- #1
jason_m
- 18
- 0
I am a complete amateur, but I have been reading about quantum physics and I have a question (so I apologize in advance if the question has an obvious flaw). In Schrodinger's famous thought experiment, a cat is put into a box and quantum effects can cause poison to be emitted in such a way that the cat is seemingly both dead and alive until the box is opened (under the Copenhagen interpretation).
Let's alter the experiment. Suppose that it is not a cat in the box but a live human. Further, it is not poison that is emitted, but a device is implanted that causes a sharp pain in his/her arm. Why, in all probability, would the human being experience only one state before the box is opened and a measurement has taken place? In other words, it would be highly doubtful that the person would experience both having a sharp pain and not having a sharp pain in the same way that the cat would be both dead and alive. Further, why should a human being in the box or the fact that they are not killed make a difference to the principles of the experiment? Both the cat and the human would be conscious, living, breathing individuals, each just as capable of making observations inside the box. The only difference is that the human would be able to speak of his/her experiences, while a cat could not, and the human, unlike the cat, would always survive. In other words, is the Cophenhagen Interpreatation of the thought experiment flawed, or am I missing something important? (Thank you in advance for any responses.)
Let's alter the experiment. Suppose that it is not a cat in the box but a live human. Further, it is not poison that is emitted, but a device is implanted that causes a sharp pain in his/her arm. Why, in all probability, would the human being experience only one state before the box is opened and a measurement has taken place? In other words, it would be highly doubtful that the person would experience both having a sharp pain and not having a sharp pain in the same way that the cat would be both dead and alive. Further, why should a human being in the box or the fact that they are not killed make a difference to the principles of the experiment? Both the cat and the human would be conscious, living, breathing individuals, each just as capable of making observations inside the box. The only difference is that the human would be able to speak of his/her experiences, while a cat could not, and the human, unlike the cat, would always survive. In other words, is the Cophenhagen Interpreatation of the thought experiment flawed, or am I missing something important? (Thank you in advance for any responses.)
Last edited: