Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Recasting Schrödinger's Cat Thought Experiment as a Remote Measurement Problem
arXiv
Authors: Lucas L. Brugger, Cristhiano Duarte, Bruno F. Rizzuti
Year
2025
Paper ID
5826
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
123
Citations
N/A
Abstract
With 2025 being declared the Year of Quantum Science and Technology, our contribution seeks to provide a fresh perspective on Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. We reinterpret this experiment by viewing it through the lens of quantum theory as a generalisation of classical probability, rooted in a Bayesian subjectivist framework. In this revised approach, we treat the experiment as a remote measurement problem. Specifically, we explore how the beliefs of two agents, Alice and Bob, who are spatially separated yet share a quantum state, are updated when local measurements are conducted on their respective systems. Through this reinterpretation of the well-known experiment, we also aim to offer an educational perspective that will be beneficial for young scientists interested in the field of quantum theory.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- With 2025 being declared the Year of Quantum Science and Technology, our contribution seeks to provide a fresh perspective on Schrödinger's cat thought experiment.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.