropriate observer is the Geiger counter which must behave classically and can only detect the decay of the particle or not detect it; as a classical object it is incapable of existing in a superposition (more accurately: the terms of the density matrix of the Geiger counter which would give rise to a superposition state die off exponentially in the mass of the Geiger counter which is astronomically large for quantum processes and so the superposition states are killed off far faster than every other time scale of the problem; if this were not the case, the Geiger counter would be a shit detector that no one should use for anything).