Schrödinger’s Lump Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 846, 847):

Let us return to the kind of situation referred to as ‘Schrödinger’s cat’. I illustrated how one might set up a quantum superposition of a live cat and a dead cat by using a beam splitter to put a photon’s state into a superposition, where the transmitted part of the photon’s state triggers a device to kill the cat, while the reflected part leaves the cat alive. Use of an actual cat would, of course, be not only inhumane, but taking an unnecessarily complicated physical system. So let us, instead, consider that the transmitted photon state simply activates a device which moves a lump of material horizontally by a small amount, whereas the reflected part leaves the lump alone; see Fig. 30.20. 

The superposed lump now plays the role of the Schrödinger’s cat — though not so dramatically as before! The question that I now want to raise is the following: is the quantum superposition of the two lump locations a stationary state? In conventional quantum mechanics, this would certainly be the case if we consider that each lump location separately represents a stationary state and that the energy in each case is the same (so the resting place of the displaced lump is neither raised nor lowered in relation to its original location). …

Now let us start to bring in the lessons that Einstein has taught us with his superb and now excellently confirmed general theory of relativity. In the first place, we might consider it important to bring in the gravitational field expressed in the background spacetime geometry. We can imagine that the experiment is being performed on the Earth, with the two instances of the lump sitting on a horizontal platform.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the superposition of the two lumps is the superposition of two potential construals of experience of meaning, not two instances of potential. Observation will instantiate the potential as one of the two lumps in one location, but not both lumps in both locations.

The ‘Pilot-Wave’ Approach Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 811):

… the de Broglie–Bohm ‘pilot-wave’ viewpoint (e) appears to have the clearest ontology among all those which do not actually alter the predictions of quantum theory. Yet, it does not, in my opinion, really address the measurement paradox in a clearly more satisfactory way than the others do. As I see it, (e) may indeed gain conceptual benefit from its two levels of reality — having a firmer ‘particle’ level of the reality of the configuration of the system, as well as a secondary ‘wave’ level of reality, defined by the wavefunction ψ, whose role is to guide the behaviour of the firmer level. But it is not clear to me how we can be sure, in any situation of actual experiment, which level we should be appealing to.

My difficulty is that there is no parameter defining which systems are, in an appropriate sense, ‘big’, so that they accord with a more classical ‘particle-like’ or ‘configuration-like’ pictures, and which systems are ‘small’, so that the ‘wavefunction-like’ behaviour becomes important (and this criticism applies also to (d) ). We know that quantum behaviour can stretch over distances of tens of kilometres at least, so that it is not just physical distance that tells us when a system ceases to look quantum mechanical and begins to behave like a classical entity. But nevertheless there is a sense in which a large object (like a cat) seems not to accord with the small-scale unitary quantum laws. …

But whether or not one believes that any particular such measure is appropriate, it seems to me that some measure of scale is indeed needed, for defining when classical-like behaviour begins to take over from small-scale quantum activity. In common with the other quantum ontologies in which no measurable deviations from standard quantum mechanics is expected, the point of view (e) does not possess such a scale measure, so I do not see that it can adequately address the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the two levels of reality in the de Broglie–Bohm ‘pilot-wave’ viewpoint are the two poles of instantiation: potential and instance. The secondary 'wave' level of reality constitutes the range of potential construals of experience as meaning, and the firmer 'particle' constitutes an instance of that potential: an actual construal of experience as meaning. So, since an actual experiment involves an actual construal of potential, 'we should be appealing to' both levels, instance and potential.

In this view, 'classical' phenomena, such as large-scale objects like cats, do accord with small-scale quantum laws, because an observation of a cat is an actual construal of experience of meaning: the most probable instance of potential construals. The improbability of other potential construals accounts for their non-instantiation at scales within the range of immediate human perception.

The thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat ceases to be a paradox when it is understood that 'classical-like' behaviour is an actual construal of experience as meaning, and that the notion of 'small-scale quantum activity' fails to distinguish between such a construal and the probabilistic potential construals of which it is an instance.

The Consistent-Histories Approach Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 810-1):

If the ‘extravagant’ ontology for the consistent-histories approach (d) is adopted, in which reality is represented as a totality of maximally refined consistent-history sets, then a criticism can be raised which is somewhat similar to that of the many-worlds case (b). As with (b), a detailed and precise theory of conscious perceivers seems to be needed in order that (d) can conjure up a picture that is consistent with the physical world that we know. … Alternatively, one might prefer something like the more economical ontology in which a single maximally refined consistent history set might be considered as a plausible candidate for a ‘real-world’ ontology. …

In my own view, a major drawback with (d) is that … it does not seem to get us any closer to an understanding of what a physical measurement actually is than do the more conventional ontologies of (a) or (b). … 

Why, according to (d), do we not actually witness things like Schrödinger cats, in superposed limbo between life and death? The theory does not seem to give any improvement on the standard Copenhagen position (a) in explaining which systems (such as pieces of physical apparatus or cats) should behave classically, whereas neutrons or photons do not. 

… the criteria that have so far been put forward do not do enough to narrow down the model’s behaviour so that an unambiguous picture of something resembling the world we know can arise. This seems to be true both at the macroscopic ‘classical-like’ level … and also at the ‘quantum level’ at which one would hope to see undisturbed unitary evolution. Since the measurement paradox is concerned with the seeming conflict between physical behaviour at these two different levels, it is hard to see how the consistent-history viewpoint (d) is yet in a position to shed much light on this paradox.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the consistent histories approach mistakes potential (a consistent set of histories) for actual instances of that potential. Conscious perceivers are needed because it is a conscious act of perception that instantiates one of the potential construals of experience as meaning (pieces of physical apparatus and a dead cat or a live cat).

Superposed Perception States Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 807, 808):

I wish to make clear that, as it stands, this [the 'many worlds' interpretation] is far from a resolution of the cat paradox. For there is nothing in the formalism of quantum mechanics that demands that a state of consciousness cannot involve the simultaneous perception of a live and a dead cat. … 

Why do we not permit these superposed perception states? Until we know exactly what it is about a quantum state that allows it to be considered as a ‘perception’, and consequently see that such superpositions are ‘not allowed’, we have really got nowhere in explaining why the real world of our experiences cannot involve superpositions of live and dead cats.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the superposition of live cat and dead cat is not a superposition of perception states, but a superposition of potential "perception states" (construals of experience as meaning). Perception involves the instantiation of one of these two potential meanings.

The Many-Worlds Standpoint On Schrödinger's Cat Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 806-7):

What about the many-worlds standpoint (b), then? Here the ‘reality’ of the quantum superposition of a dead and a live cat is simply accepted (as would the quantum-superposed weather patterns of the previous paragraph); but this does not tell us what an observer, looking at the cat (or the weather), actually ‘perceives’. The state of the observer’s perception is considered to be entangled with the state of the cat. The perception state ‘I perceive a live cat’ accompanies the ‘live-cat’ state and the perception state ‘I perceive a dead cat’ accompanies the ‘dead-cat’ state. … It is then assumed that a perceiving being always finds his/her perception state to be in one of these two; accordingly, the cat is, in the perceived world, either alive or dead. These two possibilities coexist in ‘reality’ in the entangled superposition …

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the quantum-superposition of a dead cat and a live cat is the superposition of potential construals of experience as meaning, and so the 'many worlds' interpretation mistakes potential construals for actual construals. What an observer looking at the cat actually perceives is an instance of potential: either a dead cat or a live cat.

The state of the observer's perception is entangled with the state of the cat in the sense that the state of the cat is a construal of experience as meaning by the observer. Importantly, the assumption that the meaning 'the state of the cat' transcends the meaning of semiotic systems is precisely what this experiment, and Quantum Theory generally, invalidates.

Another Variant Of The Copenhagen Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 805-6):

Another variant of (a) would demand, in effect, that the ‘classical measuring apparatus’ is ultimately the observer’s consciousness. Accordingly (if we discount the consciousness of the cat itself), it is only when a conscious experimenter examines the cat that classicality has been achieved. It seems to me that, once we have arrived at this level, we are driven to take a position that is more in line with (b) or with (f). If we take the view that the U rules of quantum linear superposition continue to hold right up to the level of a conscious being, then we are in the realm of the many-worlds perspective (b), but if we take the stand that U fails for conscious beings, then we are driven to a version of (f) according to which some new type of behaviour, outside the ordinary predictions of quantum mechanics, comes into play with beings who possess consciousness. A suggestion along this line was actually put forward by the distinguished quantum physicist Eugene Wigner in 1961.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'classical measuring apparatus' is meaning that is the content of the observer's consciousness (and of any other linguate being who imagines or speaks or writes of it). The 'classical measuring apparatus', as such, is not the content of the cat's consciousness, because the cat cannot construe experience as linguistic meaning — though the cat can construe experience as perceptual meaning, and it is this construal that is the content of its consciousness.

