Heisenberg's indetermination principle and Ccopenhagen interpretation

Click For Summary
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a particle. The Copenhagen interpretation, on the other hand, posits that a particle exists in a state of probability until it is observed, at which point it assumes a definite state. While both concepts are foundational in quantum mechanics, they address different aspects of the theory. The uncertainty principle is universally applicable across various interpretations, including the Copenhagen interpretation, but each interpretation offers a unique perspective on its implications. Understanding these differences enhances comprehension of quantum mechanics as a whole.
jukzzhd
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Ive been doing some researches about QM and I am in a condition where i can't differ Heisenbergs indetermination principle from copenhagen interp. Can somebody please explain simply or advancedly(?) (in an understandable way) are there any differences between them. If there are, what are those differences?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
While "Copenhagen interpretation" is a vast subject, you can write in a couple of lines what you mean by the exact form of "the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle". Please, do so. Thank you!
 
There are several different interpretation of QM, Copenhagen interpretation is only one them. (Actually, Copenhagen interpretation is a common name for a few different interpretations, but that's another story). The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is valid in all those Copenhagen and non-Copenhagen interpretations. However, in each interpretation, the uncertainty principle is interpreted differently.
 
dextercioby said:
While "Copenhagen interpretation" is a vast subject, you can write in a couple of lines what you mean by the exact form of "the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle". Please, do so. Thank you!
As i understood Heisenbergs principle is about "we can't know exact position and condition of a particle" while copenhagen interp. Is "unless we observe a paricule, it may or may not exist at all". Please forgive my ignorance as I am kinda new to this subject. And i would be glad to learn the truth behind those subjects. Thank you for your concern.
 
I recently started to read john gribbin. Thus i don't need further explanation. Thank you all for those who replied.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 376 ·
13
Replies
376
Views
22K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 292 ·
10
Replies
292
Views
12K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • · Replies 115 ·
4
Replies
115
Views
14K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K