Talk:Schrödinger's cat/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The Cat who didn't miaow

Hello and thank you for this page.

I've read the article and the comments on here, grasped 'the problem', acknowledge the intention -why the cat metaphor was employed, accept the various additional theories but something of the problem is (I respectfully submit) still not making it onto/into the page/article. It's an effort to expose how one method of recordng/observing a latent state is inadequate.

If the cat is/was used to accentuate or highlight the im-possibility of the cat being either dead or alive, but not both; then fine. That should be the end of it and the end to any discussion. -But, there seems more. What other outstanding issues are there?

It seems to me that in the correspondence between S and E, both seemed to know exactly what 'problem' they were referring to but/and so neither spelled it out explicitly. So, the employment of the cat metaphor solves 'the problem' that as the cat cannot be both dead and alive, observations regarding the method used to diagnose the state of the object are inadequate.

The value of the cat is (to me) to introduce a plot and a timeline whereby due to the imperceptible (to the eye) changes to the state of the object, any change in the object triggers a change in the cat. Fine. But, if this is the only value of the cat's presence, then S. is 'merely' critiquing the inadequacy of theory. The cat moves the scenario into reality and out of experimental musing. Fine. But is that all?

There seems to be a whole lot more which, as said, hasn't made it onto the page. And, if this is all, then what's all the fuss about. A schoolboy can grasp the inadequacy of any method.

I suspect, the problem is more profound and while not courting profundity, I think some effort should be made to delve deeper to identify just what that quandary is. I imagine it touches on the Heisenberg Principle where the role of the observer has an impact upon the thing observed but that, you'll agree, is a separate problem/issue not stated in the equation of the cat.

Another metaphor is required (I humbly suggest) if Shrodinger's Cat is to achieve its potential as a valuable critique on scientific method, one where the presence of a sentient being compromises the performance of an object, as in a store detective inhibiting shop lifting or speed signs inhibiting speeding. A better example might be a heart monitor which will not sound so long as the flow of oxygen to a patient is constant. Any deviation in the flow of oxygen to the patient triggers the monitor to sound an alarm. That seems closer to the issue as quite apart from (and independent of) the patient, the catalyst is non-organic. Either a malfunction in the equipment or a change in the patient's breathing may be responsible for the alarm.

So, beyond their agreement as to the inadequacy of the method, why were Ei. & Sh. aroused to the extent their correspondence reveals? Though possibly innovative in their day, their solution seems a commonplace now and yet Shrodinger's Cat lives on, so to speak though the cat has been well and truly flogged.

To finish; rather than search around for possible applications for their solution/discovery; Bishop Berkeleyan hypotheses on presence and absence, the role of the observer in experiments; Cartesian xy axes replaced/displace/improved by a Heisenbergian added Z factor to include the observer of X and Y, let's instead look to what theoretical quandaries typically elude perceivers and see if we can't work from the solution backwards. (My apologies for presuming any of you have time for this). I will try to track down a better translation of their correspondence or other supporting clues as to the problem they were discussing.

Shrodinger's Cat seems only to have scratched the surface of a Novum Organon yet to be articulated. People, scientists included!, seem both to over- and under- estimate their presence as catalysts in all kinds of situations. A new method, an objective correlative (as TS Eliot called it) is needed to augment perception. Hope that doesn't sound too grand. Thanks. PfPorlock (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article, not theories about Schrodinger's cat. I'm not sure what you are saying. Schrodinger just used the cat as a dramatic illustration; it was shocking to people to think that an animal could be both alive and dead at the same time. But the paradox doesn't depend on the presence of the cat, the controversial part is the possibility that any physical object could be in two different states at once. As the article says, Schro earlier used the example of a keg of gunpowder; if the keg was unstable enough that it could be set off by a quantum fluctuation, after time had passed the keg would be in both states, exploded and unexploded, simultaneously. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, you understand that the point of the experiment is NOT Berkeleyan uncertainty: that an observer outside the box cannot know whether the cat inside is alive or dead without opening the box. The experiment raises the possibility that the interior of the box, including the cat, is in a peculiar physical condition called a quantum superposition, in which the atoms of the cat are in two different positions at once, "dead cat" and "live cat"; the cat is both alive and dead. An "observer" whether conscious or not, is not necessary.

By the way, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes, ~~~~ after your text.

Hmm, Chetvorno, this is the problem with genuine attempts to improve pages. You make an accurate observation, >>>> how the core problem/issue isn't being articulated fully and making itself clear on the page <<<<, and you have drive by comments from people like you who speak with all the certainty of Zeus that this page, contrary to the central thrust of my comment, is for discussion of the article, not [for] theories about Shrodinger's cat.

That's known as a wilful misreading and here am I now stuck with having to deal with you.

Of course, if you had actually read and grasped my main point, you might have also understood the need to expand the method, to improve it, if indeed Shr. and Ein. in their correspondence identified shortcomings.

So, if I removed my tail end speculations (which by the way are quite to the point) would you then notice the substance of my post and recant your dismissal? That would be a constructive action, quite unlike what your response currently offers, a patronising ticking off, selective misreading of a genuine effort to get to the heart of what the cat actually represents or could represent within a new method. Citing/typing 'quantum superposition' doesn't impress me so much as your interest in discovering an improved method would. Or is your activity confined to policing?

I promised myself that the very first time I got into one of these exchanges with uncultured half wits, I'd delete my account.

I'll do that in a few days, after I've seen your response. You can start by explaining how you missed the central thrust of my post, as explained above. You can then explain why, beyond identifying the inadequacy of the method, Shr. and Ein got so animated in their correspondence. What was/is all the fuss about? What, tell us, does Shrodinger's Cat represent?

BEYOND IDENTIFYING SHORTCOMINGS in the method of RECORDING/OBSERVING imperceptible (to the eye) changes within the box, WHAT DOES THIS METHOD (OR LIMITED METHOD) contribute to INDUCTIVE REASONING?

The metaphor of the cat box has caught the imagination of the public but at least according to the explanations on this page/article, their excitement is in no way justified. I speculated that we should make the effort to excavate in and around the box to identify worthy applications for a method which this article records as failed or limited.

Now, before I delete my account, let's see how you respond to this post. Thank you.

Please try to be consise - I don't imagine anyone is going to read that wall of text. If you have a suggestion for how to improve the article, please make it, citing sources to support the change. Chetvornobis correct that this page isn't for general discussion of/speculation about the subject. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well GirthSummit, my reluctant but prescient use of CAPS was to encapsulate my basic beef for those who might shy away from the wall of text you refer to, so a plea to be consise (sic) in the face of a sincere plea for elaboration to serve the greater good gets us precisely nowhere, thereby defeating one use of the 'Talk' facility, i.e. to harness widespread interest in the topic such that might contribute something to the development of inductive reasoning. Can you address these 4 lines. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

PfPorlock, the stuff in caps seems to be beyond the scope of this talk page - you seem to be asking questions about the subject itself. If you want to propose a change to the article based on reliable sources, this is the place for that. If you want to discuss the merits of the subject as a concept, you're on the wrong website. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@PfPorlock: I agree with Girth Summit. Also, I didn't "wilfully misunderstand" you. On Wikipedia we all have to deal with people of different ability levels; there are many people who don't understand QM and post long essays on this page. I didn't know how much you understood about QM and was trying to answer common misconceptions that people have about Schrodinger's cat. Also, on Wikipedia we don't engage in personal attacks like "uncultured half wit", see WP:No personal attacks. If you can't work collaboratively with other editors it is probably best that you delete your account. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Chetvorno, mmm. As a result of not reading the wall of text, I failed to notice the 'uncultured half wits' remark. PfPorlock will find that it is not possible to delete an account, but it is possible for an account to be blocked from editing by an administrator. If they direct any more comments of that nature to other editors, that's what will happen. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

If Galileo or Copernicus had argued that the sun didn't orbit the earth, ...but roundly failed to offer an alternative theory, then I'm sure someone would have asked him for one. They'd probably have burned him anyway, not surprisingly homing in on some of the racy language he used to criticise recalcitrant grandees. Taking umbrage is one way of avoiding the issue. Of course, his heretical demolition of the prevailing geocentric model alone would have been enough for some people cursorily to dismiss the substance of his claim, thereby silencing all debate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

PfPorlock, I suggest you start a blog, or join a debating club, or find some other channel to allow you to discuss this stuff to your heart's content. This simply isn't the forum for it. I'm sure you've got more useful things to be doing than this. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 20:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

GirthSummit, respectfully, you've done everything but address CONTENT.

Thanks for the advice but let me worry about myself. Try holding up your own end. As you're fond of citing guidelines, here's a few more.

"Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation."

This article could benefit from more context. In good faith, I sought to explore that by attempting inter alia to discuss a bridge to inductive reasoning to offer context, particularly to lay readers as the metaphor has sparked the public imagination. With such widespread interest it seems an awful shame (and waste) that readers should find themselves at such a dead end. PfPorlock (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

PfPorlock, I'm an administrator - guidelines, and dealing with people who breach them, are indeed my concern. I'm not interested in discussing the content of this page with you, your conduct is the only reason I'm here. If you want to suggest an improvement, please do it concisely and politely; otherwise, move along. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GirthSummit, thank you for identifying yourself as an administrator. I see you sent me a warning yesterday, at 15.15.

To the page editor(s). This article I have previously suggested lacks context. I've suggested a link to the inductive reasoning page which I notice also contains a link to 'Counterinduction' which I believe is important as Shrodinger's Cat, while it is a useful deconstructive critique; an antithesis, it is one which does not formally suggest a synthesis. Any person who comes to the page curious about the cat metaphor will leave it, I have also suggested, without understanding how this topic sits within a larger context. Such links will help direct particularly lay readers better to understand how the metaphor of the cat sits within a larger (epistemological) domain, one which can help locate this rather stand alone topic which, I have also suggested, currently subsists largely as a cultural curiosity with no practical applications. Norman Lederman's paper ('The State of Science Education | Subject Matter without Context') informs my thinking here. PfPorlock (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this article has deficiencies; general readers coming to this page are not getting an understanding of the thought experiment and its implications, as shown by the many questions and misconceptions posted on this Talk page by readers. I don't see how a link to Inductive reasoning or counterinduction will help. I think what is needed is an additional section giving a more accessible, more elementary explanation of the experiment: how on an individual particle level the experiment could actually result in a cat that is both alive and dead. I have planned to write such a section, just haven't had time.

As for the thought experiment being "...a cultural curiosity with no practical applications." that is certainly not true. "Schrodinger's cat" is used as a label, metaphor and explanatory introduction for experiments in an active area of physics research related to "large" quantum superpositions, entangled systems, and the nature of wavefunction collapse, which in addition to advancing fundamental physics have many practical applications, particularly to building a quantum computer.[1][2][3][4][5] Although scientists have not succeeded in putting a macroscopic object like a cat into a superposition of live and dead states, they have made progress in putting objects large on an atomic scale, containing billions of atoms, into superpositions, so they are in two different places or states at once. The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics was given for experimental advances in controlling the quantum properties of single atoms which was widely described as progress in the Schrodinger's cat problem.[6] [7] I would agree with your statement that the article needs "context", in the form of explanations of how and why the thought experiment is used so widely to describe modern quantum experiments. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Chetvorno for your response. We seem to agree on the what but not on the how, but I think the safest course of action for now is to (wish you well and) let you get on with it without any more input from me. (Nobody works well having to look over their shoulder).

p.s. As you go about improving the article, please keep in mind that Shrodinger's critique represents an antithesis to (then) existing efforts to represent reality. Implicit within his critique is the need for a synthesis. Also, I don't think it is the physics which draws people to the Cat. I think it's the cat that draws people to the physics, with all that that implies for how the article page is organised. The experiment exposes a flawed methodology, just one among many which impede clear observation. 'non sibi, sed toti' / Not for one but for all. Thanks. (Martin) PfPorlock (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Pop Culture references

I think the article should include a pop culture reference section. The cat has been mentioned in memes and TV shows,there is a reference to it in Rick and Morty Season 2 Episode 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone26 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity in lead

"It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects"

What is applied to everyday objects? His illustration? The problem? The interpretation?

"It illustrates (what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) applied to everyday objects" "It illustrates (what he saw as the problem (of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) applied to everyday objects)" "It illustrates (what he saw as the problem of the (Copenhagen interpretation (of quantum mechanics) applied to everyday objects))"

Removing 'applied to everyday objects' improves the sentence without losing any meaning (are geiger counters and poison an everyday object?)

"It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics"

And opens up the ground for future simplification.

--TZubiri (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

He didn't believe that the Copenhagen interpretation (theory) applied to macroscopic-sized objects. The Copenhagen interpretation, which said that an object could exist as a superposition of different states or different locations until it was observed, had been amply proven for atomic particles. In fact, it is necessary for understanding chemistry; the electrons which make up chemical bonds which join atoms into molecules are often in several different places at once. He didn't believe that a larger object, like a cat, could be in a superposition, in two different states at once, alive and dead. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with 3 things of what you've mentioned:

1- That the Copenhagen interpretation is true for microscopic objects but not macroscopic objects.

2- That Schrodinger believed that the Copenhagen interpretation is true for microscopic particles but not macroscopic particles. As far as I understand it, the thought experiment is a reductio ad absurdum designed to disprove the Copenhagen interpretation of microscopic particles.

3- That the Copenhagen interpretation, or any interpretation, is necessary for the understanding of quantum mechanics.

The 3rd I can source it cites a physics professors which doesn't teach the Copenhagen interpretation.

--TZubiri (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Einstein quoted as the inventor???

Jordgette (talk · contribs) keeps reinstating[8][9] a dubious claim that the idea behind Schrödinger's experiment "originated from Einstein". The claim is not expressly supported by the listed source; instead, the original editor seems to have deduced it from the chronology of correspondence between both scientists.

The chronology was roughly as follows: having discussed a certain theory for many months, Einstein wrote to Schrödinger about an example of a barrel of gunpowder that might or might not be exploded. To which Schrödinger replied in his letter of three weeks later that he had thought of a similar example - a cat that might or might not be alive.

Now, in my reading, that alone is insufficient to conclude that the cat experiment was Einstein's idea, in absence of a RS that would state this explicitly. It is equally possible that Schrödinger had thought of the cat independently from Einstein or even before Einstein wrote his letter.

I suggest this unsourced claim that the idea "originated from Einstein" is removed from the article as WP:OR unless a proper source is found; I can't remove it due to 3RR. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. But the source says that the correlation is hardly accidental, i.e. not independent thought experiments arrived at independently, however coincidentally in time. And the SEP is a very strong RS. Is it too strong to say that the "idea originated" from Einstein? They are both describing the same thought experiment, although in one case there in no human choice in whether to "open the box" as it were; the powder keg opens itself. I do think Einstein deserves mention in the lead, given his direct influence on Schrödinger's more popular thought experiment. -Jordgette [talk] 01:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the source says about correlation. So how on earth have we arrived at causation?

The Origin and motivation section already mentions the story, including Einstein's name, so I am not really sure we must also add it in the lead section, since this information adds very little to the reader's understanding of the article or is among its most important points (see MOS:LEDE). But if it is to go there, then the right wording in my view would be that the idea was born during Schrödinger's discussions with Einstein in 1935. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. -Jordgette [talk] 14:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

In the Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality book by Manjit Kumar the author retells the story but writes that that Schrödinger was influenced by Einstein's letters to devise the experiment. If I recall correctly this implication wasn't deduces from the chronology, but from an actual letter. If anyone is interested I can find the page number. Guenonposter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"Schrödingers katt" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Schrödingers katt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Schrödingers katt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is false as there is an observer

This thought experiment is false as it says that there is no observer. But actually there is an observer. The observer need not be an alive human it can be anything. So here the sensor that detects radioactivity acts as observer which means there is no super imposition 2409:4041:2E8F:DFC:17BE:48E9:438:52A3 (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the whole box is an observer, so it will all be entangled with the cat. In the end, the box would have to be fully isolated from the environment, which is practically not feasible. But in principle, the whole box-cat-system could still remain in a superposition state. Therefore, even if the experiment is never practically feasible, the idea is still valid and an interesting one. -- Geek3 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Edits on "complementarity interpretation"

Lormaccone has added a new section on the "complementarity interpretation". I've undone their edits 3 times, first because it lacked a source, second because the source was a pop-science book, and third because the source, although reliable, didn't mention a "complementarity interpretation" at all. I conclude therefore that this "complementarity interpretation" only exists in their head. This constitutes original research, and has no place in Wikipedia.

