It’s
a well-known problem for the anthropologist, first noted by a man
named Landsberger: the tribe under observation are aware they’re
being observed, and alter their behaviour in view of this fact, often
acting out versions of themselves which they think conform to the
ethnographer’s own conceptions of them. The technical term for this
phenomenon is the Hawthorne effect; but in college we always called
it the Cat-in-a-Box Paradox. Our nickname owed its title to the
famous hypothesis devised by Erwin Schrödinger, to illustrate the
logical consequences of Einstein’s discoveries about the weird
behaviour of atoms (we were, in fact, slightly confusing two separate
scientific theorems — the Hawthorne effect doesn’t actually have
much to do with Schrödinger’s hypothesis; but, not being quantum
physicists, we didn’t know or care). Were you (Schrödinger
proposed) to seal a cat inside a box in which a vial of gaseous
poison — cyanide, say — would either break, thereby killing the
cat, or remain intact, thereby leaving it unharmed, depending on
which of two apertures an atom chose to jump through — well, the
atom would only choose to have
jumped through
one hole or the other at the moment when the scientist opened up the
box to see which it had already jumped
through. In other words, the cat would be neither alive nor dead, or
rather, both alive and dead,
until the scientist, post
hoc,
peered in to ascertain its live- or deadness.
If you try very strongly to get away from the cliches, sometimes you omit important facts. Schrödinger´s Cat is a classic. People use and abuse of this concept and, frequently, in a wrong way. As the text says, two physicist conepts are mixed, but it also says that Einstein was the author of quantum theory when he tried to deny it with the famous sentence 'God doesn´t play dice'
We haven´t talked about the Cat in the Box until the post number 155; to compensate it, we offer a scene from
Coherence (a good film, by the way) about the topic.