Copenhagen: Restriction on knowledge or restriction on ontology?

In summary: But if they're genuinely random then they can't be observed, so they must exist in some sense outside of observation.
  • #316
Pleonasm said:
It's a paradox if you don't have a warped view of physical reality (at least by classical standards)
You can replicate the paradox in a purely Classical model. See Spekkens toy model:
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401052
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #317
DarMM said:
He thought the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was an irrevocable problem for the Copenhagen interpretation before either that interpretation or the thought experiment existed?

Looks like he took a retrocausal view. :wink:

" It was, however, rejected by Planck, as well as Schrödinger and Laue. Even Einstein had rejected Bohr's interpretation. Planck called Heisenberg's matrix mechanics "disgusting," but he gave the Schrödinger equation a warmer reception. He expected that wave mechanics would soon render quantum theory—his own brainchild—unnecessary."
 
  • #318
This is the same Max Plank who accepted the theory of relativity long before it was empirically verified or even understood by the scientific community.

Not exactly a dogmatic scientist. But believe the Copenhagen interpretation if you like:-p
 
  • #319
Pleonasm said:
This is the same Max Plank who accepted the theory of relativity long before it was empirically verified or even understood by the scientific community.

Not exactly a dogmatic scientist. But believe the Copenhagen interpretation if you like:-p
I never said I did, but I have read proper accounts of it and know that Schrodinger's cat poses no issues. Again a similar "paradox" shows up in epistemic states of purely Classical theories. See Spekkens toy model I linked to above.

You also haven't pointed out an actual issue with the interpretation. Just quoted various physicists stating they had a problem. What is the actual issue with reference to a proper account of the interpretation. For example in the Leifer lectures I linked to which of the four assumptions of the interpretation do you disagree with?
 
  • #320
DarMM said:
You also haven't pointed out an actual issue with the interpretation.

I have the same views as those expressed by Weinberg at 6:00.

 
  • #321
Pleonasm said:
I have the same views as those expressed by Weinberg at 6:00.
Can you refer to a systematic scientific account and not short offhand expositions and quotes? Very simply look at Leifer's four principles and say what ones you disagree with.
 
  • #322
Pleonasm said:
"The Copenhagen interpretation is basically nonsense". "No thoughtful person still holds to it"

Sean Carroll: at 1:50:30
I think that believing in Copenhagen is similar to believing that free will does not exist. Nobody can really believe it in practice, but it is possible to believe it in deep abstract academic thoughts.
 
  • #323
Demystifier said:
I think that believing in Copenhagen is similar to believing that free will does not exist. Nobody can really believe it in practice, but it is possible to believe it in deep abstract academic thoughts.
Which part in particular is like this? The no hidden variables I assume.
 
  • #324
DarMM said:
Which part in particular is like this? The no hidden variables I assume.
No reality until observed.
 
  • #325
Demystifier said:
I think that believing in Copenhagen is similar to believing that free will does not exist. Nobody can really believe it in practice, but it is possible to believe it in deep abstract academic thoughts.

How do you mean that nobody can disbelieve free will in practise? Deep abstract thought? May I refer you to classical mechanics of which we are apart of? Add to that the heat factor due to our brains and it is a clock-work existence in the making.
 
  • #326
Demystifier said:
No reality until observed.

It doesn't really say that, does it? The particles are in two states at the same time, that's not the same as not existing. We may call it that due to the law of contradiction, but it really is just as much external reality just weirder, if true.
 
  • #327
Pleonasm said:
How do you mean that nobody can disbelieve free will in practise?
We all think that we can do something (e.g. make discussions on this forum) if we decide so.
 
  • #329
Demystifier said:
We all think that we can do something (e.g. make discussions on this forum) if we decide so.

And we do. It is an illusion however that we could have done otherwise. but we still made a personal decision decided by our biological brain states. It is our actions.
 
  • #330
You could always complain about the fact that you were determined to do X instead of Y. But i don't see which world view get's you out of the deterministic rabbit hole. You could might as well complain that you are randomly determined to do X instead of y
 
  • #331
Pleonasm said:
It is an illusion however that we could have done otherwise.
Yes, but the illusion is so strong that nobody really thinks that way when one is doing something.
 
  • #333
Demystifier said:
No reality until observed.
I think it would be more accurate to say no values for observables until observation. That is not the same as denying reality.
 
  • #334
DarMM said:
I think it would be more accurate to say no values for observables until observation. That is not the same as denying reality.

Perhaps plural values is more accurate. There are values, they just aren't fixed.
 
  • #335
Thread closed pending moderation.
 
<h2>1. What is the Copenhagen interpretation?</h2><p>The Copenhagen interpretation is a popular and widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, developed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s. It states that the act of measurement or observation collapses the wave function of a quantum system, determining its state and properties.</p><h2>2. How does the Copenhagen interpretation restrict knowledge?</h2><p>The Copenhagen interpretation suggests that we can never have complete knowledge or understanding of the quantum world, as our observations and measurements are limited and can only give us probabilistic outcomes. This means that we can never know the exact state of a quantum system, only the likelihood of it being in a certain state.</p><h2>3. Does the Copenhagen interpretation restrict ontology?</h2><p>Yes, the Copenhagen interpretation can be seen as restricting ontology, as it suggests that reality is fundamentally indeterminate and that the properties of quantum systems do not exist until they are observed or measured. This goes against the traditional view of a deterministic and objective reality.</p><h2>4. Are there alternative interpretations to the Copenhagen interpretation?</h2><p>Yes, there are several alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Many-Worlds interpretation, the Pilot-Wave theory, and the Transactional interpretation. These interpretations offer different explanations for the behavior of quantum systems and do not necessarily involve the collapse of the wave function.</p><h2>5. How does the Copenhagen interpretation impact scientific research?</h2><p>The Copenhagen interpretation has had a significant impact on the development of quantum mechanics and continues to shape our understanding of the quantum world. It has also sparked debates and discussions about the nature of reality and the limitations of human knowledge and perception. However, it does not necessarily restrict scientific research, as it is still a useful and widely accepted framework for understanding and predicting the behavior of quantum systems.</p>

1. What is the Copenhagen interpretation?

The Copenhagen interpretation is a popular and widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, developed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in the 1920s. It states that the act of measurement or observation collapses the wave function of a quantum system, determining its state and properties.

2. How does the Copenhagen interpretation restrict knowledge?

The Copenhagen interpretation suggests that we can never have complete knowledge or understanding of the quantum world, as our observations and measurements are limited and can only give us probabilistic outcomes. This means that we can never know the exact state of a quantum system, only the likelihood of it being in a certain state.

3. Does the Copenhagen interpretation restrict ontology?

Yes, the Copenhagen interpretation can be seen as restricting ontology, as it suggests that reality is fundamentally indeterminate and that the properties of quantum systems do not exist until they are observed or measured. This goes against the traditional view of a deterministic and objective reality.

4. Are there alternative interpretations to the Copenhagen interpretation?

Yes, there are several alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Many-Worlds interpretation, the Pilot-Wave theory, and the Transactional interpretation. These interpretations offer different explanations for the behavior of quantum systems and do not necessarily involve the collapse of the wave function.

5. How does the Copenhagen interpretation impact scientific research?

The Copenhagen interpretation has had a significant impact on the development of quantum mechanics and continues to shape our understanding of the quantum world. It has also sparked debates and discussions about the nature of reality and the limitations of human knowledge and perception. However, it does not necessarily restrict scientific research, as it is still a useful and widely accepted framework for understanding and predicting the behavior of quantum systems.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
9
Replies
309
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
7
Replies
226
Views
18K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
133
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
76
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top