Schrödinger’s Cat Was Never a Zombie
What the Thought Experiment Actually Shows
The cat is not a magical creature suspended between life and death. Schrödinger’s point was that the mathematics of quantum theory becomes conceptually unstable when we apply its microscopic superposition rule without qualification to macroscopic objects. The experiment does not prove that an unseen cat is literally both dead and alive. It exposes a deep and still-unresolved question about what the quantum state represents, why definite outcomes occur, and whether our present mathematical description is fundamental or only extraordinarily successful within a domain.
Keywords
Schrödinger’s cat; quantum measurement problem; superposition; decoherence; density matrix; Born rule; macrorealism; Bell theorem; Leggett–Garg inequality; wavefunction; quantum foundations; objective collapse; quantum gravity; emergence of classicality; incompleteness of quantum mechanics
Thesis statement
Schrödinger’s cat is best understood as a reductio against an uncritical identification of the quantum state with a complete, literal description of macroscopic reality. In ordinary experience a cat has a definite biological condition whether or not an external observer has opened the box; ignorance of that condition is not itself a physical superposition. Yet standard quantum mechanics does not represent a coherent superposition as mere ignorance, and experiments decisively show that microscopic and increasingly large engineered systems can display interference that no ordinary classical probability mixture can reproduce. The intellectually serious conclusion is therefore neither “the cat is literally dead and alive” nor “quantum mechanics has been refuted.” It is that the formalism is extraordinarily predictive while its relation to definite macroscopic facts remains conceptually unsettled. A deeper theory may eventually alter the ontology, the dynamics, or the mathematics that connects quantum theory with gravitation and classical reality. We do not presently know what that theory is, and claiming that we do would repeat the very mistake the cat was designed to expose.
Executive summary
Schrödinger’s cat was not proposed as evidence that a real animal literally occupies a third biological condition called “dead-and-alive.” It was designed to expose a problem created when the linear superposition rule of quantum mechanics is applied without interruption from a microscopic trigger to a detector, then to a macroscopic mechanism, and finally to an ordinary object whose condition appears definite in experience.
The first point to keep fixed is that ignorance and quantum superposition are not the same mathematical object. A classical 50/50 uncertainty says that one alternative is actual and we lack information about which one. A coherent quantum state contains phase relations between alternatives, represented by off-diagonal terms in the density matrix, and those phase relations can alter the statistics of measurements made in another basis. Interference experiments are precisely why one cannot solve the cat problem by declaring quantum mechanics to be ordinary hidden ignorance.
The second point is that decoherence is real physics, not philosophy. Interaction with an environment rapidly transfers phase information into correlations with countless environmental degrees of freedom. For a warm macroscopic object, this makes interference between macroscopically different alternatives effectively inaccessible. Decoherence explains why the world looks classical and why stable records appear. It does not, by unitary evolution alone, insert a new equation selecting one unique term of the total entangled state.
The third point is that no experiment establishes that human consciousness creates an outcome. A detector, camera, molecule or surrounding photon can become correlated with a system without a person being present. Opening the box changes what the observer knows; it does not uniquely define a special human physical interaction absent from the rest of nature.
The fourth point is that the statement “the cat is either dead or alive” is a defensible claim about ordinary macroscopic reality, but it is not yet a fundamental theory. Any deeper account must reproduce interference, entanglement, Bell correlations, the Born-rule statistics that have been observed, and the enormous success of quantum mechanics. It must also explain what makes one macroscopic history definite, if one history is fundamentally definite.
Finally, saying that the present mathematics may be incomplete is not the same as saying that quantum mechanics is experimentally defective. The equations may be exactly right as an effective theory over every regime tested so far and still fail to be the final description of ontology, measurement or spacetime. Quantum mechanics already fits successfully with special relativity in quantum field theory; the unresolved relativistic synthesis concerns gravitation and dynamical spacetime. We do not know whether the eventual deeper framework will modify dynamics, add ontology, reformulate probability, reconstruct spacetime, introduce new mathematics, or do something not yet represented in our present menu of interpretations.
Reading map
-
What Schrödinger was attacking. 2. Why ignorance is not superposition. 3. Why measurement creates a formal problem. 4. What decoherence solves and what it leaves open. 5. What laboratory “cat states” actually demonstrate. 6. What Leggett–Garg tests do and do not establish. 7. What a definite macroscopic cat would require theoretically. 8. In what sense the mathematics might be incomplete. 9. Why quantum gravity is a separate problem. 10. Why predictive success is not settled ontology. 11. Why ordinary cats nevertheless look definite. 12. Three claims that should be rejected. 13. Requirements for a deeper theory. 14. Why physics should not pretend the issue is closed. 15. What could prove this argument wrong.
There is a version of Schrödinger’s cat that has escaped from physics into popular culture. In that version, a cat sits in a sealed box and is somehow, quite literally, both dead and alive until a human being looks. Consciousness then performs a metaphysical trick: the lid opens, the universe chooses, and one of two incompatible realities becomes real.
That is a memorable story. It is also a poor account of the physics.
Erwin Schrödinger introduced the cat in 1935 while discussing what he regarded as a problem in taking the quantum-mechanical wavefunction too literally when microscopic uncertainty is amplified into the macroscopic world [1]. The point was not to celebrate an exotic biological state. It was to make an uncomfortable implication of the formalism impossible to ignore. If a microscopic system can be placed in a coherent superposition, and if a measuring device interacts with it according to the same linear quantum dynamics, and if that device controls a lethal mechanism, then the mathematics seems to carry the superposition outward until the description contains two macroscopically different branches: one with a live cat and one with a dead cat.
Schrödinger chose the cat because the result was absurd enough to force the conceptual problem into view.
The modern argument should begin there, but it cannot end there. Saying simply that “the cat is really either dead or alive and we just do not know which” is intuitively attractive, and it may eventually resemble the correct ontology. But ordinary ignorance is mathematically different from a quantum superposition. Bell-type experiments, interference experiments, Leggett–Garg tests, cavity experiments, superconducting circuits and matter-wave experiments have all made that distinction impossible to dismiss [4, 5, 11–19]. Any serious realist account must reproduce those results. It cannot merely put classical ignorance underneath the equations and declare the job finished.
The real lesson is more demanding: not knowing is not the same thing as superposition, but neither does the success of superposition mathematics tell us that every term in the wavefunction is a literal macroscopic fact. The unresolved task is to explain why the mathematics works, why macroscopic outcomes are definite in experience, and what exactly the wavefunction says about reality.
That is the measurement problem.
Figure 1. Schrödinger’s construction links a microscopic quantum event to a macroscopic consequence. The conceptual pressure comes from applying linear quantum evolution continuously across the entire chain.
1. What Schrödinger was actually attacking
Schrödinger’s 1935 paper, written in the wake of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen argument, was centrally concerned with whether the quantum-mechanical state gives a complete description of physical reality [1, 2]. EPR had drawn a distinction that remains useful: a theory may be empirically correct in the predictions it makes and yet incomplete as a description of what exists [2]. Bohr rejected the EPR conclusion and defended the completeness of the quantum description within his complementarity framework [3]. The dispute was not about whether the calculations worked. They plainly did. The dispute was about what the calculations meant.
The cat intensifies that dispute.
Imagine a radioactive or otherwise unstable microscopic trigger with two relevant alternatives. Call them U for “undecayed” and D for “decayed.” Quantum theory allows a state of the schematic form
|ψ⟩ = α|U⟩ + β|D⟩
where α and β are complex amplitudes and the squared magnitudes of those amplitudes determine the probabilities of corresponding outcomes when the relevant measurement is made.
Now connect the trigger to an apparatus. If the trigger is U, the apparatus stays safe. If it is D, the apparatus releases poison. If we insist that every part of the apparatus obeys ordinary linear quantum evolution, then the coupling produces an entangled state of the schematic form
|Ψ⟩ = α|U, safe mechanism, live cat⟩ + β|D, triggered mechanism, dead cat⟩.
Nothing in the ordinary Schrödinger equation suddenly inserts the instruction: “Now that the object is furry and weighs several kilograms, choose one branch.”
That is the problem.
The popular slogan says the cat is “both dead and alive.” But the more precise statement is that the formal state vector contains a coherent sum of components correlated with macroscopically distinct outcomes. Whether those components are all equally real, merely possible, branches of one universal state, elements of an observer-relative description, or signs that the equation has been pushed beyond its domain is an interpretive and physical question.
Schrödinger’s cat is therefore not a discovery that cats possess a third biological state. It is a challenge: tell us what the formalism means when microscopic alternatives become macroscopic records.
2. Ignorance is not superposition
This is the single most important mathematical distinction in the entire discussion.
Suppose there is a classical box containing a coin. The coin is definitely heads or tails, but we do not know which. If we assign 50 per cent probability to each alternative, we are describing ignorance about a definite state.
Now suppose a quantum two-state system is prepared in a coherent equal superposition:
|ψ⟩ = (|0⟩ + |1⟩) / √2.
If we measure directly in the 0/1 basis, both the coherent superposition and a 50/50 classical mixture produce the same outcome frequencies: half 0 and half 1 in a large ensemble. If that were the only experiment we could perform, the two descriptions would be empirically indistinguishable.
But it is not the only experiment.
The coherent state contains a relative phase. By changing the measurement basis, that phase can produce interference. A classical mixture does not contain the same phase relation and cannot reproduce the same interference statistics.
The easiest way to see this is to change basis. Define two new measurement states:
|+⟩ = (|0⟩ + |1⟩) / √2
|−⟩ = (|0⟩ − |1⟩) / √2
The coherent state written above is exactly |+⟩. If we measure it in the +/− basis, the outcome is therefore + with probability 1 and − with probability 0.
A 50/50 classical mixture of |0⟩ and |1⟩ behaves differently. Half the ensemble starts in |0⟩ and half in |1⟩. In the +/− basis, each of those states gives 50/50 outcomes. The mixture therefore gives
P(+) = 1/2, P(−) = 1/2.
This is a complete operational distinction. The coherent state and the mixture agree when measured in one basis but disagree when measured in another. The difference is not semantic. It is measurable.
More generally, if
|ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩
then the Born rule gives
P(0) = |α|² and P(1) = |β|²
with the normalisation condition
|α|² + |β|² = 1.
The amplitudes α and β can carry phases. Those phases do not necessarily alter the direct 0/1 probabilities, but they can alter interference in another basis. That is why the quantum state contains more structure than a list of ordinary classical probabilities.
The difference is visible in the density matrix. For the equal coherent superposition, the density matrix is
ρ_superposition =
[ 1/2 1/2 ]
[ 1/2 1/2 ]
For a 50/50 incoherent mixture, it is
ρ_mixture =
[ 1/2 0 ]
[ 0 1/2 ]
The diagonal entries are identical. They give the same probabilities for a direct 0/1 measurement. The off-diagonal entries differ. Those terms encode coherence. In a suitable experiment, they matter.
Figure 2. A pure coherent state and a classical probability mixture can agree on direct outcome frequencies yet remain physically distinguishable. The off-diagonal terms are the mathematical signature that ordinary ignorance is not enough.
This is why the sentence “the cat is either dead or alive; we simply have not looked” requires care. As a statement about an ordinary macroscopic cat in ordinary conditions, it expresses the world as we actually experience it. As a proposed replacement for quantum theory at the microscopic level, however, it is insufficient. Quantum interference demonstrates that coherent alternatives are not generally equivalent to hidden classical alternatives about which we happen to be ignorant.
That difference was sharpened historically by Bell’s theorem [4]. Bell showed that a broad class of theories in which measurement outcomes are determined by local hidden variables cannot reproduce all quantum predictions. Later experiments confirmed the quantum correlations with increasingly stringent closure of experimental loopholes. Bell’s result does not prove that “nothing is real until observed.” It does something much more precise: it rules out a particular conjunction of locality and hidden-variable assumptions as an explanation of quantum correlations.
The same caution applies to the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph result [20]. Under an assumption of independent preparations, models in which the quantum state is merely information about a deeper physical state face predictions incompatible with quantum theory. The assumption matters: PBR requires that independently prepared systems have independently distributed underlying physical states. Later work has examined what happens when that preparation-independence premise is weakened, so the theorem should not be advertised as a premise-free proof that every possible epistemic interpretation of the wavefunction is impossible. What PBR does show is still substantial. Under its stated independence condition, overlapping probability distributions for distinct pure quantum states cannot reproduce the quantum predictions. Again, this does not settle every possible realist ontology. It does rule out an overly simple move in which the wavefunction is treated as nothing more than ordinary subjective ignorance [20].
Bell’s result can be summarised with the CHSH combination. Let E(a,b) be the correlation between two distant binary measurements made with settings a and b. A broad class of local hidden-variable theories obeys
|S| ≤ 2
for
S = E(a,b) + E(a,b′) + E(a′,b) − E(a′,b′).
Quantum mechanics allows values up to
|S| = 2√2.
The point is not that realism as such has been mathematically abolished. The point is that one cannot keep the entire package of local hidden variables used in Bell’s derivation and still recover the quantum correlations. Modern loophole-free Bell experiments have observed violations in agreement with quantum predictions [31]. Any deeper realist theory must therefore be more sophisticated than a local classical ledger of pre-existing answers.
So there are two errors to avoid.
The first error is the popular one: “The mathematics contains a superposition, therefore a macroscopic cat is literally both dead and alive in the everyday biological sense.”
The second error is the naive classical reply: “The mathematics is just ignorance, exactly like a covered coin.”
The experiments do not support the second claim. The formalism does not justify the first.
3. Measurement is where the equations change their character
Standard textbook quantum mechanics contains two very different kinds of evolution.
First, an isolated quantum state evolves continuously and deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation:
iℏ d|ψ⟩/dt = H|ψ⟩.
Here H is the Hamiltonian, the object that represents the system’s energy and generates its time evolution. The equation is linear. If |A⟩ and |B⟩ are allowed states, then a weighted sum such as α|A⟩ + β|B⟩ is also an allowed state.
Second, when a measurement is made, textbooks introduce a probabilistic rule. A measurement produces one definite result with a probability given by the Born rule. The state is then updated, often described as “collapse,” to the state corresponding to the observed result.
These are not the same type of process.
Unitary Schrödinger evolution is continuous, deterministic and reversible in principle. Textbook collapse is stochastic, discontinuous and not represented as ordinary unitary evolution of the measured system.
The measurement problem is the question of how these two pieces fit together if a measuring device is itself made of quantum matter.
John von Neumann made this tension mathematically explicit long before the cat became a cultural icon. If a quantum system in a superposition interacts with a measuring device, linear evolution entangles the system and the pointer. Schematically,
(α|0⟩ + β|1⟩)|Ready⟩
evolves into
α|0⟩|Pointer 0⟩ + β|1⟩|Pointer 1⟩.
The equation has correlated the apparatus with the measured system. It has not, by itself, selected one term.
The abstract measurement interaction can be written as a unitary map. If |R⟩ is the ready state of the apparatus, then a perfectly correlating measurement acts like
U|0⟩|R⟩ = |0⟩|A₀⟩
U|1⟩|R⟩ = |1⟩|A₁⟩.
Because U is linear, applying it to a superposition gives
U(α|0⟩ + β|1⟩)|R⟩ = α|0⟩|A₀⟩ + β|1⟩|A₁⟩.
That final expression is entangled: in general it cannot be factored into one independent state of the system multiplied by one independent state of the apparatus. The mathematics has therefore converted a microscopic superposition into a correlation between mutually exclusive apparatus records. The measurement problem appears because the unitary map explains the correlation but not the selection of one record.
Add the cat and the same structure grows:
α|0⟩|Pointer 0⟩|Alive⟩ + β|1⟩|Pointer 1⟩|Dead⟩.
Add a human observer and, under strictly universal unitary evolution, the observer becomes correlated too.
The formal problem cannot be removed by replacing the Geiger counter with an eye. A human retina is also physical. So is a camera. So is a hard drive. If “measurement” means only “interaction with a sufficiently large object,” the theory needs to state why size changes the law.
Different interpretations answer differently.
Some treat collapse as a fundamental rule. Everett-type approaches remove physical collapse and retain universal unitary evolution, with different outcomes associated with different branches. Bohmian mechanics supplements the wavefunction with additional variables. Objective-collapse theories modify the dynamics so that large superpositions spontaneously localise. Relational and information-centred interpretations revise what a quantum state is taken to represent. Decoherent-histories approaches reformulate what counts as a consistent set of macroscopic alternatives [21, 24].
The fact that this list still exists is evidence of something important: the formal predictive core of quantum mechanics is not the same thing as a universally agreed account of what occurs in an individual measurement.
4. Decoherence explains a great deal — but not everything
Modern discussions of Schrödinger’s cat that ignore decoherence are incomplete.
A real cat is not isolated. It exchanges photons, infrared radiation, air molecules, internal molecular vibrations and countless other degrees of freedom with its environment. Those interactions continually entangle the cat with its surroundings. Joos and Zeh showed how environmental scattering can rapidly suppress coherence between macroscopically distinct states [6]. Zurek developed the framework of environment-induced decoherence and “einselection,” in which certain stable pointer states are selected dynamically because they are robust under environmental monitoring [8, 9].
The mathematics is best seen with the density matrix.
Start with a coherent system state
|ψ⟩ = α|A⟩ + β|D⟩
and an environment in state |E₀⟩. Interaction correlates the environment with the alternatives:
|Ψ_total⟩ = α|A⟩|E_A⟩ + β|D⟩|E_D⟩.
If the environmental states |E_A⟩ and |E_D⟩ become effectively orthogonal, then an observer who does not control the entire environment describes the system by a reduced density matrix in which the off-diagonal terms become extremely small.
Before the environment has fully distinguished the alternatives, the reduced density matrix has the schematic form
ρ_system =
[ |α|² αβ* γ ]
[ αβ γ |β|² ]
where
γ = ⟨E_D|E_A⟩
measures the overlap between the two environmental records. If the environment has barely learned anything about the system, |γ| is near 1 and coherence remains. If the two environmental records become practically distinguishable, |γ| approaches 0 and the off-diagonal terms disappear from the reduced state.
This exposes the mechanism with unusual clarity: decoherence is not a mysterious command that says “be classical.” It is the progressive transfer of phase information into correlations with environmental degrees of freedom.
In simplified form,
ρ_system ≈
[ |α|² 0 ]
[ 0 |β|² ].
Locally, this looks like a classical probabilistic mixture. Interference between macroscopically different alternatives becomes inaccessible.
That is an enormous achievement. It explains why macroscopic coherence is fantastically fragile. It explains why there is a stable-looking classical world even if quantum mechanics is universal. It identifies preferred quasi-classical states. Quantum Darwinism extends the idea by examining how many redundant environmental records of stable states can make those states objectively accessible to multiple observers [22].
But decoherence alone does not automatically produce one unique outcome from the universal state.
The total state after decoherence is still, under strictly unitary dynamics,
α|A⟩|E_A⟩ + β|D⟩|E_D⟩.
The interference has become practically unavailable to a local observer because the phase information is dispersed through the environment. The global superposition has not been replaced, within the unitary equation itself, by exactly one term.
This distinction is widely recognised in the foundations literature. Decoherence addresses the dynamical suppression of interference and, together with environment-induced selection, much of the preferred-basis problem. It does not, by itself and without an interpretive addition, answer why one particular result is the one experienced in a single run [34].
Figure 3. Environmental entanglement explains the practical emergence of stable classical alternatives. It does not, on its own, add a non-unitary rule that chooses exactly one term of the global state.
This is where the phrase “for all practical purposes” matters. A coherence so widely dispersed that no conceivable laboratory can reassemble it may be operationally gone. But “operationally inaccessible” and “ontologically nonexistent” are not identical statements.
The difference is philosophy only if no physical theory could ever distinguish them. Objective-collapse models are interesting precisely because they turn the difference into physics.
5. The cat is not the same thing as a laboratory “cat state”
Modern experiments routinely use the term “Schrödinger cat state.” This can create confusion because these systems are not cats and often are not macroscopically distinct in the everyday sense.
A cat state is generally a coherent superposition of two states that are sufficiently distinguishable in some physical degree of freedom. Researchers have produced such states in trapped ions, cavity electromagnetic fields, superconducting circuits and other engineered systems [11, 14, 15, 32].
Friedman and colleagues, for example, reported evidence for coherent superpositions of macroscopically distinct magnetic-flux states in a superconducting quantum interference device [11]. Deléglise and colleagues reconstructed non-classical cavity fields, including cat states, and directly tracked their decoherence through the disappearance of interference structure in the Wigner function [14]. Wang and colleagues generated a two-mode cat state distributed across two microwave cavities and performed high-dimensional state tomography [15].
Matter-wave interferometry pushes in another direction. Molecules far larger than atoms have been placed in interference experiments in which their centre-of-mass motion must be described coherently to explain the observed patterns [12, 13, 17]. More recent nanoparticle work has pushed mass and complexity still further [18].
These experiments matter because they demonstrate that superposition is not merely a bookkeeping convention for tiny pointlike particles. Quantum coherence can involve collective variables and comparatively large composite systems.
But one must be precise about what has been demonstrated.
A superconducting loop with two coherent current directions is not a mammal simultaneously undergoing two complete metabolic histories. A cavity field with two separated coherent amplitudes is not a living organism with billions of interacting cells, an internal thermal environment and relentless coupling to the outside world. “Macroscopic” has several technical meanings, and researchers have proposed quantitative measures to compare different experiments rather than treating mass, particle number or spatial separation as interchangeable notions [13, 33].
The empirical trend is therefore not “we have proved that ordinary cats are dead and alive.” It is that the domain over which controlled coherent superpositions can be engineered has expanded remarkably. That makes the foundational question sharper, not weaker.
If quantum linearity fails at some scale, experiments should eventually find the deviation. If it never fails, then a satisfactory account of definite experience must explain how the classical world emerges without changing the underlying unitary dynamics.
6. Can we simply insist on macroscopic realism?
Leggett and Garg turned a version of the cat intuition into a testable framework [5].
Their first assumption, macroscopic realism, says that a macroscopic system with distinct available states is at any time actually in one of them. Their second assumption, non-invasive measurability, says that it is possible in principle to determine which state it is in without significantly disturbing its subsequent evolution. This second assumption is not decorative. It is structurally load-bearing: if obtaining the information necessarily changes the later dynamics, a temporal-correlation violation cannot be interpreted as a clean test of pre-existing values without further work.
From assumptions of this general kind one can derive inequalities constraining temporal correlations. Quantum mechanics can violate those inequalities. Experiments, including superconducting-circuit experiments, have observed violations consistent with quantum predictions [16].
For a dichotomic macroscopic variable Q taking values +1 or −1, define the two-time correlation Cᵢⱼ as the average of Q(tᵢ)Q(tⱼ). A standard three-time Leggett–Garg expression is
K₃ = C₁₂ + C₂₃ − C₁₃.
Under the usual macrorealist and non-invasive-measurement assumptions,
K₃ ≤ 1.
An ideal two-level quantum system can reach
K₃ = 3/2.
The inequality therefore converts a philosophical-sounding question — “was the property there between observations?” — into a constraint on measurable temporal statistics. But the conclusion remains conditional on the assumptions used to derive the bound, especially the treatment of measurement disturbance.
Does that prove that a cat is not definitely dead or alive before we look?
No. That conclusion is too quick.
Leggett–Garg tests depend on assumptions about measurement disturbance, and the interpretation of a violation requires care. Maroney and Timpson emphasised that different forms of macrorealism must be distinguished and that a violation does not simply annihilate every imaginable realist model [19]. Modern reviews likewise stress the role of loopholes and operational assumptions in temporal-correlation tests [23].
The scientifically responsible position is therefore narrower.
Experiments make it difficult to maintain naive macrorealism plus naive non-invasive measurability plus ordinary quantum predictions all at once. They do not prove that macroscopic facts are created by human awareness. They do not prove that every macroscopic object exists in a literal everyday combination of mutually exclusive conditions. They tell us that the relationship between definite values, measurement and dynamics is subtler than classical intuition alone suggests.
