There is no Copenhagen interpretation of QM

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the various interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). Participants explore the differences and similarities among several interpretations, questioning whether a single, unified interpretation can be identified. The scope includes theoretical perspectives and philosophical implications of QM.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that there are at least four distinct interpretations often referred to as "Copenhagen": "shut up and calculate," positivism, collapse interpretation, and information interpretation.
  • One participant questions the classification of "shut up and calculate" as an interpretation, suggesting it may not fit the traditional definition of an interpretation.
  • Another participant argues that the four interpretations do not exclude each other and may be features of the same overarching interpretation.
  • Some participants assert that the wave function's interpretation differs between the collapse interpretation and the information interpretation, with the former assuming the wave function exists independently of measurements.
  • A participant expresses a view that the collapse can be seen as an information update, introducing subjectivity into the interpretation of reality.
  • There are discussions about the engineering perspective versus the fundamental scientific perspective regarding the interpretation of QM, with some emphasizing the practical use of QM without delving into its philosophical implications.
  • One participant suggests that all interpretations mentioned could be considered part of a broader "Copenhagenish" approach, while others maintain that they represent different views.
  • Concerns are raised about the fluidity of interpretations among proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation, complicating discussions on its meaning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether there is a single interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Multiple competing views remain, with some asserting that the interpretations are distinct while others argue they are interconnected.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions and implications of the interpretations, highlighting the lack of clarity around concepts such as wave function collapse and the subjective nature of reality in quantum mechanics.

  • #31
A. Neumaier said:
This is no different than with other interpretations.

There is no SINGLE interpretation that may be called "the statistical interpretation".
There is no SINGLE interpretation that may be called "Bohmian mechanics".

What is meant is in each case in the eye of the beholder - with smaller subcommunities agreeing on a particular formulation, usually fixed by a particular reference.

In your formulation. I know you believe particles don't exist but they are just momentum of the field as told by Quantum field theory. Now I want to know is. Is there 100% proof and evidence that particles are really just momentum of the quantum field? Or is just a conjecture? This is supposed to be just a model for QFT. But is there solid proof that in a 430-atom buckyball when you send this off in a double slit, the buckyball quantum wave splits in the slits and splattered all over the detector. Meaning the 430-atom buckyball shatterred into many fragments in the detector as you believe. But rather than proving this. Just prove the general QFT idea that particles are just momentum of the field. Is there experiment that can distinguish this? If this can't be proven. Maybe this particular QFT model is just a temporary belief system to aid in the calculations. Someday. QFT may give rise to or superceded by a return to particles being primary and field just their emanations. Is this impossible? Why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Varon said:
In your formulation. I know you believe particles don't exist but they are just momentum of the field as told by Quantum field theory.
Not momentum of the field (which is not even a well-defined notion), but localized concentrations of the field.
Varon said:
Now I want to know is. Is there 100% proof and evidence that particles are really just momentum of the quantum field? Or is just a conjecture?/QUOTE]
It is part of the traditional preparation procedure of particles, which may serve as their definition. One prepares them in a very localized source and let's them move in a very focussed direction. In a field theoric interpretation, it is these properties that give them the particle character.

But this is off-topic here; if you want to discuss it further, do it in the IR thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490492
 
  • #33
Demystifier said:
What do you think?

I am not asking you to say which interpretation do you find most appealing (we have many other topics on that), but to say whether you agree there there is no SINGLE interpretation that may be called "Copenhagen".


I Agree.
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K