Home  ›  Physics and the Quantum Mechanical Model 53 Section Review

Physics and the Quantum Mechanical Model 53 Section Review

Written By Tuesday, 19 April 2022 Add Comment Edit

Probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics involving wavefunction plummet.

The Copenhagen estimation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics principally attributed to Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.[i] Information technology is ane of the oldest of numerous proposed interpretations of breakthrough mechanics, as features of information technology date to the development of quantum mechanics during 1925–1927, and it remains ane of the most commonly taught.[2]

At that place is no definitive historical argument of what the Copenhagen interpretation is. At that place are some fundamental agreements and disagreements between the views of Bohr and Heisenberg.[3] [4] For example, Heisenberg emphasized a sharp "cut" between the observer (or the instrument) and the system beingness observed,[v] : 133 while Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer or measurement or collapse, which relies on an "irreversible" or effectively irreversible process, which could have place within the quantum system.[vi]

Features common to Copenhagen-blazon interpretations include the thought that breakthrough mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic, with probabilities calculated using the Born rule, and the principle of complementarity, which states that objects take certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously.[7] Moreover, the act of "observing" or "measuring" an object is irreversible, no truth tin can be attributed to an object except according to the results of its measurement. Copenhagen-blazon interpretations concord that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' mental arbitrariness.[viii] : 85–90

Over the years, there have been many objections to aspects of Copenhagen-type interpretations, including the discontinuous and stochastic nature of the "observation" or "measurement" process, the credible subjectivity of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining what might count equally a measuring device, and the seeming reliance upon classical physics in describing such devices.

Background [edit]

Starting in 1900, investigations into atomic and subatomic phenomena forced a revision to the basic concepts of classical physics. However, information technology was not until a quarter-century had elapsed that the revision reached the status of a coherent theory. During the intervening period, now known as the time of the "quondam quantum theory", physicists worked with approximations and heuristic corrections to classical physics. Notable results from this period include Max Planck's calculation of the blackbody radiations spectrum, Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect, Einstein and Peter Debye's piece of work on the specific rut of solids, Niels Bohr and Hendrika Johanna van Leeuwen'south proof that classical physics cannot account for diamagnetism, Bohr's model of the hydrogen cantlet and Arnold Sommerfeld's extension of the Bohr model to include relativistic effects. From 1922 through 1925, this method of heuristic corrections encountered increasing difficulties; for example, the Bohr–Sommerfeld model could non be extended from hydrogen to the side by side simplest case, the helium cantlet.[ix]

The transition from the old quantum theory to full-fledged quantum physics began in 1925, when Werner Heisenberg presented a handling of electron behavior based on discussing only "observable" quantities, meaning to Heisenberg the frequencies of lite that atoms absorbed and emitted.[x] Max Born then realized that in Heisenberg'due south theory, the classical variables of position and momentum would instead exist represented by matrices, mathematical objects that can be multiplied together like numbers with the crucial divergence that the social club of multiplication matters. Erwin Schrödinger presented an equation that treated the electron equally a wave, and Born discovered that the manner to successfully interpret the wave function that appeared in the Schrödinger equation was as a tool for calculating probabilities.[11]

Quantum mechanics cannot easily be reconciled with everyday language and ascertainment, and has oft seemed counter-intuitive to physicists, including its inventors.[annotation 1] The ideas grouped together as the Copenhagen estimation suggest a mode to think nigh how the mathematics of quantum theory relates to concrete reality.

