Dmitry67
- 2,564
- 1
Lets say that someone (I see it happens quite often) is asking "How photon can go thru 2 slits at the same time?" or "How electron can be a particle and wave at the same time?"
What is a right way to answer such questions? It is correct to give answers based on the Copenhagen? Or may be we should tell about other interpretations?
Copanhagen:
PRO: historically the first interpretation.
PRO: may the the simplest? (this is controversual)
PRO: It is so complicated that after an information about multiple interpreations people can get absolutely lost.
CON: people can be stuck with the very first interpretation thet are given
CON: due to non-local nature of WF collapse people tend to ask more and more questions about ETL etc - so may be Copenhagen is the simplest one but not the best one? (this is controversual)
CON: Do we have a right to hide a truth, a right of not giving a choice to chose 'their' interpretation?
What do you think?
What is a right way to answer such questions? It is correct to give answers based on the Copenhagen? Or may be we should tell about other interpretations?
Copanhagen:
PRO: historically the first interpretation.
PRO: may the the simplest? (this is controversual)
PRO: It is so complicated that after an information about multiple interpreations people can get absolutely lost.
CON: people can be stuck with the very first interpretation thet are given
CON: due to non-local nature of WF collapse people tend to ask more and more questions about ETL etc - so may be Copenhagen is the simplest one but not the best one? (this is controversual)
CON: Do we have a right to hide a truth, a right of not giving a choice to chose 'their' interpretation?
What do you think?