Quantum Zombie - Kittens that are neither dead or alive

What are we talking about when we mention quantum physics? Can a cat be dead and alive at the same time?

Pupil 1: There's things that can be in two places at the same time, but when we observe them they are at one.

Pupil 2: How can we know that they are in two places is we are not observing it?

1: I don't know, but it must be true, a wise old man mentioned it in a youtube video while using the word "quantum" a lot of times. It must be true.

2: Why don't we perform the Schrödinger thought experiment? That one where we need to get a cat that is dead and alive at the same time, and see how that works?

1: Lets go get a cat!

---

A thought experiment is one that is conceived and thought of in a hypothetical scenario, then, the possible outcome is analyzed. So, we can do it right now! I'll go to the lab, get my overall and googles, open the experimenting kit and get a box. Read the label: "Reinforced steel box: 100% disturbance isolation" (because, in my imagination, everything is ideal, perfect and absolute... and Natalie kissed me in 2nd grade). I place the steel box in the middle of the room. From the kit I grab a high security radioactive device. The instructions manual says: "This radioactive device has a radiation-meter included. In case it detects radiation a sledgehammer inside the box will break a bottle full of hydrogen cyanide (poison, 100% effectiveness). The poison will occupy 100% of the container". I stick the radioactive device to a corner of the steel box and rejoice that it is absolutely hermetic and fail-proof.

For the next step, I take off my ridiculous googles and head outside... Take a look around. -THERE!- I glimpse that goddamned cat, the neighbors cat, that kills birds non-stop and attacks any person that crosses his way. I go near him, and as it violently attacks me... I grab it and head indoors, back into the lab. Back into the cleanroom, I deposit it inside the box and close it. Everything is ready, even the story that will allow me to retrospectively justify my cruelty with that animal.

Lets check the theory again. The system is prepared to emit enough radiation to activate the sledgehammer (and the poison) with exactly 50% chances (if I keep the device "on" for an hour). Since the radioactive process occurs at an atomic level, it should obey the quantum laws of nature. This is, after one hour, the system should be "superposed", what could be stated as "the system emitted radiation and did not emit radiation at the same time". The thing is, if I turn the radiation-meter on and wait for an hour, since the setup is isolated and super-perfect, it would also be "superposed" (It would detect, and not detect), the hammer would also be "superposed" (breaking the bottle and not breaking it), the bottle would also be... (you get the idea, right?). The cat would be alive and dead.

Turn on the device and set an alarm for an hour later... Go play Candy Crush in the meantime...

The alarm goes off, I go back into the cleanroom and turn off the device. I realize that Schrödinger never explained what to do to know if the cat is superposed or not. What an idiot! (?) Schrödinger's paradox states that if the quantum is true, then we can get a hold of a brand-new dead-and-alive cat. But I've no idea of how to verify its status without observing it. The theory says that if I open the box and take a look, the zombie kitten would collapse into one of the two classic states, and it'd be either dead or alive, no ambiguities.

The problem is that, until then, the experiment is a "thought". And thought experiments, as beautiful as they are, are nothing but thoughts. One of the biggest questions in science is, "how to convert thought experiments into experimental experiments, and I believe that Schrödinger would rejoice knowing how much we've learned thanks to him and his cat.

Generally, when this kind of experiment is performed with electrons or other particles, we can verify each electron's superposition (dead and alive at the same time) without observing them; because, every electron behave in a way that they would not if they were either "dead" or "alive". What happens is that, both options are contradictory, yet, somehow coexist and interfere with each other. The result: an electron in superposition state returns a result that is different from an electron that is at either state, it returns the same result that a "live" electron would give, and also the same result a "dead" electron would.

---

What is reality? What is matter made of? What are nature's fundamental elements? What properties do they have? What is "really" a particle? I am sure that none of those questions will be answered in this article; what is worse: I am not really sure that they can be answered in any other.

---

What I can say is that: Science attempts to model as accurately as possible the patterns we measure in reality to better match what we can observe. Modelling is stating a series of rules, equations, processes or ideas that can explain and predict the observed phenomena with increasing levels of accuracy as the models are updated. For example, Newton's model was able to describe the movement of celestial bodies extremely well, yet... Einstein's model about space and time did the same and much more.

Models are what we have to arrange the information that we gather from the Universe we observe, freeing it from the singularity and grasping the huge regularities. Making models is, above all, compressing the Universe. Newton allowed us to lay in a piece of paper Jupiter's orbit; Einstein, to digest time.

Just like every thought, a model has to anchor in some place in our minds. A part of that is to associate experiences and concepts based on what we already know (standing on the shoulders of giants). Just like when we associate a wave with the effect produced by a rock thrown in a pond. But, waves are more abstract than simple matter moving, observed by the human eye. Nothing guarantees, that we can intuitively understand all the natural phenomena that we observe, based on more or less clear associations that our daily experiences grant us.

A clear example of that.
Do not tell me you can intuitively explain this. I know it is a lie.

---

Back to the superposed feline, we are clear about how wrong it is to state that the cat is dead and alive at the same time (meh, kicking an elderly woman is wrong, we just have incomplete data about the cat). This is a generic abuse of language, a conceptual abuse (after all, it means nothing!).
The answer is in the superposition of both quantum states, we cannot "think" in a classic -daily life- way about it. There's no intuitive method of understanding this reality.

If we want to use a proper speech and not kick elders, we need to say that the cat is in a superposed state, a new category that combines the best of both states (think out of the box!). This is an abstract and incomprehensible category, if we attempt to classify it into our normal language -the one we use to communicate-, in mathematical terms it has a clear and precise definition, that have a result that matches the experiments performed at several labs. This is, even when annoying, using math is the only possible way to get a precise conclusion about quantum prepositions.

Basically, if you do not say it in "math", you're not doing quantum; in the best of cases, you're proposing, manipulating ideas that later someone will need to dump and develop in the shape of math. As it is for now, our daily language is not as useful to describe these phenomena (unless you mathematically understand what is happening).

---

I once heard of a guy that learned a whole language to just enjoy a book someone recommended, the promise of beauty and fulfillment was all he needed. There's poetry waiting to be read in math, where words are just not enough. I, in the best of cases, can attempt to share some with you. In the beginning of the previous century a thin guy with messy hair and soft smile wrote one of the most beautiful poems. It goes like this:

source

---

---

DISCLAIMER: I cannot confirm that a cat was sacrificed for the elaboration of this article. Neither can I discard the possibility. Unless you take a look, in which case, the responsibility is yours: for forcing it to collapse into one of the two states. I, only gave you a box; you are the one that has to open it.