Origin and use of the term [edit]

The term refers to the metropolis of Copenhagen in Denmark, and was apparently coined during the 1950s.[12] Earlier, during the mid-1920s, Heisenberg had been an assistant to Bohr at his institute in Copenhagen, where they helped originate quantum mechanical theory.[xiii] [14] At the 1927 Solvay Conference, a dual talk by Max Born and Heisenberg declared "we consider quantum mechanics to be a closed theory, whose key physical and mathematical assumptions are no longer susceptible of any modification."[xv] [16] In 1929, Heisenberg gave a series of invited lectures at the University of Chicago explaining the new field of breakthrough mechanics. The lectures so served every bit the basis for his textbook, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, published in 1930.[17] In the book's preface, Heisenberg wrote:

On the whole, the volume contains zero that is non to be plant in previous publications, particularly in the investigations of Bohr. The purpose of the book seems to me to exist fulfilled if it contributes somewhat to the diffusion of that 'Kopenhagener Geist der Quantentheorie' [Copenhagen spirit of breakthrough theory] if I may so express myself, which has directed the entire development of modern atomic physics.

The term 'Copenhagen estimation' suggests something more but a spirit, such as some definite set of rules for interpreting the mathematical formalism of breakthrough mechanics, presumably dating back to the 1920s.[18] Notwithstanding, no such text exists, and the writings of Bohr and Heisenberg contradict each other on several of import issues.[4] It appears that the particular term, with its more definite sense, was coined by Heisenberg around 1955,[12] while criticizing alternative "interpretations" (e.m., David Bohm's[xix]) that had been developed.[20] [21] Lectures with the titles 'The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory' and 'Criticisms and Counterproposals to the Copenhagen Estimation', that Heisenberg delivered in 1955, are reprinted in the collection Physics and Philosophy.[22] Before the book was released for sale, Heisenberg privately expressed regret for having used the term, due to its proffer of the existence of other interpretations, that he considered to be "nonsense".[23] In a 1960 review of Heisenberg's book, Bohr's close collaborator Léon Rosenfeld called the term an "cryptic expression" and suggested it exist discarded.[24] However, this did not come to pass, and the term entered widespread employ.[12] [21]

Principles [edit]

There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation.[4] [25] [26] [27] The term encompasses the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th century.[28] This lack of a single, authoritative source that establishes the Copenhagen estimation is one difficulty with discussing it; another complication is that the philosophical background familiar to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and contemporaries is much less then to physicists and fifty-fifty philosophers of physics in more recent times.[9] Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on how to understand the mathematical ceremonial of quantum mechanics,[29] and Bohr distanced himself from what he considered Heisenberg's more subjective interpretation.[3] Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer, or measurement, or plummet; instead, an "irreversible" or finer irreversible procedure causes the decay of quantum coherence which imparts the classical behavior of "observation" or "measurement".[6] [30] [31] [32]

Unlike commentators and researchers have associated various ideas with the term.[xvi] Asher Peres remarked that very different, sometimes opposite, views are presented as "the Copenhagen interpretation" by unlike authors.[note 2] North. David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and summate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying ofttimes misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin afterward found insufficiently nuanced.[34] [35] Mermin described the Copenhagen interpretation as coming in different "versions", "varieties", or "flavors".[36]

Some basic principles generally accepted as part of the estimation include the post-obit:[3]

  1. Quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic.
  2. The correspondence principle: in the appropriate limit, breakthrough theory comes to resemble classical physics and reproduces the classical predictions.
  3. The Born rule: the wave function of a system yields probabilities for the outcomes of measurements upon that system.
  4. Complementarity: sure backdrop cannot be jointly defined for the same system at the aforementioned fourth dimension. In order to talk about a specific belongings of a system, that system must be considered within the context of a specific laboratory arrangement. Observable quantities respective to mutually exclusive laboratory arrangements cannot be predicted together, but considering multiple such mutually exclusive experiments is necessary to narrate a system.

Hans Primas and Roland Omnès give a more detailed breakdown that, in addition to the above, includes the post-obit:[8] : 85

  1. Quantum physics applies to individual objects. The probabilities computed by the Built-in rule do non require an ensemble or collection of "identically prepared" systems to sympathise.
  2. The results provided by measuring devices are essentially classical, and should be described in ordinary language. This was peculiarly emphasized by Bohr, and was accepted past Heisenberg.[note iii]
  3. Per the in a higher place bespeak, the device used to observe a arrangement must be described in classical language, while the organisation under observation is treated in quantum terms. This is a peculiarly subtle issue for which Bohr and Heisenberg came to differing conclusions. Co-ordinate to Heisenberg, the boundary between classical and quantum tin be shifted in either direction at the observer'southward discretion. That is, the observer has the freedom to motion what would become known as the "Heisenberg cut" without irresolute any physically meaningful predictions.[eight] : 86 On the other hand, Bohr argued both systems are quantum in principle, and the object-musical instrument stardom (the "cut") is dictated by the experimental organisation. For Bohr, the "cutting" was non a change in the dynamical laws that govern the systems in question, but a change in the linguistic communication applied to them.[iv] [39]
  4. During an observation, the system must interact with a laboratory device. When that device makes a measurement, the wave function of the systems collapses, irreversibly reducing to an eigenstate of the appreciable that is registered. The consequence of this process is a tangible record of the event, made by a potentiality becoming an authenticity.[note 4]
  5. Statements about measurements that are non actually made practise non have pregnant. For example, at that place is no meaning to the statement that a photon traversed the upper path of a Mach–Zehnder interferometer unless the interferometer were actually congenital in such a style that the path taken by the photon is detected and registered.[8] : 88
  6. Wave functions are objective, in that they do not depend upon personal opinions of individual physicists or other such arbitrary influences.[8] : 509–512

Some other issue of importance where Bohr and Heisenberg disagreed is wave–particle duality. Bohr maintained that the distinction betwixt a moving ridge view and a particle view was divers past a distinction betwixt experimental setups, whereas Heisenberg held that it was defined by the possibility of viewing the mathematical formulas as referring to waves or particles. Bohr thought that a detail experimental setup would display either a wave picture show or a particle flick, but not both. Heisenberg thought that every mathematical formulation was capable of both moving ridge and particle interpretations.[40] [41]

Nature of the moving ridge role [edit]

A wave function is a mathematical entity that provides a probability distribution for the outcomes of each possible measurement on a system. Noesis of the quantum country together with the rules for the organisation's evolution in fourth dimension exhausts all that can exist predicted about the system's behavior. Generally, Copenhagen-type interpretations deny that the wave function provides a straight apprehensible image of an ordinary textile trunk or a discernible component of some such,[42] [43] or anything more than a theoretical concept.

Probabilities via the Built-in rule [edit]

The Born dominion is essential to the Copenhagen interpretation.[44] Formulated by Max Built-in in 1926, it gives the probability that a measurement of a breakthrough system will yield a given issue. In its simplest form, it states that the probability density of finding a particle at a given point, when measured, is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle'southward wave function at that point.[note 5]

Plummet [edit]

A common perception of "the" Copenhagen interpretation is that an of import part of information technology is the "collapse" of the wave office.[3] In the human action of measurement, it is postulated, the wave part of a system can change suddenly and discontinuously. Prior to a measurement, a moving ridge function involves the various probabilities for the different potential outcomes of that measurement. Simply when the apparatus registers one of those outcomes, no traces of the others linger.

Heisenberg spoke of the moving ridge office as representing available noesis of a system, and did non utilize the term "collapse", but instead termed it "reduction" of the moving ridge function to a new land representing the change in available knowledge which occurs one time a particular phenomenon is registered by the apparatus.[49] According to Howard and Faye, the writings of Bohr do not mention wave function collapse.[12] [three]

Because they assert that the beingness of an observed value depends upon the intercession of the observer, Copenhagen-type interpretations are sometimes called "subjective". This term is rejected by many Copenhagenists considering the process of observation is mechanical and does not depend on the individuality of the observer.[50] Wolfgang Pauli, for example, insisted that measurement results could be obtained and recorded by "objective registering apparatus".[five] : 117–123 As Heisenberg wrote,

Of course the introduction of the observer must non be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and fourth dimension, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a homo being; merely the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[22] : 137

In the 1970s and 1980s, the theory of decoherence helped to explain the appearance of quasi-classical realities emerging from quantum theory,[51] simply was insufficient to provide a technical explanation for the credible wave office collapse.[52]

Completion by subconscious variables? [edit]

In metaphysical terms, the Copenhagen interpretation views quantum mechanics as providing knowledge of phenomena, simply non as pointing to 'really existing objects', which it regards as residues of ordinary intuition. This makes it an epistemic theory. This may be contrasted with Einstein's view, that physics should look for 'really existing objects', making itself an ontic theory.[53]

The metaphysical question is sometimes asked: "Could quantum mechanics be extended by calculation so-called "hidden variables" to the mathematical ceremonial, to convert it from an epistemic to an ontic theory?" The Copenhagen interpretation answers this with a stiff 'No'.[54] It is sometimes alleged, for instance by J.Southward. Bong, that Einstein opposed the Copenhagen estimation because he believed that the answer to that question of "hidden variables" was "yes". By dissimilarity, Max Jammer writes "Einstein never proposed a hidden variable theory."[55] Einstein explored the possibility of a hidden variable theory, and wrote a newspaper describing his exploration, but withdrew it from publication because he felt it was faulty.[56] [57]

Acceptance among physicists [edit]

During the 1930s and 1940s, views about quantum mechanics attributed to Bohr and emphasizing complementarity became commonplace amongst physicists. Textbooks of the fourth dimension mostly maintained the principle that the numerical value of a physical quantity is not meaningful or does not exist until it is measured.[58] : 248 Prominent physicists associated with Copenhagen-blazon interpretations have included Lev Landau,[58] [59] Wolfgang Pauli,[59] Rudolf Peierls,[60] Asher Peres,[61] Léon Rosenfeld,[4] and Ray Streater.[62]

Throughout much of the 20th century, the Copenhagen tradition had overwhelming acceptance amongst physicists.[58] [63] According to a very informal poll (some people voted for multiple interpretations) conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997,[64] the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted label that physicists applied to their ain views. A similar issue was found in a poll conducted in 2011.[65]

Consequences [edit]

The nature of the Copenhagen interpretation is exposed past considering a number of experiments and paradoxes.

Schrödinger'south cat [edit]

This thought experiment highlights the implications that accepting uncertainty at the microscopic level has on macroscopic objects. A true cat is put in a sealed box, with its life or death made dependent on the state of a subatomic particle.[8] : 91 Thus a description of the true cat during the course of the experiment—having been entangled with the land of a subatomic particle—becomes a "blur" of "living and dead cat." But this tin't be authentic because it implies the cat is really both dead and live until the box is opened to check on it. But the cat, if information technology survives, will only call up being alive. Schrödinger resists "so naively accepting as valid a 'blurred model' for representing reality."[66] How tin the cat be both alive and dead?

In Copenhagen-type views, the wave office reflects our noesis of the system. The wave part ( | dead ⟩ + | alive ⟩ ) / 2 {\displaystyle (|{\text{expressionless}}\rangle +|{\text{live}}\rangle )/{\sqrt {ii}}} means that, once the cat is observed, in that location is a l% take chances it will be expressionless, and 50% chance it volition be alive.[61] (Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation reject the thought that a wave role can be assigned to a physical system that meets the everyday definition of "cat"; in this view, the correct quantum-mechanical description of the true cat-and-particle arrangement must include a superselection dominion.[62] : 51 )

Wigner's friend [edit]

"Wigner's friend" is a thought experiment intended to make that of Schrödinger'south cat more striking by involving ii witting beings, traditionally known as Wigner and his friend.[8] : 91–92 (In more recent literature, they may also be known as Alice and Bob, per the convention of describing protocols in information theory.[67]) Wigner puts his friend in with the cat. The external observer believes the organisation is in land ( | expressionless ⟩ + | live ⟩ ) / two {\displaystyle (|{\text{expressionless}}\rangle +|{\text{alive}}\rangle )/{\sqrt {two}}} . Yet, his friend is convinced that the true cat is live, i.e. for him, the cat is in the state | alive ⟩ {\displaystyle |{\text{alive}}\rangle } . How can Wigner and his friend come across different wave functions?

