- #1
caspiansea3
- 8
- 0
...
Last edited:
Basically, an interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Bohr and Heisenburg that ended up solving some problems in physics (wave-particle behavior experienced by Michaelson's experiments) by inducing a couple principles, such as the Uncertainty Principle, the instantaneous collapse of the wave function, and the indeterministicism of measurement outcomes, and so on. Very basicly.slyboy said:I'd be interested to know if anyone who voted for the Copenhagen Interpretation can give a coherent explanation of what it actually is.
Basically, an interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Bohr and Heisenburg that ended up solving some problems in physics (wave-particle behavior experienced by Michaelson's experiments) by inducing a couple principles, such as the Uncertainty Principle, the instantaneous collapse of the wave function, and the indeterministicism of measurement outcomes, and so on. Very basicly.
masudr said:Why don't people worry about an "interpretation" of classical mechanics? People tie themselves up by talking about such an interpretation or another. Instead rely on the equations, they will only fail if QM as a theory is generally a false model.
Stingray said:It disturbs people that a supposedly fundamental theory seems to require the existence of a poorly defined entity that is external to it.
Stringray said:If it is fundamental, quantum mechanics should be applicable to all systems, and the various interpretations attempt to clarify these sorts of logical issues (at least the worthwhile ones do). Classical physics obviously does not have the same sort of vagueness about it, so interpretations aren't as necessary.
masudr said:As a mathematical physicist, I don't think interpretations matter. Schrodinger's equation will always exist as a fundamental concept of QM. So we can use it! And that's all that matters, in my opinion.
masudr said:Wavefunctions exist as superpositions until observed. Why is that hard to swallow? Two interacting systems exist as tensor products of the individual system until observed. Why is that so hard to swallow?
Classical mechanics does have the same sort of vagueness. For example, we immediately assume that the position of particles are represented by real numbers, and all motion can be described in terms of infinitesimals. These are not reasonable assumptions. In my opinion it is just as vague.
ashfaque said:I would very much like to understand nature. That's why Interpretations matter to me.
masudr said:As a mathematical physicist, I don't think interpretations matter. Schrodinger's equation will always exist as a fundamental concept of QM. So we can use it! And that's all that matters, in my opinion.
Why don't people worry about an "interpretation" of classical mechanics? People tie themselves up by talking about such an interpretation or another. Instead rely on the equations, they will only fail if QM as a theory is generally a false model.
metacristi said:In classical mechanics the interpretation belong to common sense.
ashfaque said:ashfaque:
What about Shahriar Afshar's experiment and the Refuttal(?) of the Copenhagen Interpretation?
Stingray said:Stingray
masudr said:Originally Posted by masudr
Why don't people worry about an "interpretation" of classical mechanics? People tie themselves up by talking about such an interpretation or another. Instead rely on the equations, they will only fail if QM as a theory is generally a false model.
Quantum mechanics has the measurement problem to worry about. There is no well-defined way to just "rely on the equations" in textbook quantum mechanics. You have to define an external classical observer, and say exactly what he is "measuring" for all times. It disturbs people that a supposedly fundamental theory seems to require the existence of a poorly defined entity that is external to it.
I agree that this is not usually a problem in practical applications, but the fact remains that we can imagine situations where the concept of a measurement device in the textbook sense does not exist (e.g. quantum cosmology). If it is fundamental, quantum mechanics should be applicable to all systems, and the various interpretations attempt to clarify these sorts of logical issues (at least the worthwhile ones do). Classical physics obviously does not have the same sort of vagueness about it, so interpretations aren't as necessary.
masudr said:masudr:
metacristi said:Originally Posted by metacristi:
In classical mechanics the interpretation belong to common sense.
There is nothing common-sensical about classical mechanics. The only reason it seems like it makes sense is because we have perceived a reality since birth that complies with the ideas set forth by classical mechanics.
...
Finally, this has brought up an interesting issue. Does classical mechanics allow only one interpretation? I'll have to think about that one before I answer, so I thought I'd throw it open to the forum.
There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen interpretation, the many-worlds interpretation, the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, and the transactional interpretation.
The main difference between these interpretations lies in their interpretation of the wave function and its collapse, as well as the role of observation in the quantum world.
The Copenhagen interpretation is considered the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, as it was the first to be proposed and has been the dominant view among physicists for many years.
No, these interpretations are not testable or provable, as they are philosophical viewpoints on the nature of reality and cannot be directly tested through experiments.
There are some newer interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the pilot-wave theory and the many interacting worlds theory, which are gaining attention and being explored by scientists.