Does Schrödinger’s Cat Paradigm apply to forensic evidence? A Critical Interdisciplinary Review

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 116 - 127, 30.09.2024

Ercan Seyhan

Abstract

Schrödinger's experiment was created as an experiment in which we cannot tell whether the cat is dead or alive until the box lid is opened. Therefore, if we do not open the lid, the probability of the cat being dead or alive will be 50%. The "superposition state" of the cat ends with an observational measurement.
Being aware of the evidence in the position of silent witnesses at the crime scene will enable many truths to be revealed. This awareness should be based primarily on observation. This observation is like understanding the main idea of the book by reading the summary on the back page. It can be considered a logical measure of the suitability of the evidence. This measure can only be formed with the results obtained by good observation and analysis.
In short, the effective use of systematic crime scene investigation is the basis of reaching an understanding of evidence with high evidential power. But at the heart of these two important activities is awareness of good observation. It should not be forgotten that the difference between the seeing eye and the looking eye is; The seeing eye knows what it is looking for.

Keywords

Schrödinger, forensic evidence, superposition state, observation.

Schrödinger'in Kedisi Paradigması Adli Kanıtlara Uygulanabilir mi? Disiplinlerarası Eleştirel Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Schrödinger'in deneyi, kutunun kapağı açılana kadar kedinin ölü mü yoksa canlı mı olduğunu anlayamadığımız bir deney olarak yaratıldı. Dolayısıyla, eğer kapağı açmazsak, kedinin ölü ya da diri olma olasılığı %50 olacaktır. Kedinin "süperpozisyon durumu" gözlemsel bir ölçümle sona erer.
Olay yerindeki sessiz tanıklar konumundaki delillerin farkında olmak birçok gerçeğin ortaya çıkmasını sağlayacaktır. Bu farkındalık öncelikle gözleme dayanmalıdır. Bu gözlem, kitabın ana fikrini arka sayfadaki özeti okuyarak anlamaya benzer. Kanıtın uygunluğunun mantıksal bir ölçüsü olarak kabul edilebilir. Bu ölçü ancak iyi bir gözlem ve analiz ile elde edilen sonuçlarla oluşturulabilir.
Kısacası, sistematik olay yeri incelemesinin etkin kullanımı, kanıt gücü yüksek bir delil anlayışına ulaşmanın temelini oluşturmaktadır. Ancak bu iki önemli faaliyetin temelinde iyi gözlem yapma bilinci yatmaktadır. Unutulmamalıdır ki gören göz ile bakan göz arasındaki fark şudur; gören göz ne aradığını bilir.

Keywords

Schrödinger, Adli Kanıt, superposisyon durumu, gözlem.

References

• Atkins P, Jones L (1997). Chemistry: Molecules, Matter and Change. 3rd Ed., Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data, pp.49-51.
• Bhaumik, M.L. (2017). Is Schrodinger’s cat alive?, Quanta, 6 (1), 70-77.
• Cleland, C.E. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29 (11), 987-990.
• Chang R, Goldsby KA (2014). General Chemistry: The Essential Concept, McGraw Hill Companies Inc., New York, pp.1-4; 17-19.
• Cook, R., Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Jones, P.J., Lambert, J.A. (1998). A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework, Sci. Justice, 38, 231–239.
• Everett, H. (1957). Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29, 454-62.
• Gribbin, J. (1995). Schrödinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality: Solving the Quantum Mysteries. NY: Little, Brown.
• Ghirardi, G.C., Rimini, A., Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, Physical Review D. 34 (2), 470-491.
• Fine, A. (1993). Measurement and Quantum Silence in S. French and H. Kamminga (eds.), Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics, 279-294.
• Houck, M.M. (1999). Statistics and trace evidence: The tyranny of numbers. Forensic Science Communications, 1(3), 1-10.
• Inman, K., Rudin, N. (2001). Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
• Jeffrey, T. (2001). The CSI Effect, The New Yorker, May 7, 30-35.
• Kalia, R.K., Nakano, A., Omeltchenko, A., Tsuruta, K., Vashishta, P. (1997). Role of ultrafine microstructures in dynamic fracture in nanophase silicon nitride, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 2144–2147.
• Kaye, D.H. (2010). Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academies, 75 Brook. L. Rev., 1163-1170.
• Locard, E. (1939). Manual of Police Techniques. 3rd ed. Paris: Payot.
• Mann, M. (2002). The value of multiple proxies. Science, 297 (5586), 1481-1482.
• Monroe, C., Meekhof, D.M., King, B.E., Wineland, D.J. (1996). A Schrödinger cat superposition state of an atom, Science, 272 (5265), 1130–1133.
• Ribaux O, Girod A, Walsh SJ, Margot P, Mizahi S, Clivaz V (2003). Forensic Intelligence and Crime Analysis. Law Probability and Risk, 2, 47–60.
• Saks, M.J., Koehler, J.J. (2008). The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Rev., 61(1), 199–219.
• Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwartige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. I. Naturwissenschaften, 23(48): 807–849. doi:10.1007/bf01491891.
• Trimmer, J.D. (1980). The present situation in quantum mechanics: a translation of Schrödinger’s “cat paradox” paper. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124(5), 323–338.