In order not to be in an edit war, however, I will refrain from further reverting and leave the matter to other editors. Tercer (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tercer: Agree, reverted. What the sources are referring to is Bohr's complementarity principle which just says wave and particle aspects don't appear in the same experiment. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what the section I had written talks about: the complementarity principle is the fact that two different properties (e.g. "wave" and "particle" or, alternatively, "health of the cat" and "quantum superposition of its health") do not appear in the same experiment. The "Complementary interpretation" is just a title I gave, I don't care if you find a different title that is more adherent to the cited sources, please suggest one. I thought it sounded nice and catchy. Whatever. I put it here so other (more open minded) editors can decide for themselves. Or, at least, people can find it here without some fastidious editor reverting it:

Complementarity interpretation

Quantum complementarity can be roughly stated as "an object may have complementary properties that cannot be all defined at the same time: you can either define one or the other, but not both jointly". As discussed in , Schroedinger's experiment is designed so that it assigns to a cat a value of some property that is complementary to the property "being dead or being alive". This value is described by the state $|\psi \rangle ={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}{\bigg (}|dead\rangle +|alive\rangle {\bigg )}.$

Since the cat possesses a complementary property to being "dead or alive", it does not possess the property of "being dead or alive". Thus it is neither dead nor alive. As a figure of speech, we may say that it is "dead AND alive at the same time" (since it's neither).

The physical justification of quantum complementarity is the superposition principle, namely the fact that properties of quantum systems (such as "being dead or alive") may be always combined (superposed) to create other properties, as in the above state. This combination creates complementary properties. The superposition principle is encoded into quantum mechanics by saying that quantum states (which express the information we have on the system's properties) are vectors in a linear vector space, the state postulate of quantum mechanics. Lorenzo Maccone (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't put original research in Wikipedia. If your claim is that you have sources for the information that went into the original research, that would make it original research by synthesis. -Jordgette [talk] 17:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Possible valid solution

Without becoming too technical on the whole 50/50% atom decaying and superpositions of wave functions like above, here is a summary of how the thought experiment can be solved:

From the observers perspective, they put a cat in a box, it has 50/50 chance of killing the cat and the longer the test is being conducted the higher the chance of the cat dying.

From the cat's perspective, it gets put in a box, then it waits, then gets taken out of the box as per Quantum suicide and immortality, from the cat's perspective it is always alive.

(It might take a couple of years for researchers to catch up, but whoever reads this can fill in the blanks and figure it out)

("You can't prove Quantum immortality", yes I can, but scientists can't) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.52.79 (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

Add to Category:Metaphors referring to cats 2603:6081:8401:111:6F97:7657:FCAC:62C (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please explain how this is a metaphor. GrayStorm (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Many Worlds anachronism

In the “origin and motivation” section, the final sentence fragment suggests Schrödinger’s intent was to point out the absurdity of the prevailing view at the time: many worlds. This is an anachronism as Everett didn’t propose many worlds until 1957. Wmcleod (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What sentence fragment? I don't see a reference to Many Worlds in that section. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Is ö part of English Alphabet?

Since this is the English Wikipedia, shouldn't we use "Schroedinger" , just like many of the articles linked in the bottom of the page do? Simanos (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No. His name was Schrödinger, this is what most references use, and this is what Wikipedia uses in Erwin Schrödinger. Tercer (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, the same applies to his name article. You admit that many references use "Schroedinger". Many articles use "Schrödinger" as a professional courtesy, but they're not encyclopedias. I don't think some other languages use letters from outside of their alphabets. I find it somewhat perplexing that English Wikipedia does this. No need to get defensive about this like you did. I guess you have discussed this in the past and supported the change strongly or something. Simanos (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

We normally use original spelling: François Mitterrand, Miloš Zeman, Lech Wałęsa, Slobodan Milošević, Nguyễn Phú Trọng, Đinh Thế Huynh, etc. Why should Erwin Schrödinger be treated differently? — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The only reason to use "Schroedinger" is if it's hard to type an "ö". Happily, Wikipedia lacks that technical limitation. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

