Is the Copenhagen Interpretation a Consequence of the Uncertainty Principle?

[Proof.Beh]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

 

[Proof.Beh]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

 

[Proof.Beh]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.