The cat thought experiment remains valuable precisely because it refuses to let us hide that subtlety behind vocabulary.
7. What “the cat is either dead or alive” can legitimately mean
There is a sensible realist statement buried inside the ordinary reaction to the paradox:
A macroscopic biological organism has a definite condition independent of whether a distant human observer has acquired information about it.
That statement captures a powerful intuition about objective reality. It rejects the childish idea that consciousness manufactures the cat’s biology at the instant the lid opens.
Nothing in ordinary laboratory practice requires the human mind to perform a special physical operation. Detectors record results without anyone watching in real time. Environmental interactions occur continually. Decoherence happens because of physical coupling, not because a person pays attention.
The difficulty is that this realist statement is not yet a complete theory.
A complete theory must say what physical variables have definite values, how they evolve, how the wavefunction relates to them, how entanglement works, how Bell correlations arise, why interference occurs, why definite outcomes appear, and what predictions differ — if any — from standard quantum mechanics.
It is not enough to say: “The cat was definite all along.” One must write down the dynamics.
That is why objective-collapse models are more scientifically serious than a verbal appeal to common sense. Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber proposed an explicit modification of quantum dynamics in which spontaneous localisation is negligible for microscopic systems but amplified for macroscopic ones [7]. Later collapse frameworks developed this idea in greater mathematical detail and produced experimental constraints [10, 25, 26]. These theories may be wrong, but they do what a physical alternative must do: replace a slogan with equations and expose themselves to falsification.
Likewise, a hidden-variable theory must reproduce Bell-test results without violating the assumptions Bell proved incompatible. An epistemic account must survive no-go theorems such as PBR under the relevant premises [20]. A universal-unitary theory must explain probabilities, branches and experienced uniqueness. Every option pays a price somewhere.
That is exactly what one should expect when a theory is empirically excellent but conceptually unfinished.
8. Is the mathematics “wrong”?
Here we need a careful use of the word.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics is not wrong in the ordinary predictive sense. It is among the most accurately tested mathematical frameworks in science. Quantum electrodynamics, atomic spectroscopy, semiconductor physics, lasers, superconductivity, chemistry and quantum information all rely on its structure.
Calling the mathematics simply “wrong” would therefore be misleading.
But there is another sense in which a successful mathematical theory can be incomplete.
Newtonian mechanics is not useless because relativity exists. Newton’s equations are extraordinarily accurate in their proper regime. What changed was our understanding of their domain and of the deeper structures from which they can be recovered as an approximation.
The same possibility remains open for quantum mechanics.
The standard formalism may be exactly the correct effective description across an enormous domain while still failing to be the final ontology or the final dynamics. Objective-collapse theories explicitly explore one route by modifying the Schrödinger equation [7, 10, 25, 26]. Hidden-variable theories alter the ontology while preserving much of the formal prediction machinery. Everettian approaches keep the unitary mathematics but reinterpret what its terms represent. Decoherent histories reorganises the framework around consistent histories rather than fundamental measurement events [24].
The correct claim, then, is not “we know the equations are mathematically false.” It is:
We do not know whether the present formalism is fundamental, complete, or merely the extraordinarily accurate limiting description of a deeper theory.
There is a useful distinction here between equations being wrong as calculations and a mathematical framework being wrong as the final map of reality. Newtonian mechanics is “wrong” as a universal theory of spacetime while remaining right enough to land aircraft, design bridges and calculate a vast class of trajectories. If a future theory shows that the quantum state, collapse rule, Hilbert-space structure, Born probabilities or spacetime background emerge from something deeper, standard quantum mechanics could occupy the same logical position: indispensable, accurate, derivable in its domain, and nevertheless not fundamental.
That is the sense in which it is legitimate to say that our mathematics may be wrong. Not because present experiments have shown the quantum formalism to fail, but because predictive success inside a domain does not logically establish that the framework contains the final ontology or the final variables. A successor theory earns its status only if it explains why the old mathematics worked so well.
That is a stronger scientific statement because it says exactly what is and is not established.
9. Quantum mechanics and relativity: another place where incompleteness shows
The cat problem is often mixed together with the search for quantum gravity. They are related as symptoms of foundational incompleteness, but they are not the same technical problem.
Quantum mechanics has already been combined successfully with special relativity in relativistic quantum field theory. The Standard Model is built in that framework.
The difficult marriage is between quantum theory and general relativity, Einstein’s dynamical theory of spacetime and gravitation.
At ordinary energies, gravity can be treated as an effective quantum field theory, and this produces meaningful low-energy quantum corrections [27]. What we lack is an experimentally confirmed, complete high-energy theory of quantum gravity that replaces or transcends our current approximations in regimes where quantum effects of spacetime itself become essential [28].
This matters for intellectual hygiene. One should not say that “quantum mechanics and relativity have never been joined.” Special relativity and quantum theory have been joined with spectacular success. The unresolved issue is the deeper synthesis involving gravitation and spacetime.
Nor do we know that the future solution will consist specifically of “new mathematics.” It may. History gives plenty of reasons to expect new mathematical structures when physics advances. But the evidence does not allow us to assert in advance what form the deeper theory must take.
The most defensible expectation is broader: a deeper framework may require new physical principles, new mathematical structures, or both, and our current theories should emerge from it as limiting cases where they are already known to work.
That is how progress in physics normally earns the right to replace a successful theory. It does not erase the old theory. It explains why the old theory worked.
10. The uncomfortable middle: prediction without settled ontology
Modern physics is in an unusual position.
On one side, quantum theory has an extraordinary experimental record. We can manipulate interference, entanglement and coherent superpositions with exquisite control. The success is not rhetorical; it is engineered into devices.
On the other side, there is no single agreed answer to a very simple-sounding question:
What physically happens in one measurement?
The answers differ drastically.
A collapse theory says the state really reduces according to a modified dynamics.
An Everettian says there is no fundamental collapse; unitary evolution continues and observers become correlated with different outcomes.
A Bohmian says particles possess definite configurations guided by the wavefunction.
A Copenhagen-style account places limits on what the quantum formalism is supposed to describe and treats measurement outcomes as primitive in some form.
A relational approach makes quantum states relative to physical systems or observers.
A decoherent-histories framework treats consistent coarse-grained histories as the right objects for probabilistic description.
These approaches can reproduce the same ordinary experimental statistics over a wide domain. That empirical equivalence is why the controversy persists.
The public often mistakes predictive precision for complete conceptual understanding. They are different achievements.
We know with astonishing accuracy how to calculate probabilities for many quantum experiments. We do not have universal agreement about what the quantum state is, whether collapse is physical, whether all branches are real, whether outcomes are absolute, or how classical definiteness is ultimately grounded.
Recent extensions of Wigner’s-friend reasoning make the tension even sharper. Frauchiger and Renner showed that applying quantum reasoning to agents who themselves use quantum theory can generate inconsistent conclusions under a specific conjunction of assumptions [21]. Bong and colleagues derived a strong no-go theorem showing that, if quantum control extends to observer-scale systems, certain plausible assumptions about locality, freedom and absolute observed events cannot all survive [29]. These results do not provide one final interpretation. They narrow the space in which a final interpretation can live.
This is not a weakness of science. It is science honestly locating the boundary between what has been established and what remains open.
11. Why the cat probably has a definite fate in any ordinary box
Now return to the actual animal.
A real cat is warm, chemically active, structurally complex and strongly coupled to an environment. Any coherence between macroscopically distinct biological configurations would be extraordinarily vulnerable to environmental entanglement. The relevant environmental states would become effectively distinguishable on timescales so short that recovering interference would be fantastically beyond ordinary control [6, 8, 9].
That means the reduced state of the cat rapidly becomes, for all practical observations, indistinguishable from an ordinary statistical mixture of macroscopically definite alternatives.
This is why everyday language works: the cat is dead or alive. Nobody needs to open the box for photons, molecules and internal degrees of freedom to interact with it. There is no privileged role for human eyeballs.
But the phrase “for all practical observations” is doing important work.
If standard unitary quantum mechanics is exact and universal, decoherence gives us effectively autonomous branches rather than one dynamically selected global branch. If an objective-collapse theory is right, then there is a real physical process that removes the superposition. If a hidden-variable theory is right, additional ontic variables may specify a definite configuration. If some still-unknown framework is right, our present vocabulary may turn out to be as inadequate as pre-relativistic language about absolute time.
The everyday proposition “the cat has a definite fate” is therefore plausible and operationally overwhelming. The foundational question is what in the fundamental theory makes that proposition true.
That last step is not supplied merely by our ignorance.
12. Three claims that should be rejected
A rigorous account of Schrödinger’s cat should reject three common claims.
Claim 1: “The cat is literally both dead and alive until a conscious observer looks.”
This is not a result established by experiment. It is one dramatic reading of a formal superposition when the measurement chain is treated unitarily. Consciousness is not required for decoherence, environmental record formation or ordinary detector operation.
Claim 2: “The cat was simply in one state all along, exactly like a hidden coin, and quantum mechanics is only ignorance.”
That is too simple. Coherent superpositions and classical mixtures differ experimentally. Bell-type constraints, PBR-style results under their assumptions, interference and temporal-correlation experiments show that ordinary classical ignorance cannot simply be substituted for the quantum state without additional theoretical structure [4, 5, 16, 19, 20].
Claim 3: “Physics has solved this and anyone still asking questions is confused.”
This is also false.
Decoherence has solved important parts of the quantum-to-classical transition. It explains the suppression of accessible interference and the emergence of robust preferred states. It does not, by itself, force all physicists into one ontology or produce a universally accepted account of single outcomes. Competing interpretations and modified theories remain active because the foundational issue has not disappeared [8, 9, 21, 24–26, 29, 30].
The serious position lies between credulity and denial.
13. What a deeper theory would have to accomplish
Suppose quantum mechanics is not the final theory. What would a successor have to do?
First, it would have to reproduce the enormous body of successful quantum predictions in the regimes already tested.
Second, it would have to explain interference. It could not replace superposition with ordinary ignorance and still match the data.
Third, it would have to reproduce entanglement correlations while respecting the constraints exposed by Bell’s theorem and later no-go results.
Fourth, it would have to explain why macroscopic records are stable and why ordinary objects exhibit effective classicality.
Fifth, it would have to state clearly what constitutes a physical state, what constitutes an event, and whether probabilities describe ignorance, objective chance, branching weight, relational information or something else.
Sixth, if the theory also aims to unite quantum physics with gravitation, it must recover quantum field theory and general relativity in their successful domains while giving a consistent account of regimes in which both quantum effects and strong spacetime dynamics matter.
Seventh, it must make at least some new empirical difference, even if that difference appears only in an extreme regime. Otherwise it may be a reinterpretation rather than a distinct physical theory.
This is why the missing theory cannot be conjured by philosophy alone. It needs mathematics, physical principles and ultimately experiments.
But it is equally why mathematical success alone does not guarantee ontological completeness.
14. We are not entitled to pretend the last chapter has been written
The most damaging simplification in popular accounts of quantum theory is not that they make the world seem strange. The world may in fact be strange.
The damaging simplification is that they turn unsettled foundational questions into settled metaphysical slogans.
“Everything exists in superposition until you look.”
“Consciousness creates reality.”
“The cat is both dead and alive.”
“Quantum mechanics proves objective reality does not exist.”
None of those statements follows straightforwardly from the experimental record.
What the record does show is both more modest and more profound.
Quantum coherence is real in the operational sense that coherent preparations produce interference effects that classical mixtures do not. Entanglement produces correlations that exclude broad classes of local hidden-variable explanations. Controlled “cat states” can be engineered in systems far larger and more complex than the atomic examples of early quantum theory. Environmental coupling explains why such coherence becomes extraordinarily difficult to preserve as systems grow in complexity. Modified-dynamics theories remain experimentally testable, and the parameter space available to them continues to be constrained.
And yet, after all of that, the question of how the mathematical state relates to one definite macroscopic history is not closed by a universal consensus.
That is the point at which intellectual humility is not optional.
We should not say that an unopened cat has no state because we have not acquired information about it. Our ignorance is a fact about us, not automatically a fact about the cat.
We should also not pretend that simply assigning the cat a hidden classical condition solves quantum mechanics. Any deeper account has to reproduce the interference and correlation phenomena that made quantum theory necessary in the first place.
The correct position is harder than either slogan.
A real cat in a real box will, for every practical purpose available to us, have one macroscopic biological fate. The quantum formalism, when naively extended through the entire measurement chain, gives a structure that contains correlated alternatives. Decoherence explains why those alternatives cease to interfere locally and why the world looks classical. But whether one outcome is selected fundamentally, whether all branches persist, whether additional variables specify the outcome, or whether an unknown deeper framework changes the question remains unsettled.
The mathematics we have is spectacularly successful.
That does not mean it is the final mathematics.
15. What could prove this argument wrong?
A serious argument should state what would count against it. Otherwise “perhaps there is a deeper theory” can degenerate into an unfalsifiable refuge for dissatisfaction.
One possible defeat would be conceptual rather than experimental. Suppose a formulation of unitary quantum mechanics were developed that derived, without inserting an additional collapse postulate, all of the following from a small and independently motivated set of principles: a unique account of records, an unambiguous derivation of the Born probabilities, a precise explanation of why observers report single outcomes, and a solution to the preferred-description problem that did not depend on shifting the ambiguity into words such as “branch”, “observer” or “world”. If that framework achieved broad theoretical agreement and produced no residual ambiguity about what is physically real, the claim that the measurement problem signals incompleteness would be substantially weakened. The remaining dispute might then be metaphysical rather than physical.
A second possible defeat would come from experiment in the opposite direction. Objective-collapse theories predict departures from exact unitary quantum mechanics. As interferometers, optomechanical systems, matter-wave experiments and precision measurements test increasingly massive systems, they restrict the parameter space in which spontaneous-collapse effects could hide [25, 26]. If every experimentally meaningful collapse model were driven into a regime where it either became empirically indistinguishable from standard quantum theory or lost its ability to solve the macroscopic-outcome problem, one major route to modified dynamics would close. That would not prove Everett, Bohm, Copenhagen, relational quantum mechanics or decoherent histories, but it would remove one class of candidate explanations.
A third possible defeat would concern the realist premise about the ordinary cat. If an experiment could prepare and later recombine two genuinely macroscopically distinct biological configurations while demonstrating interference between them, the simple statement “the organism possessed one ordinary biological condition throughout” would become untenable unless supplemented by a deeper theory capable of explaining that interference. Nothing remotely like this has been achieved with an animal. Existing cat states are impressive precisely because they isolate particular collective degrees of freedom and protect them from decoherence; they do not demonstrate coherent superposition of an organism’s complete living and dead biological histories [11, 14, 15, 18, 32].
A fourth possible defeat would arise if a future quantum theory of gravity showed that the measurement problem was not a symptom of incompleteness at all but an artefact of asking the wrong question in a framework that presupposes a classical temporal structure. In that case the deeper theory might not “add a missing collapse mechanism”. It might dissolve the old categories of system, observer, time and outcome. This possibility is one reason not to dictate in advance that the missing theory must look like a modified Schrödinger equation.
Finally, the central thesis would be wrong if ordinary classical ignorance could reproduce every confirmed quantum interference and entanglement experiment without abandoning the assumptions those experiments actually test. Bell’s theorem, PBR under preparation independence, matter-wave interference and Leggett–Garg analyses are precisely why that easy escape is unavailable [4, 5, 12, 17–20, 31]. Any claimed deeper realism must therefore be mathematically richer than “the answer was there all along and quantum probability merely described our ignorance.”
This is the constraint that keeps the argument scientific. The cat is not permission to reject quantum mechanics whenever its interpretation is uncomfortable. It is permission to distinguish predictive success from final explanation, and then to demand that any replacement do more work, not less.
Conclusion
Schrödinger’s cat was never supposed to be a zoological claim. It was a warning about the danger of confusing a mathematical representation with a complete account of reality.
The ordinary statement “the cat is either alive or dead, even before I look” captures a reasonable realist intuition about macroscopic objects. But physics demands more than intuition. A coherent quantum superposition is not the same as a classical probability distribution over already-existing alternatives. The off-diagonal terms of the density matrix matter. Interference matters. Bell correlations matter. Leggett–Garg tests matter. Cat-state experiments matter. Any future theory must keep those successes.
At the same time, the fact that the quantum formalism works does not force us to claim that a macroscopic animal is literally in two biological conditions in the naive everyday meaning of those words. The relationship between the universal quantum state and the occurrence of one definite macroscopic outcome remains a foundational question.
It is therefore reasonable to suspect that our present description is incomplete. But it is not scientifically justified to declare in advance exactly what replaces it. The missing step might be a modification of dynamics, a deeper ontology, a reformulation of probability, a new account of spacetime, new mathematics, or some combination we have not yet imagined.
Physics has repeatedly advanced by discovering that an extraordinarily successful theory was not the final theory.
Schrödinger’s cat should remind us of the same possibility.
The cat does not teach that reality waits for us to look.
It teaches that our equations may know how to predict before we know what, exactly, they are describing.
References
-
Schrödinger, E. (1935). “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik.” Naturwissenschaften 23, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849. English translation by J. D. Trimmer, “The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A Translation of Schrödinger’s ‘Cat Paradox’ Paper,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124, 323–338 (1980). Open copy: https://materias.df.uba.ar/f4Aa2012c2/files/2012/08/Schrod_cat.pdf
-
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47, 777–780. Open copy: https://cds.cern.ch/record/405662/files/PhysRev.47.777.pdf
-
Bohr, N. (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 48, 696–702. Open copy: https://www.ub.edu/hcub/hfq/sites/default/files/EPR_BOHR.pdf
-
Bell, J. S. (1964). “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.” Physics 1, 195–200. Open copy: https://s3.cern.ch/inspire-prod-files-6/67578c1d19ace842e25198fa5675442e
-
Leggett, A. J., & Garg, A. (1985). “Quantum Mechanics versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There when Nobody Looks?” Physical Review Letters 54, 857–860. Open full text: https://harvest.aps.org/v2/journals/articles/10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.857/fulltext
-
Joos, E., & Zeh, H. D. (1985). “The Emergence of Classical Properties Through Interaction with the Environment.” Zeitschrift für Physik B 59, 223–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01725541
-
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). “Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems.” Physical Review D 34, 470–491. Open full text: https://harvest.aps.org/v2/journals/articles/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470/fulltext
-
Zurek, W. H. (2003). “Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical.” Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 715–775. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105127
-
Paz, J. P., & Zurek, W. H. (2000/2001). “Environment-Induced Decoherence and the Transition From Quantum to Classical.” arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010011
-
Bassi, A., & Ghirardi, G. C. (2003). “Dynamical Reduction Models.” Physics Reports 379, 257–426. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302164
-
Friedman, J. R., Patel, V., Chen, W., Tolpygo, S. K., & Lukens, J. E. (2000). “Quantum Superposition of Distinct Macroscopic States.” Nature 406, 43–46. Preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0004293
-
Hackermüller, L., Uttenthaler, S., Hornberger, K., Reiger, E., Brezger, B., Zeilinger, A., & Arndt, M. (2003). “The Wave Nature of Biomolecules and Fluorofullerenes.” Physical Review Letters 91, 090408. Preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0309016
-
Arndt, M., & Hornberger, K. (2014). “Testing the Limits of Quantum Mechanical Superpositions.” Nature Physics 10, 271–277. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.0270
-
Deléglise, S., Dotsenko, I., Sayrin, C., Bernu, J., Brune, M., Raimond, J.-M., & Haroche, S. (2008). “Reconstruction of Non-Classical Cavity Field States with Snapshots of Their Decoherence.” Nature 455, 510–514. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1064
-
Wang, C., Gao, Y. Y., Reinhold, P., Heeres, R. W., Ofek, N., Chou, K., Axline, C., Reagor, M., Blumoff, J., Sliwa, K. M., Frunzio, L., Girvin, S. M., Jiang, L., Mirrahimi, M., Devoret, M. H., & Schoelkopf, R. J. (2016). “A Schrödinger Cat Living in Two Boxes.” Science 352, 1087–1091. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.05505
-
Palacios-Laloy, A., Mallet, F., Nguyen, F., Bertet, P., Vion, D., Esteve, D., & Korotkov, A. N. (2010). “Experimental Violation of a Bell’s Inequality in Time with Weak Measurement.” Nature Physics 6, 442–447. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3435
-
Arndt, M., Nairz, O., Vos-Andreae, J., Keller, C., van der Zouw, G., & Zeilinger, A. (1999). “Wave–Particle Duality of C60 Molecules.” Nature 401, 680–682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/44348
-
Pedalino, S. et al. (2025). “Probing Quantum Mechanics Using Nanoparticle Schrödinger Cats.” arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21211
-
Maroney, O. J. E., & Timpson, C. G. (2014). “Quantum- vs. Macro- Realism: What Does the Leggett-Garg Inequality Actually Test?” arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6139
-
Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., & Rudolph, T. (2012). “On the Reality of the Quantum State.” Nature Physics 8, 475–478. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328
-
Frauchiger, D., & Renner, R. (2018). “Quantum Theory Cannot Consistently Describe the Use of Itself.” Nature Communications 9, 3711. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07422
-
Zurek, W. H. (2009). “Quantum Darwinism.” Nature Physics 5, 181–188. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5082
-
Vitagliano, G., & Budroni, C. (2023). “Leggett–Garg Macrorealism and Temporal Correlations.” Physical Review A 107, 040101. Open full text: https://harvest.aps.org/v2/journals/articles/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.040101/fulltext
-
Gell-Mann, M., & Hartle, J. B. (2021). “Decoherent Histories Quantum Mechanics and Copenhagen Quantum Mechanics.” arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15471
-
Bassi, A., Lochan, K., Satin, S., Singh, T. P., & Ulbricht, H. (2013). “Models of Wave-Function Collapse, Underlying Theories, and Experimental Tests.” Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 471–527. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4325
-
Carlesso, M., & Donadi, S. (2025). “Spontaneous Collapse Models.” arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18822
-
Donoghue, J. F. (1994). “General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory: The Leading Quantum Corrections.” Physical Review D 50, 3874–3888. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9405057
-
Carlip, S. (2001). “Quantum Gravity: a Progress Report.” Reports on Progress in Physics 64, 885–942. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0108040
-
Bong, K.-W., Utreras-Alarcón, A., Ghafari, F., Liang, Y.-C., Tischler, N., Cavalcanti, E. G., Pryde, G. J., & Wiseman, H. M. (2020). “A Strong No-Go Theorem on the Wigner’s Friend Paradox.” Nature Physics 16, 1199–1205. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05607
-
Tomaz, A. A., Mattos, R. S., & Barbatti, M. (2025). “The Quantum Measurement Problem: A Review of Recent Trends.” arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19278
-
Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dréau, A. E., Reiserer, A., Kalb, N., Blok, M. S., Ruitenberg, J., Vermeulen, R. F. L., Schouten, R. N., Abellán, C., Amaya, W., Pruneri, V., Mitchell, M. W., Markham, M., Twitchen, D. J., Elkouss, D., Wehner, S., Taminiau, T. H., & Hanson, R. (2015). “Experimental Loophole-Free Violation of a Bell Inequality Using Entangled Electron Spins Separated by 1.3 km.” Nature 526, 682–686. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
-
Monroe, C., Meekhof, D. M., King, B. E., & Wineland, D. J. (1996). “A ‘Schrödinger Cat’ Superposition State of an Atom.” Science 272, 1131–1136. Open NIST record and paper: https://www.nist.gov/publications/schrodinger-cat-superposition-state-atom
-
Nimmrichter, S., & Hornberger, K. (2013). “Macroscopicity of Mechanical Quantum Superposition States.” Physical Review Letters 110, 160403. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3447
-
Schlosshauer, M. (2005). “Decoherence, the Measurement Problem, and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1267–1305. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059