No, not the only reason. Wikipedia has the ability use other languages and alphabets, but this is the English version, and it should use the English alphabet. We don't use Chinese characters for Chinese names, except maybe in a parenthetical. English text should use the English alphabet. And yes, those non-English characters are hard to type. Roger (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, just imagine that Wikipedia doesn't care an awful lot about some random user's willingness to type non-English characters. Because, well, if you want to co-author a global encyclopaedia article about Erwin Schrödinger, then you'll certainly care to have his name spelled in accordance with the MOS:ROMANISATION guideline. Hint: use Ctrl+C Ctrl+V. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Support using "Schrödinger" --Chetvorno^TALK 21:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roger: Going further by your logics, the French Wikipedia should not contain letters k and w in article titles, because they're non-French characters; or the Czech Wikipedia, the non-Czech letters q, w and x. Yeah, it'll be simply a superb way to build a global encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

So if I buy a PC keyboard in Paris, will the k and w keys be missing? I doubt it. The French can probably cope with those letters just fine. But it is weird to use foreign characters, especially when there are English alphabet equivalents. I see the WP policy is "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged". So we have no obligation to use that goofy character. Roger (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know re. gadgets available in Paris. What I know is that in many Windows applications you can hit Ctrl+Shift+: followed by o on a standard English keyboard, and you'll get ö. Anyway, typing convenience is irrelevant as Wikipedia's notation policies are not based on someone's poor typing skills. Maybe editors who are unable to type foreign names correctly should stick to US-focused articles? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not from the USA (maybe Roger is), but I find your personal attack on US editors. Why are you so angry about this simple issue? I don't even care that much, especially seeing as it already permeates Wikipedia and would be a lot of work to change it all for little gain. But your attitude is really unbecoming... Simanos (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I find it strange to speculate about what the other Wikipedias are doing when we can just check: fr:Erwin Schrödinger, cz:Erwin Schrödinger, it:Erwin Schrödinger, es:Erwin Schrödinger, etc. So no, nobody follows this policy of excluding non-native characters from the titles. Tercer (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

French Wikipedia should also not contain letters it doesn't have. Although it does have K and Q per https://www.frenchtoday.com/blog/french-pronunciation/french-alphabet-sounds/ as far as I can see. You keep trying to catch us in a "gotcha" moment. Is this what you consider arguing in good faith? Simanos (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Without exaggeration: that is the only reason. And it is completely inapplicable here. As of today, exactly 2 of the 43 references cited in the article were presented as using the oe spelling, and upon examining their originals, it turns out they actually used the ö. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's only 1 left now. There were more when I started this topic. I guess someone is changing the references. No big deal Simanos (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should change all those others too. No need to use whataboutism on me Simanos (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Simanos Just noting that the Oxford English Dictionary entry for *Schrödinger's cat* uses Schrödinger, with *Schrödinger cat* as a variant; their entry for the name itself (treated as an adjective) also uses *Schrödinger* throughout, but mentions *Schroedinger* as a variant. So they consider the version with ö to be the standard one. Musiconeologist (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I've a niece with an ö in her name and she's English and Gödel and Schrödinger is how I've always thought their names were spelled. I think any fight for the purity of the English alphabet has been long lost. Probably the variants with oe instead should also be in the leads though. NadVolum (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. I think I don't know enough about English and Diacritic marks to have an opinion. I just objected to some of the offensive replies earlier that were too abrasive for no good reason. Roger and I made some good points too. You're right about the leads at least. Thanks! Simanos (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't suppose many would support spelling Charlotte Brontë without the umlaut!

---- NadVolum (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for new interpretation

There is a new interpretation of Schroedinger's cat that was recently published in Foundations of Physics: [L. Maccone, Schroedinger Cats and Quantum Complementarity, Found. Phys.54, 17 (2024).], which should be added to the interpretations. The basic idea is that Schroedinger's experiment is designed to give to a cat a property that is complementary (in Bohr's sense) to the property of being "dead" or "alive". As such, the cat does not possess (until the box is opened and the dead/alive property is measured) any value for the property of being dead or alive, simply because of quantum complementarity.

I think it's relevant for this page and should be added here as it's a new proposal which is different from the others present here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.111.33.14 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)