From: helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de   
      
   In article <23a86ac4-341e-4c8f-94a4-6bd9c17902c4@googlegroups.com>,   
   Nicolaas Vroom  writes:   
      
   > In the book "In search of Schroedingers cat" at page 203, John Gribbin   
   > writes: Thew apparatus in the box is arranged so that the detector is   
   > switched on just long enough so that there is a fift-fifty chance that   
   > one of the atoms in the radioactive material will decay and that the   
   > detector will record a particle."   
   >   
   > That means you have to perform this experiment first 1000 times   
   > in order to establish what the half-life is.   
      
   No; you can just use something with a known half-life.   
      
   I read today (bonus points if you can guess where) that a better   
   experiment just puts the cat to sleep.  Why?  Because it allows it to be   
   repeated.  (Though presumably one could repeat it with other cats.)   
      
   > Next he writes:   
   > According to the strict Copenhagen interpretation, just as in the two-hole   
   > experiment there is an equal probability that the electron goes through   
   > either hole, and the two overlapping possibilities produce a superposition   
   > of states (1), so in this case the equal probabilities for radioactive decay   
   > and no radioactive decay should produce a superposition of states (2)".   
      
   Note that this is just standard quantum mechanics and has nothing in   
   particular to do with the article which started this thread.   
      
   > The part near (2) is not clear to me.   
   > What is clear that when you look in the box, you have a 50% chance   
   > that the cat is alive and a 50% chance that the cat is dead.   
   > Because that is the way the experiment is set up.   
   > As such IMO to claim that the cat before you look is in a superposition   
   > state is of physical significance.   
      
   Did you mean "of NO physical significance"?   
      
   The whole point of this thought experiment is to get rid of "IMO".  It   
   is well known that our intuition often fails when quantum theory is   
   involved.  Saying "it just ain't so" won't cut it.  The thought   
   experiment is an obvious extension of the Copenhagen interpretation.   
   What it means is another question.   
      
   > The part near (1) is not clear to me.   
   > Interference between water waves is explained because the wave goes   
   > to both holes.   
      
   This is the Central Mystery of quantum mechanics: repeat the double-slit   
   experiment with a source (of light, electrons, bucky balls---it doesn't   
   matter) so weak that only one particle at a time is registered on the   
   screent.  The same interference pattern builds up over time.  Block one   
   of the slits, do the experiment again, and the interference pattern goes   
   away.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)