Vice President Cheney found to be in violation of the law--of quantum mechanics

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Quantum mechanics shows up in editorial cartoons about as often as James K. Polk, which is why it's especially gratifying to see such a nuanced application of it in today's episode of This Modern World. Even the super-elastic boundaries of fair use (as they're applied to blogs, anyway) won't permit me to reprint the whole cartoon, so go check it out for yourself here. No really, it's great. I'll still be here when you come back. There's only one minor nit I must pick, and I'm doing it solely out of admiration for the chutzpah it takes to try and turn the Schrodinger's Cat paradox into an apt commentary on current events: According to the latest thinking on quantum mechanics, helpfully outlined in this fascinating article from New Scientist (paywall), different observers recording properties of the same quantum object will get the same results, on account of an effect they call Quantum Darwinism. In other words, regardless of the indeterminate status of the office of the Vice President (is it part of the legislative branch? the executive?) no matter which observer (either the Senate or the archivists) attempts to ascertain its true nature, they should both get the same result. The fact that Cheney's cloud of improbability does not collapse down to one state or the other could mean only one thing: Cheney in fact violates the laws of quantum mechanics!

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe