Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quantum mechanic in textbook

  1. Feb 4, 2010 #1
    Hi
    please answer my question. quantum mechanic in Sakurayi , Gaziorovich books belong to which of interpretations(many worlds, copenhagen, ...)? thanks.:confused:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 4, 2010 #2

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's been a while since I read those books. Did they even mention interpretations? I think they're both in the shut-up-and-calculate camp. (By the way, most of us here think Ballentine is a better advanced book than Sakurai, and I think there are lots of introductory books that are much better than Gasiorowicz. I also think that no matter what books you study for your classes, it would be a good idea to read Isham book on the side).
     
  4. Feb 5, 2010 #3
    I mean that, can we study the quantum books, without knowing of interpretations. Do the postulates of quantum mechanics rely on interpretations?
     
  5. Feb 5, 2010 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    They are following Feynman's "Shut Up And Calculate" interpretation.

    Zz.
     
  6. Feb 5, 2010 #5

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We certainly can. At least if we can resist the temptation to attribute any more meaning to the mathematical quantities than we have reason to. Just think of state vectors as nothing more than mathematical objects that we associate with equivalence classes of state preparation procedures, and you'll do fine.

    There are at least two different types of interpretations in physics.

    1. To turn a piece of mathematics into a theory of physics, you need to write down a set of axioms that tells us how to interpret the mathematics as predictions about results of experiments.

    2. To turn a theory of physics into a description of what actually happens between state preparation and measurement, you may or may not need an additional set of axioms that tells you how to interpret the statements that the theory makes about other things than measurements.

    Interpretations of the second kind are absolutely trivial when we're dealing with classical theories. There's always an obvious interpretation. Not so in QM. An "interpretation of quantum mechanics" can be a set of statements that belongs to the second category, but they sometimes change the definition of the theory as well, which means that they're have a foot in each category.

    You might be interested in http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_57/iss_5/10_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1 [Broken].
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Feb 5, 2010 #6

    dx

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    It makes me a little angry when such a stupid and mindless statement is attributed to one of the great geniuses of the 20th century. First of all, the 'shut up and calculate' 'interpretation' is due to David Mermin. Secondly, on the matter of Feynman's position on interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is clear that his views were in line with Bohr and Heinsenberg, as the following quote shows:

    "It is very interesting that in the quantum mechanics the amplitudes φ are solutions of a completely deterministic equation. The interpretation of |φ|² as the probability of an event is an indeterministic interpretation. It is very remarkable that this interpretation does not lead to any inconsistencies. That it is true has been amply demostrated by analysis of many particular situations Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, von Neumann and many other physicists. We know we have a consistent interpretation of φ, and almost without doubt, the only consistent one."
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook