Let me illustrate what I meant in my last post. To understand Schrödinger's cat, you need to understand something about Erwin Schrödinger's wave function. Those of you who are confused about these things need not worry; I don't understand them either.
The wave function is a mathematical equation with more than one solution. So, let's assume there are two solutions for the sake of argument. They are solutions to the possible states of a subatomic particle. The equation tells us how many states the particle might be in and what those states are. When we observe a particle, take a reading of its current state, we will get one of the states the equation predicts. The point is that the act of making an observation determines the state of the particle. The particle is not in that state until we observe it; all the possible states are ... well ... possible!
Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of this principle. The cat is in a box with some radioactive material which has a 50% chance of decaying in 30 minutes. Should it decay, it triggers a capsule of cyanide to break and the cat dies. You open the box after exactly 30 minutes. Opening the box causes the wave function that determines whether the radioactive material decays to collapse, so that one of the 2 outcomes becomes a reality. The question is whether or not the cat is dead or alive during the 30 minutes before the box is opened. Apparently, there is no answer, the cat is neither alive nor dead. If you open to check you immediately collapse the wave function and the cat will be either alive or dead.
The important point is that observation determines the state of the cat. Indeed at the subatomic level nothing can be determined without observation. All subatomic behaviour is indeterminate without observation.
This is interesting because it is like what I have been saying in my other blog about conversation. The scientist is in conversation with nature. You make an observation and nature responds in some way. Usually at our everyday scale of things, we don't observe the paradoxes of subatomic physics but we are changed ourselves by the observations we make and indeed, our observations can change the observed.
The Big Bang might seem at the opposite end of the scale to subatomic physics but the thing that exploded followed the same rules as subatomic particles. Indeed it seems they have a wave function for it. Manjit Kumar in 'Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality' writes on page 357, '- what act of observation could possibly bring about the collapse of the wave function of the entire universe?'
For any theologian this is a fascinating question. I would certainly argue, theologically, the universe is held in existence by the presence of God. So, the answer to this question is easy for the theologian. I would argue this is a good example of an opportunity to demonstrate belief in God is not irrational. However, we need to approach this argument with extreme caution ...
The observant reader will have noted my quote from Kumar above begins with a hyphen. How many readers wondered what went before? Here is the beginning of the sentence: 'The many worlds interpretation allowed them to circumvent a problem to which the Copenhagen interpretation had no answer -'
There are multiple interpretations of indeterminate quantum behaviour and what might look like a problem for one is circumvented by another. Granted the word 'circumvent' implies the many worlds interpretation does not necessarily disprove God's role, I think it does what I suggested and allows us to argue our faith is rational but not that it is true.
With this, I think we should be satisfied. We should be satisfied with rationality, understood as consistency with some interpretations. It allows us freedom to choose how we visualise God and we should be satisfied with that - but there is of course much more to be said.
Comments