Copenhegen interpretation or Many World Interpretation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the debate between the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) and the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of each interpretation, particularly regarding the possibility of experimental tests to distinguish between them, the nature of measurement, and the concept of wavefunction collapse.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that an experiment could theoretically distinguish between CI and MWI, while others argue that such an experiment is impossible in principle, as interpretations do not make falsifiable predictions.
  • One participant suggests that the Many Worlds Interpretation allows for time travel without the grandfather paradox, while another counters that a quantum theory of gravity is necessary to even consider such implications.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of measurement in MWI being theoretically reversible, contrasting with the irreversible measurement process in CI, although this is contested regarding the definitions of the interpretations.
  • Several participants express differing views on the interpretation of Bohr's ideas, particularly concerning the classical nature of measuring devices and the implications of wavefunction collapse.
  • One participant emphasizes that the concept of wavefunction collapse leads to the measurement problem in CI, while another argues that decoherence provides an alternative understanding that does not necessitate a non-unitary collapse.
  • There is contention over the terminology used, with some participants asserting that calling MWI an "interpretation" implies it cannot be tested, while others maintain that MWI makes testable claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on whether an experiment can settle the debate between CI and MWI, with some asserting it is impossible in principle and others suggesting that theoretical differences could be measured. There is no consensus on the definitions of the interpretations or the implications of measurement and wavefunction collapse.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include unresolved definitions of interpretations, the dependence on the understanding of measurement processes, and the implications of quantum decoherence. The debate remains open regarding the nature of wavefunction collapse and its role in the interpretations.

  • #31
Zmunkz said:
In principle... probably, yes. Every interpretation of a model has implications along with it, and it is just a matter of time before someone clever enough comes along and sees a way to measure the reality of one set of implications verse another.

That's not true.

Many interpretations have been deliberately cooked up so its impossible to tell the difference between it and the formalism.

In fact most (but not all) interpretations is simply an argument about the meaning of probability.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
VantagePoint72 said:
Right, so, just to emphasize: what you're calling Copenhagen is known in philosophy of science as instrumentalism, and in the context of QM is generally called shut-up-and-calculate. .

Yes and no. It is part of a group of interpretations that has observations as its primitive (philosophers likely would call it instrumentalist - although I wouldn't because it goes well beyond instruments in actual experiments) that differ purely in how the interpret probability. I would classify all those in the shut-up and calculate group.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
11K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 119 ·
4
Replies
119
Views
13K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
9K