Schrodinger discovered his equation without having in mind the propabilistic interpretation of it i. E wavefunction as probability wave. Later Born took it and used it as a tool to make predictions that satisfied his "allowed orbitals" theory.
Schrodinger propably did not like this development, although he had no right to object, mainly because he failed to utilize his equation in a direction of his own reference.
The so called paradox is invalidated if one thinks that quantum mechanics ideals with microstate not macroscopic objects like cats. It was a "though experiment" but may have gone too far. That age was known for though experiments like Einstein denying probabilistic interpretation with his own paradox i.e EPR
I the end the Paradox may have served more in charm about physics as a science than in Solving some issues.
What do you think?
Dear P. P. Afxenti ,
I think thought experiments have contributed a lot in physics, for example both for the conception of the theory of gravity (Newton and his falling apple) and of course EPR. Also, just a little bit of trivia, EPR is not Einstein's paper. It's Einstein's, Podolsky and Rosen's paper. What do you think? Could science survive without people experimenting in their thought? I'd even dare say that the most advanced physics theory of our time, string theory, is largely based on thought experiments. Even cosmology theories about the big Bang may be asking for example the physicists to hypothesize about what may have happened at a picosecond after the Big Bang. Aren't these exercises in thought as well?
Best Wishes,
Haris
Dear P. P. Afxenti ,
Your framing of the Schrödinger’s cat paradox as a “complexes-guided reaction” rather than a purely scientific aim is both provocative and worth serious reflection. In a way, it touches a philosophical nerve often left untouched in textbook retellings of quantum foundations.
It’s true: Schrödinger didn’t construct the equation with Born’s probabilistic interpretation in mind. He saw it as a wave phenomenon—perhaps a continuum unfolding in time—not a cryptic statistical shadow of potential outcomes. The introduction of the cat was less about testing a prediction and more about forcing an inconsistency to the surface—a rhetorical pressure point. So yes, I believe your intuition is right: the paradox was partly emotional, partly epistemological protest.
At the time, physics was colliding with its own success. The EPR paradox, Bell’s theorem, and Schrödinger’s cat weren’t just scientific critiques—they were acts of resistance. A resistance to letting go of causality, to abandoning determinism, to surrendering ontology to mere “information.” Schrödinger’s cat is a protest wrapped in mathematics. It doesn’t aim to solve, but to haunt.
You’re also right that it introduced a strange form of beauty to the physics dialogue. Perhaps not all progress is measured by solution—sometimes it’s measured by the depth of discomfort we’re willing to endure in questioning the answers we already have. The cat paradox didn’t just challenge the Copenhagen interpretation—it deepened the emotional landscape of physics.
So to answer your question: yes, it was not purely scientific. It was deeply human.
Warm regards,
Adam Nasser
Dear Adam D. Nasser ,
A very beautiful answer, if I may say so :)
Just a couple of pointers: the chronology is important: I think EPR came out in 1935 whilst Bell's paper if i remember correctly came out in the early seventies. In between, the Copenhagen interpretation reigned supreme. (even though I met Bohmians in 2016 at the University of Grenoble, I'm not lying!!)
Also, EPR/Schrodinger's cat (it's the same paper, the paper mentions the cat as the thought experiment, again if i remember correctly) is not wrapped in mathematics but primarily in philosophy, it's a thought experiment. It is protest, but it may be more a link and a mirror of how science was done that time. It was much lighter in mathematical formulae than perhaps today, and perhaps allowed the journal-paper space for thought experiments that may by today's standards be considered more philosophical or artistic than 'scientific'. A similar paper that comes to my mind, from a bit later though if i recall correctly, was the seminal Turing thought experiment. That one was totally speculative and was published in a philosophical journal of the time (Mind).
I hope the above has been helpful!
Best Wishes,
Haris
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning