Copenhagen interpretation

In summary: Then show me the derivation of CI from the HUP.The rest of what you said makes no sense. It sounds as if you are using a very bad translator. Figure out what, in English, it means to say something is "a result of", why don't you?
  • #1
Proof.Beh
51
0
Hi,

Can we know the Copenhagen interpretation, a result of uncertainty principle?

If you don't agree with that, mention your reasons to see taht will conclude a
safe answer or not.

Thanks.
------------------------
Formulate realities.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Proof.Beh said:
Hi,

Can we know the Copenhagen interpretation, a result of uncertainty principle?

If you don't agree with that, mention your reasons to see taht will conclude a
safe answer or not.

Thanks.
------------------------
Formulate realities.

This is highly puzzling. The Copenhagen Interpretaton is not "a result of uncertainty principle". Furthermore, if you want to know what CI is, all you need to do is read about it. Plenty of books and internet sources are available if you want to "know" about CI.

Please note that unless there is a physics content here, this thread will be moved to the Philosophy forum.

Zz.
 
  • #3
This is highly puzzling. The Copenhagen Interpretaton is not "a result of uncertainty principle". Furthermore, if you want to know what CI is, all you need to do is read about it. Plenty of books and internet sources are available if you want to "know" about CI.

Please note that unless there is a physics content here, this thread will be moved to the Philosophy forum.

It is laughable taht you as a researcher in physics science said "The Copenhagen Interpretaton is not a result of uncertainty principle".
if you note that Bohr discussed the Copenhagen Interpretaton after uncertainty and because of advocacy from it, you shouldn't answer. even Bohr frequently said that Copenhagen Interpretaton is identic uncertainty and constructed it uncertainty-Based. Copenhagen Interpretaton redused to case of uncetainty that explain 0*infinity>=hbar/2 (x,p)
of course that is a paradox in quantum mechanics!

Thanks.
------------------------
Formulate realities.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Proof.Beh said:
It is laughable taht you as a researcher in physics science said "The Copenhagen Interpretaton is not a result of uncertainty principle".
if you note that Bohr discussed the Copenhagen Interpretaton after uncertainty and because of advocacy from it, you shouldn't answer. even Bohr frequently said that Copenhagen Interpretaton is identic uncertainty and constructed it uncertainty-Based. Copenhagen Interpretaton redused to case of uncetainty that explain 0*infinity>=hbar/2 (x,p)
of course that is a paradox in quantum mechanics!

Thanks.
------------------------
Formulate realities.

Then show me the derivation of CI from the HUP.

The rest of what you said makes no sense. It sounds as if you are using a very bad translator. Figure out what, in English, it means to say something is "a result of", why don't you?

Zz.
 
  • #5
Yeah, it is obvious. The Wave-particle duality is an obvious example for your wished (if we aware from one of them then wasted our information about other). we knew that the CI derived from UP, according to above expression, of course it seems you aren't aware from that! (reffer to online librarys). Furthermore the important problem is "Do the CI agree with UP really?" and we want to check it. If you resist, Plzzz mention your reason(s).

Thanks.
------------------------
Formulate realities.
 
  • #6
Proof.Beh said:
Yeah, it is obvious. The Wave-particle duality is an obvious example for your wished (if we aware from one of them then wasted our information about other). we knew that the CI derived from UP, according to above expression, of course it seems you aren't aware from that! (reffer to online librarys). Furthermore the important problem is "Do the CI agree with UP really?" and we want to check it. If you resist, Plzzz mention your reason(s).

Thanks.
------------------------
Formulate realities.

What "wave-particle" duality? There's no "duality" in QM. There is only ONE single, consistent description of every observation, both wavelike and particlelike. There's no "duality". The duality in question is simply our insistence of the dichotomy between particle and wave. Show me where in QM there is this "duality".

You obviously do not know what "derive" means. You have derived nothing.

This thread is going into crackpottery land. You are arguing about QM with me based not on the physics, but rather the philosophical implication of it. It means you don't know anything about QM, but rather what you read ABOUT it. There's a difference between understanding physics, and understanding ABOUT physics. You obviously do not realize it.

This thread is done, and so is this topic.

Zz.
 

What is the Copenhagen interpretation?

The Copenhagen interpretation is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that suggests that the behavior of particles and systems cannot be predicted with certainty, but rather can only be described in terms of probabilities. It was developed by Niels Bohr and his colleagues in the 1920s.

How does the Copenhagen interpretation differ from classical physics?

The Copenhagen interpretation differs from classical physics in that it acknowledges the inherent uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world. In classical physics, it is assumed that the behavior of particles and systems can be determined with precision, whereas in the Copenhagen interpretation, it is recognized that there are limits to what can be known about a particle's position and momentum at any given time.

What is the role of the observer in the Copenhagen interpretation?

In the Copenhagen interpretation, the role of the observer is crucial. It is believed that the act of observing or measuring a particle's properties can influence its behavior and ultimately determine its outcome. This concept is known as the "observer effect" and is a key component of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Are there any criticisms of the Copenhagen interpretation?

Yes, there are several criticisms of the Copenhagen interpretation. Some scientists argue that it is a fundamentally incomplete theory and does not provide a complete explanation of the quantum world. Others argue that it is too reliant on the role of the observer and does not adequately address the question of how particles behave when they are not being observed.

How has the Copenhagen interpretation influenced modern physics?

The Copenhagen interpretation has had a significant impact on modern physics, shaping our understanding of quantum mechanics and providing a framework for further research and experimentation. It has also sparked debate and spurred the development of alternative interpretations, such as the Many-Worlds interpretation and the Transactional interpretation.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
109
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
10
Replies
334
Views
20K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
127
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
Back
Top