The laws of quantum linear superposition continue to hold right up to when a conscious experimenter examines the cat because it is only then that the potential that the wavefunction probabilistically quantifies is construed as an actual instance of meaning. As previously argued, this does not entail a many worlds interpretation.

The Copenhagen Viewpoint On Schrödinger's Cat Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 805):

Consider the Copenhagen viewpoint (a). As far as I can make out, this interpretation would simply regard the photon detector to be a ‘classical measuring device’, to which the rules of quantum superposition are not applied. The photon state between its emission and its detection (or non-detection) by the device is described by a wavefunction (state-vector), but no ‘physical reality’ is assigned to that. The wavefunction is used merely as a mathematical expression to be used for calculating probabilities. If the beam splitter is such that the photon amplitude is divided equally into two, then the calculation tells us that there is a 50% chance for the detector to register reception of the photon and a 50% chance that it will not. Therefore there is a 50% chance that the cat will be killed and a 50% chance that it will remain alive. 

This is physically the correct answer, where ‘physically’ refers to the behaviour of the world that we actually experience. Yet this description provides us with a very unsatisfactory picture of things if we wish to pursue the physical events in greater detail. What actually goes on inside a detector? Why are we allowed to treat it as a ‘classical device’ when, after all, it is constructed from the same quantum ingredients (protons, electrons, neutrons, virtual photons, etc.) as any other piece of physical material, large or small? I can well appreciate that, in the early days of quantum mechanics, something of the nature of Niels Bohr’s perspective on the subject was almost a necessity, so that the theory could actually be used, and progress in quantum physics could be made. Yet, as far as I can see, such a perspective can only be a temporary one, and it does not resolve the question of why, and at what stage, ‘classical behaviour’ might arise for large and complicated structures like ‘detectors’. Since viewpoint (a) requires such ‘classical structures’ for its interpretation of quantum mechanics, it can only be a ‘stop-gap’ position, in which the deeper issues concerning what actually constitutes a measurement are not addressed at all.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the rules of quantum superposition do not apply to the (observed) photon detector because quantum superposition applies only to potential meaning.

The photon state when it is not observed, as described by the wavefunction, is potential 'physical reality', and probability is the quantification of that potential meaning.

What goes on inside the detector, like the detector itself, is potential meaning until it is observed, and thereby construed as an instance of meaning.

The problems of quantum physics are solved by taking an immanence view of meaning and by distinguishing potential meaning from instances of that potential.

Schrödinger’s Cat As Both Dead And Alive Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 804-5):

We suppose that there is a photon source S which emits a single photon in the direction of a beam splitter (‘half-silvered’ mirror), at which point the photon’s state is split into two parts. In one of the two emerging beams, the photon encounters a detector that is coupled to some murderous device for killing the poor cat, while in the other, the photon escapes, and the cat remains alive. See Fig. 29.7. …

Since these two alternatives for the photon must co-exist in quantum linear superposition, and since the linearity of Schrödinger’s equation demands that the two subsequent time-evolutions must persist in constant complex-number-weighted superposition, as time passes, the quantum state must ultimately involve such a complex-number superposition of a dead cat and a live cat: so the cat is both dead and alive at the same time!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the superposition of states is potential only. The cat is either alive or dead, depending on which photon state is instantiated. The absurd notion of the cat being both dead and alive at the same time simply arises from confusing potential with actual.

Quantum States vs Classical States Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 566):

The answer is that almost all ‘large’ quantum states do not resemble classical ones. The most famous such example is Schrödinger’s hypothetical cat, which is in a quantum superposition of being alive and dead. Why do we not actually see things like this at a classical level? This is an aspect of the measurement paradox which will be discussed in Chapters 29 and 30.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Classical physics provides a model of the actual only, whereas Quantum physics distinguishes between actual and potential, such that the actual are instances of potential. Quantum superposition states are potential states, not actual states, and as such, are not seen 'at the classical level' of actual states.

The Act Of Measurement Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 218):

The Aspect experiment essentially lays to rest Einstein's hope that quantum uncertainty and indeterminism can be traced back to a substratum of hidden forces at work. We have to accept that there is an intrinsic, irreducible uncertainty in nature. An electron or other quantum particle generally does not have a well-defined position or motion unless an actual measurement of position or motion is made. The act of measurement causes the fuzziness to give way to a sharp and definite result. It is this combination of uncertainty and of the collapse of the quantum wave when an observation is made that leads to the paradox of the cat in the box.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is not that 'an electron or other quantum particle generally does not have a well-defined position or motion unless an actual measurement of position or motion is made' but that these meanings are not construed unless a measurement is made.

By the same token, it is not that 'the act of measurement causes the fuzziness to give way to a sharp and definite result' but that the act of measurement — the collapse of the wave — is the instantiation of potential meaning as actual meaning.

In this view, Schrödinger's 'cat in the box' experiment presents no paradox, since it is not until the observation is made that potential meaning — either 'the cat is alive' or 'the cat is dead' — is instantiated as actual meaning .

Resolutions Of 'Schrödinger's Cat' Type Paradoxes Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 212):

It is clear from scenarios such as this that the wave properties of matter applied to macroscopic objects — and especially to conscious observers — raise very deep issues about the nature of reality and the relationship between the observer and the physical world. The cat scenario is deliberately contrived to tease out the paradoxical nature of quantum weirdness in a dramatic way, but the same essential phenomenon occurs every time an alpha particle is emitted by a nucleus, and is busily at work in the radioactive paint on the hands of your luminous clock. 

There is still no general agreement on how to resolve paradoxes like that involving Schrödinger's cat. Some physicists believe that quantum mechanics will fail for systems as large and complex as cats. Another opinion is that quantum physics can tell us nothing about individual alpha particles or cats, but only about the statistics of collections of identical systems, so that we can say that if we were to perform the same experiment with a thousand cats in identical boxes then a certain fraction of the cats (as determined by the quantum rules) will be found alive and the rest dead. But that simply dodges the question of what happens to any individual cat.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the Schrödinger cat experiment supports the view of meaning as immanent (construed in semiotic stems) and invalidates the view of meaning as transcendent of semiotic systems. In the 'immanent' view, it is the construal — the meaning — that constitutes reality. Moreover, Quantum physics, in general, demonstrates the probabilistic nature of construing experience as instances of potential (such as instances of 'what happens to any individual cat').

The Schrödinger Cat Experiment Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 210-2):

Many physicists feel very uneasy about large systems having wave properties that play a part in the outcome of experiments. One reason for their concern is that it is possible to envisage arranging for two waveforms which represent very different macroscopic states to overlap and interfere with one another. The most famous example of this was dreamed up by Schrödinger. It consists of a cat incarcerated in a box containing a flask of cyanide and a hammer poised above the glass (Figure 36).

A small source of radioactivity is arranged so that if, after a certain period of time, an alpha particle is emitted, this is detected by a Geiger counter and triggers the fall of the hammer, which breaks the flask and kills the cat. The scenario provides a memorable demonstration of the paradoxical nature of quantum reality. 

One can imagine a situation in which, after the specified time, the alpha particle's wave lies partly within the nucleus and has partly tunnelled out. This might correspond, for example, to equal probability that the alpha particle had, or had not, been ejected by the nucleus. Now the rest of the stuff in the box — Geiger counter, hammer, poison and the cat itself — can also be treated as a quantum wave. One can therefore envisage two possibilities. 

In one case the atom decays, the hammer falls, and the cat is dead. In the other case, which has equal probability, none of this happens and the cat remains alive. The quantum wave must incorporate all possibilities, so the correct quantum description of the total contents of the box must consist of two overlapping and interfering waveforms, one corresponding to a live cat, the other to a dead cat. 

In this ghostly hybrid state, the cat cannot be regarded as definitely either dead or alive, but in some strange way both. Does this mean we can perform the experiment and create a live-dead cat? No! If the experimenter opens the box, the cat will be found to be either alive or dead. It is as if nature suspends judgment on the fate of the poor creature until somebody peeks. But this raises the obvious question: what is going on inside the box when nobody is looking?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'live cat' or 'dead cat' constitute the system of potential meanings to be construed. It is only when an observation is made that one meaning or the other is instantiated. Put simply, the cat is potentially alive or dead, not actually alive and dead. And, when nobody is looking inside the box, no goings-on are being construed.

Quantum Entanglement Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Robinson (2005: 120):

In terms of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Einstein was saying that if one were to use a precise measurement of one particle's momentum to determine the precise momentum of the other, then this must increase the uncertainty in the position of the second particle. If, conversely, one were to determine the first particle's position precisely, this must increase the uncertainty in the momentum of the second particle. And these changes must take place instantaneously, through some kind of faster-than-light signalling.

Which is exactly what Bohr argued to be true. Bohr believed in non-local reality: the two particles really do 'co-operate' in a sort of conspiracy forced on them by the nature of physical reality. Schrödinger promptly dubbed the new notion 'entanglement'.

It was completely unacceptable to Einstein. He believed in local reality … . In a private letter to Born he said he simply could not credit the existence of "spooky actions at a distance".

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, uncertainty (probability) is a measure of potential, not of instances. So the interdependent ('entangled') probabilities of momentum and position are a feature of the potential, not of the instances, and the measurements of instances of that potential, the momentum and position of particles, actualise those interdependent probabilities.

So, there is no faster-than-light signalling or "spooky actions at a distance" because these notions mistake the instantiation of interdependent potential for an instantaneous information exchange between instances.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Robinson (2005: 92-3):

In 1924 de Broglie proposed that all matter has a wave associated with it, and this was quickly confirmed for electrons by diffraction experiments. In 1926 Schrödinger, in his classic wave equation — aided importantly by Born — replaced the picture of an electron as a particle having a precise position and momentum as it orbits a nucleus with a wave function that predicted stationary waves of electron probability around the nucleus. Schrödinger's equation enables physicists to calculate not the location of an electron at any given moment but its probability of being at any particular point in space. … the electron becomes a probability wave in the Schrödinger/Born model.

Then in 1927 Heisenberg, in his far-reaching uncertainty principle, proved that the position and momentum of any elementary particle such as an electron can never be measured simultaneously with unlimited accuracy. The more an experimenter tries to pin down the position in space, the greater will be the uncertainty in momentum, and vice versa, because the very act of observing the particle (say by firing a photon at it) will inevitably disturb its position and momentum. 

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the uncertainty in the position multiplied by the uncertainty in momentum will always exceed a constant based on Planck's constant h. Other kinds of uncertainty principle may also be derived, such as one which relates the uncertainty in the energy of a particle to the time interval in which one measures the energy.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the wave of a particle is its potential, measured in terms of probability, and the particle is the instantiation of that potential, measured in terms of frequency.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the probability measure of the meaning being construed viewed from the perspective of the observer who is doing the construing.

Wave-Particle Duality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [8]

Edelman (1992: 215):

Quantum theory is the most generally applicable of all theories. In dealing with enormous energies and very small particles, this theory has revealed behaviour that confounds ordinary expectations. For example, one particle cannot be identified as distinguishable from another. Particles show duality of behaviour: Under one set of circumstances they are best described as waves, in others as particles. Indeed, as Max Born first suggested, the fundamental wave function ψ in the Schrödinger wave equation, when taken as an absolute value and squared, is a measure of the probability of finding a particle in a given position of space — anywhere!

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics, wave-particle duality is the duality of potential and instance.  Probability measures potential (wave), statistical frequency measures instances of that potential (particles).

Electron 'Clouds' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1988: 115-6):

The [electron] standing waves are described by Schrödinger's equation.  This defines the shape and extent of the electron clouds, and they are different for different energy levels and different orbitals.  But instead of thinking of the electrons in different shells as neatly outside each other, like a series of onion rings, we have to visualise them all interpenetrating, like lots of ripples on a pool.  Every individual electron cloud extends down to 'touch' the nucleus, and all electrons come under the direct influence of the nucleus, but some more strongly than others.  There are many ways to picture what is going on.  The electrons that used to be thought of as further out from the nucleus do indeed 'spend more time' further out — their orbital clouds are concentrated further from the nucleus.  But the most important thing is that they are less strongly attached to the nucleus.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the standing waves described by Schrödinger's equations construe experience as quantum potential, quantified in terms of probability.  The shape and extent of electron clouds, therefore, construe the potential locations of electrons.  The interpenetrations of electron clouds are, therefore, overlaps of the location potentials of different quantum systems.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [6]

Gribbin (1990: 244-5):

As DeWitt explained in an article in Physics Today in 1970, the Everett interpretation has an immediate appeal when applied to the paradox of Schrödinger's cat.  We no longer have to worry about the puzzle of a cat that is both dead and alive, neither alive nor dead.  Instead, we know that in our world the box contains a cat that is either alive or dead, and that in the world next door there is another observer who has an identical box that contains a cat that is either dead or alive.  But if the universe is "constantly splitting into a stupendous number of branches," then "every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriad copies of itself." … DeWitt's conclusion is as dramatic as the earlier conclusion of Wheeler:

The view from where Everett, Wheeler and Graham sit is truly impressive.  Yet it is a completely causal view, which even Einstein might have accepted … it has a better claim than most to be the natural end product of the interpretation program begun by Heisenberg in 1925. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, there is no paradox in the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, because 'alive' and 'dead' are potential states of the cat only.  An act of observation construes one instance of that potential or the other.

Not distinguishing between potential and instance has caused some physicists to hypothesise a "stupendous number" of universes, none of which can be observed.  Accordingly, the many–worlds interpretation has no claim whatsoever 'to be the natural end product of the interpretation program begun by Heisenberg in 1925'.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1990: 237-8, 239):

The equations of quantum mechanics tell us that inside the box of Schrödinger's famous thought experiment there are versions of a "live cat" and "dead cat" wave function that are equally real.  The conventional, Copenhagen interpretation looks at these possibilities from a different perspective, and says, in effect, that both wave functions are equally unreal, and that only one of them crystallises as reality when we look inside the box.  Everett's interpretation accepts the quantum equations entirely at face value and says that both cats are real.  There is a live cat, and there is a dead cat; but they are located in different worlds.  It is not that the radioactive atom inside the box either did or didn't decay, but that it did both.  Faced with a decision, the whole world — the universe — split into two versions of itself, identical in all respects except that in one version the atom decayed and the cat died, while in the other the atom did not decay and the cat lived.  It sounds like science fiction, but it goes far deeper than any science fiction, and it is based on impeccable mathematical equations, a consistent and logical consequence of taking quantum mechanics literally. …

Everett's world is one of many concrete realities, where all the worlds are equally real … .  But Everett's version is science fact, not science fiction.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the equations of quantum mechanics tell us that "live cat" and "dead cat" are potential meanings ("possibilities") only.  The Copenhagen interpretation is consistent with this view, if 'unreal' is interpreted as 'potential', and if 'crystallising as reality' is interpreted as the instantiation of potential when an observation is made.

Everett's interpretation that 'both cats are real' mistakes potential for instances: potential cats for the cat, potential universes for the universe.  It demonstrates that the misinterpretation of the most "impeccable mathematical equations" can, indeed, result in science fiction.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Theory Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1990: 233-4):

But still the Copenhagen interpretation is intellectually unsatisfying. What happens to all those ghostly quantum worlds that collapse with their wave functions when we make a measurement of a subatomic system?  How can an overlapping reality, no more and no less real than the one we eventually measure, simply disappear when the measurement is made?  The best answer is that the alternative realities do not disappear, and that Schrödinger's cat really is both alive and dead at the same time, but in two or more different worlds.  The Copenhagen interpretation, and its practical implications, are fully contained within a more complete view of reality, the many-worlds interpretation.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "ghostly quantum worlds" are potential meanings only.  The collapse of "their wave functions when we make a measurement" is the construal of experience as statistical instances of that probabilistic potential.  There is no disappearance of "overlapping realities" because these are potential only, not instances.  Schrödinger's cat is not "both alive and dead at the same time" because these two states are potential only, not instances.  The many-worlds interpretation is not "the best answer" because it confuses potential with instance and because, to the extent that it proposes universes that cannot be investigated experimentally or observationally, it is not a scientific answer.

The 'Schrödinger's Cat' Paradox Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [9]

Gribbin (1990: 208):

So, unlike the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen thought experiment, the cat–in–the–box experiment really does have paradoxical overtones. It is impossible to reconcile with the strict Copenhagen interpretation without accepting the "reality" of a dead–alive cat, and it has led [Eugene] Wigner and John Wheeler to consider the possibility that, because of the infinite regression of cause and effect, the whole universe may owe its "real" existence to the fact that it is observed by intelligent beings.

Blogger Comments:

As demonstrated in previous posts, Schrödinger's thought experiment only has paradoxical overtones from the epistemological perspective that was first formulated explicitly in science by Galileo, in which an "objective reality" is not understood to be a construal of experience as meaning.

As demonstrated in previous posts, the mistaken notion of Schrödinger's cat being both dead and alive arises from not distinguishing potential meaning, as construed by the wave function, from instances of that potential, construed as particles.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the 'whole universe that may owe its "real" existence to its being observed by intelligent beings' is the meaning construed of experience.