Question

Can someone (who really knows about it) explain how can a cat be dead and alive until observed, is this meaning that the cat is phisically in that dual state, or is it only a virtual state or concept to state an uncertainty?

Answer 1

The point is that the cat is neither alive nor dead until you make the measurement.
In quantum physics, the only statements you can make before the measurement are about the probability that the cat will be found to be alive. After the measurement , the state of the cat is fixed and the probability that the cat will be alive is either 0 or 100%, depending on the result of the measurement.

Answer 2

so it is not that the cat is in a strange state of superposition as it is sometimes implied, but that the observer doesn't know yet if it is dead or alive. I mean in Schrödinger's cat experiment the cat inside the box was always alive and the observer only discovered it later. Is this what you mean?

Answer 3

Right, the cat is either alive or dead. Our observation of the matter plays no part in that. It's simply that we cannot know which it is until the box is opened.

Also, observing some phenomena changes its state which is why this question is interesting. If it weren't a cat, but a particle, then to observe it we would have to hit it with photons which would change it. So, it brings up interesting questions about something's state and whether or not the probability distribution that otherwise represents its position/state is solved before or after we observe.

Answer 4

phenomenon

Answer 5

Then that thing about entanglement is not that information travels faster than light but that you know that if here is white far there must be black.

Answer 6

Is it really that simple? then why so many complex concepts like superposition locality and underlying mechanisms..

Answer 7

It's really not that simple at all. The difficulty is that you're trying to force classical logic, which insists that the cat must be in one of the two states
and that there are no other possibilities, onto a quantum problem in which
the fate of the cat is generally not decided until the measurement gets mad
e.
How you interpret this is still one of the issues that people are actively researching, but is at the core of the early debates between Einstein and Bohr.
Al insisted that objects should have well defined-properties at all times, while
Niels had the view that the act of observing was what forced the system into the observed state. So far, the available data seems to favor Bohr's view, but there
are people working on alternate interpretations.

Answer 8

but what is "to observe"? is it that of shooting and receiving real photons from an object or making some sort of indirect interaction, or is it referring specifically to the act of a conscious mind that tries to interpret information?

Answer 9

Again, that really is the crux of the matter. We tend to think of measurements/observations in a very classical way, which becomes
problematic in QM, as there must be some connection between the
objects being studied and the measurement devices. Somewhere in that
connection there needs to be transition from quantum to classical that is
still not that well understood.

I don't think most scientists find the idea that a conscious mind is necessary to be very palatable. (If a creation doesn't imply a creator,is it really necessary for an observation to imply an observer?)

Answer 10

it is that of Einstein who asked Pais, “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”