Schrödinger's Cat

Schrödinger's Cat

No cats were harmed in the making of this video.

Tweet it –
Facebook it –

minutephysics is now on Google+ –
And facebook –

Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics — all in a minute!

In this episode we discuss Schrödinger’s cat, quantum entanglement, and our perception of reality.

Music by Nathaniel Schroeder

German translation by

Created by Henry Reich Created by Henry Reich


26 thoughts on “Schrödinger's Cat

  1. But doesn't time work differently at that level? In our world it would be a quick perception yet it might be our version of lightyears at that level. Insert "Twilight Zone" music.

  2. What would happen if a blind person did shrödinger's cat. Would nature have to act or would it do nothing. Also, why does it have to be because of the human that nature reacts? What would happen if you put a tiger or an ant instead of a human?

  3. Okay i may be stupid but i don’t understand the end part about who’s observing us. Like the cat is either dead or alive before we observe it, but we dont know, thats it. If the cat died then it saw the explosion, and if it didnt see it it lived. Who cares whether or not we saw it. So what does this have to do with something observing us?

  4. Sure, here’s your answer. Your curiosity to look in the bunker doesn’t “force nature to decide.” Either the cat did explode and die or it didn’t. One of those possibilities has happened in reality (our reality, the only reality). The only thing that your looking into the bunker does is let you know which side of the coin landed face up. It wasn’t hovering, suspended in midair, until you checked and “forced nature’s hand” to cause the outcome. That’s the most moronic notion I’ve ever heard.

  5. "there's no option where the gun powder explodes and the cat doesn't see it explode"…….this completely tears apart the thought experiment cuz the gunpowder could explode while the cat naps, thus not seeing the gunpowder explode. there is that option….because the cat is an organic living being, and isn't a constant. the cat's curiosity for the gunpowder bomb is also a variable, causing an unstable imbalance. either the cat ignores the bomb, the cat triggers the bomb, or the cat defuses the bomb….but it's completely dependent on the cat's actions and/or in actions. that means that before observing the results, it's NEVER a true 50/50 split, just an assumed 50/50 split. it is a true 50/50 split on whether the cat is alive or dead when opened, but that's the outcome not how many times that outcome will occur on a large enough test sample.
    assuming that there is no prior knowledge of the cat's personality to be disclosed prior to being placed in the bunker with the bomb, probability leans towards the cat surviving. why? because factoring in the cat's curiosity, there are more possibilities that would lead to survival all stemming from the curiosity of the cat. either the cat does nothing but doesn't position itself in a way to survive the bomb, or the cat triggers the bomb are the only 2 possibilities of death. the cat's curiosity defusing the bomb, putting itself in a position to survive the blast, and moving the bomb to increase survival odds are possibilities of survival. a dud bomb being ignored or being accidentally triggered are both possibilities, so the odds are 3/4 survival.
    it can be assumed that the cat is 100% alive until proven otherwise, not suspended in a void of simultaneous life and death….and especially a cat where it's literally impossible to map out every single action/inaction the cat will take. the only way to tip the scale back to is to add 2 more variables and that's the health of the cat, and how long the cat is in the bunker without food/water. they can't be counted because they tip the scales to assumed 100% death for sick cats kept for too long.

  6. Essentially, a supremely highfalutin manner of replaying Grecian philosopher Parmenides' great quote:
    “We can speak and think only of what exists. And what exists is uncreated and imperishable for it is whole and unchanging and complete. It was not or nor shall be different since it is now, all at once, one and continuous.”

    ― Parmenides

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *