There is no Copenhagen interpretation of QM

[Varon]

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 QFT may give rise to or superceded by a return to particles being primary and field just their emanations.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?

 

[A. Neumaier]

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.

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

 

[yoda jedi]

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.