SCHRODINGER’S CAT ?

by Gerald Huth on October 15, 2009

Disregarding  the facile quotes about the quantum such as Feynman’s “quantum physics deals with nature as she is—absurd”, I always remember what I thought was  Wolfgang Pauli’s truly meaningful  piece of insight that (paraphrased) “nature only answers when you ask the right questions.”

I have always been uneasy with the Schrodinger Cat paradox. I  certainly understood that  it  was an exercise contrasting the quantum and classical views of reality,  but  in the main I dismissed  my reservations as just a lack of  understanding on my part. Yesterday, however, I came upon an item in Economist.com that again attempts to describe the paradox and the thought occurred to me that, in the light of my work, does the paradox really ask the right question?.

The teaching of my work on light interaction with the retina of the eye demonstrates that there are two widely separated time domains operative in this interaction. These are: a) the fast “quantum-associated” time of the order of femtoeconds (10-15 sec) or less that is consistent with  the experimentally demonstrated isomerization of the retinal molecules within receptors during the initial light interaction, and, b) thermalization of the absorbed energy in transit through the lipid membranous structure of the thylakoid disk that forms the body of the receptor, to a slower “biologically useful” time associated with biochemistry, nerve transmission etc.

Thus, two distinct times separated by perhaps thirteen orders of magnitude are involved in light interactiion with retinal outer segments “

I propose that these correspond to the separation of the classical and quantum view of physics and this classical/quantum interaction is effected at each of the millions of light detection sites on the retina. This is the function of the retinal nanostructure as I describe it.

How might all of this be associated with the Schrodinger’s Cat paradox? It occurs to me that two distinct time domains must be operative in the Schrodinger mental construction analogous to the proposal that I make defining a classical/quantum interaction (or transition) on the retinal surface. Separating …the first, accepted quantum nature of the radioactive decay process and, secondly, the slower (classical) nature of subsequent what must be termed classical actions – opening the box, movement of the hammer, etc.

It is obvious to me how this time separation is bridged in the light interaction with the nanostructure of the retina. How can the overtly-classical construction of the S. paradox ever bridge this time separation?

Are we asking the right question?

GCH

Ojai, CA

10.15.09

  • Share/Bookmark

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: