Recently scientifically 2.0 so topical Schrödinger's cat jumped into being in the 1935 three-part article (in German) in Die Naturwissenschaften, just at the end of part one:Man kann auch ganz burleske Fälle konstruieren. Eine Katze wird in eine Stahlkammer gesperrt, zusammen mit folgender Höllenmaschine …

Recently scientifically 2.0 so topical Schrödinger's cat jumped into being in the 1935 three-part article (in German) in Die Naturwissenschaften, just at the end of part one:

Man kann auch ganz burleske Fälle konstruieren. Eine Katze wird in eine Stahlkammer gesperrt, zusammen mit folgender Höllenmaschine …

This is known in the translation(Translator: John D. Trimmer) which is found at http://www.jstor.org/stable/986572 or more conveniently at http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.htm

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device …

And let us state it straight away: this was not a good translation of this little story. Even the artificial Google Translate http://translate.google.com/ gets it better (note construct)

One can also construct quite burlesque cases. A cat is locked in a steel chamber, together with the following bomb ....

Google gets the burlesque, but not the device. Hell machine does not work, so let us ask German Wikipedia - And indeed, the 19th century military or terroristic bomb appears (in German) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B6llenmaschine and it points those who seek knowledge to English Wikipedia's infernal machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infernal_machine. So Schrödinger's quote should read:

One can also construct quite burlesque cases. A cat is locked in a steel chamber, together with the following infernal machine …

An essential feature is that this imaginary infernal machine contained a Geiger-counter-like detonator bringing in the quantum world. Schrödinger's burlesque story appears between a serious discussion of particle track in Wilson cloud chamber en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber and a summary of what the reader should learn from that section:

There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.


The question is: Is Sascha Vongehr's article a burlesque or an infernal machine?
Or, should we rather adopt the "out-of-focus" article and discussion from Schrödinger's paper to this?

Old NID
78741
Categories

Ladislav Kocbach

Born in Prague (CZ), studied physics. Started with algol programming on GIER-1 in Rez of the shell model of nuclei in 1966. Moved to Bergen, Norway. Dr. philos. in 1977, atomic collisions, ionization, theoretical physics (with computation). Scientific visualization with computer graphics. Recently working with model interactions for molecular dynamics. Teaching various things. Theoretical, Optcal and Atomic Physics at University of Bergen, Norway. Occupied by computing, computers. Tries to live without printing and photocopying. During the last 18 months printed not more than 100 pages, all… Read more