In a Heisenbergian view, the respond depends on the positioning of Heisenberg cut, which tin exist placed arbitrarily (at least according to Heisenberg, though non to Bohr[iv]). If Wigner's friend is positioned on the same side of the cutting as the external observer, his measurements collapse the wave function for both observers. If he is positioned on the true cat's side, his interaction with the cat is non considered a measurement.[68] Different Copenhagen-type interpretations take different positions as to whether observers can be placed on the quantum side of the cutting.[68]

Double-slit experiment [edit]

In the basic version of this experiment, a light source, such every bit a light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation beam, illuminates a plate pierced past two parallel slits, and the low-cal passing through the slits is observed on a screen backside the plate. The wave nature of light causes the low-cal waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen – a event that would non be expected if low-cal consisted of classical particles. Still, the calorie-free is always found to be absorbed at the screen at detached points, as individual particles (not waves); the interference pattern appears via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen. Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits observe that each detected photon passes through one slit (every bit would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a moving ridge). Nonetheless, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if 1 detects which slit they pass through.[69] : 73–76

According to Bohr's complementarity principle, light is neither a wave nor a stream of particles. A particular experiment can demonstrate particle behavior (passing through a definite slit) or wave behavior (interference), but not both at the same time.[lxx]

The aforementioned experiment tin in theory exist performed with whatsoever physical system: electrons, protons, atoms, molecules, viruses, bacteria, cats, humans, elephants, planets, etc. In practice it has been performed for light, electrons, buckminsterfullerene,[71] [72] and some atoms. Due to the smallness of Planck'south abiding it is practically impossible to realize experiments that straight reveal the moving ridge nature of whatsoever organisation bigger than a few atoms; but in general quantum mechanics considers all matter as possessing both particle and wave behaviors. Larger systems (like viruses, bacteria, cats, etc.) are considered as "classical" ones just simply as an approximation, not exactly.[note six]

Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox [edit]

This idea experiment involves a pair of particles prepared in what later authors would refer to as an entangled country. In a 1935 newspaper, Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen pointed out that, in this state, if the position of the first particle were measured, the outcome of measuring the position of the second particle could be predicted. If instead the momentum of the first particle were measured, then the result of measuring the momentum of the second particle could be predicted. They argued that no action taken on the beginning particle could instantaneously affect the other, since this would involve data being transmitted faster than low-cal, which is forbidden by the theory of relativity. They invoked a principle, later known as the "EPR criterion of reality", positing that, "If, without in any way agonizing a system, we tin can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, so in that location exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity". From this, they inferred that the second particle must have a definite value of position and of momentum prior to either existence measured.[73]

Bohr'southward response to the EPR paper was published in the Physical Review afterwards that same twelvemonth.[74] He argued that EPR had reasoned fallaciously. Considering measurements of position and of momentum are complementary, making the selection to measure ane excludes the possibility of measuring the other. Consequently, a fact deduced regarding one arrangement of laboratory appliance could not be combined with a fact deduced past means of the other, and then, the inference of predetermined position and momentum values for the second particle was non valid. Bohr concluded that EPR'southward "arguments do not justify their conclusion that the quantum description turns out to be essentially incomplete."[74]

Criticism [edit]

Incompleteness and indeterminism [edit]

Einstein was an early and persistent critic of the Copenhagen schoolhouse. Bohr and Heisenberg advanced the position that no physical property could exist understood without an act of measurement, while Einstein refused to accept this. Abraham Pais recalled a walk with Einstein when the two discussed quantum mechanics: "Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it."[75] While Einstein did not uncertainty that quantum mechanics was a correct physical theory in that it gave right predictions, he maintained that information technology could not be a consummate theory. The near famous product of his efforts to argue the incompleteness of quantum theory is the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen idea experiment, which was intended to show that physical backdrop like position and momentum have values even if not measured.[annotation 7] The argument of EPR was not generally persuasive to other physicists.[58] : 189–251

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, while participating in a colloquium at Cambridge, denied that the Copenhagen interpretation asserted "What cannot exist observed does not exist". Instead, he suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation follows the principle "What is observed certainly exists; near what is not observed nosotros are nevertheless free to make suitable assumptions. We use that liberty to avoid paradoxes."[25]

Einstein was as well dissatisfied with the indeterminism of quantum theory. Regarding the possibility of randomness in nature, Einstein said that he was "convinced that He [God] does non throw dice."[lxxx] Bohr, in response, reputedly said that "information technology cannot be for u.s. to tell God, how he is to run the earth".[note 8]

The "shifty split up" [edit]

Much criticism of Copenhagen-type interpretations has focused on the need for a classical domain where observers or measuring devices can reside, and the imprecision of how the boundary between quantum and classical might be defined. John Bell called this the "shifty split".[6] Equally typically portrayed, Copenhagen-type interpretations involve two different kinds of time development for wave functions, the deterministic flow co-ordinate to the Schrödinger equation and the probabilistic jump during measurement, without a clear criterion for when each kind applies. Why should these two unlike processes be, when physicists and laboratory equipment are made of the aforementioned matter as the rest of the universe?[81] And if there is somehow a split, where should it exist placed? Steven Weinberg writes that the traditional presentation gives "no way to locate the boundary between the realms in which [...] quantum mechanics does or does not apply."[82]

The problem of thinking in terms of classical measurements of a breakthrough system becomes especially acute in the field of quantum cosmology, where the quantum arrangement is the universe.[83] [84] How does an observer stand outside the universe in order to measure information technology, and who was there to detect the universe in its primeval stages? Advocates of Copenhagen-type interpretations have disputed the seriousness of these objections. Rudolf Peierls noted that "the observer does non accept to be contemporaneous with the event"; for example, we study the early universe through the cosmic microwave groundwork, and we can apply quantum mechanics to that merely besides every bit to whatsoever electromagnetic field.[60] Besides, Asher Peres argued that physicists are, conceptually, outside those degrees of liberty that cosmology studies, and applying breakthrough mechanics to the radius of the universe while neglecting the physicists in it is no different from quantizing the electrical current in a superconductor while neglecting the atomic-level details.[39]

Y'all may object that there is simply 1 universe, but likewise there is simply one SQUID in my laboratory.[39]

E. T. Jaynes,[85] an advocate of Bayesian probability, argued that probability is a measure of a state of data well-nigh the physical world, and then regarding it equally a concrete phenomenon would be an example of a mind project fallacy. Jaynes described the mathematical formalism of quantum physics equally "a peculiar mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in office incomplete human information about Nature—all scrambled up together by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that nobody has seen how to unscramble".[86]

Alternatives [edit]

The ensemble interpretation is similar; it offers an interpretation of the wave function, only non for unmarried particles. The consistent histories interpretation advertises itself as "Copenhagen done right".[87] More recently, interpretations inspired by quantum information theory like QBism[88] and relational quantum mechanics[89] have attracted back up.[65] [xc]

Under realism and determinism, if the moving ridge office is regarded as ontologically existent, and plummet is entirely rejected, a many worlds theory results. If wave function collapse is regarded as ontologically real equally well, an objective collapse theory is obtained. Bohmian mechanics shows that it is possible to reformulate breakthrough mechanics to make it deterministic, at the price of making information technology explicitly nonlocal. It attributes non only a wave role to a physical arrangement, simply in addition a real position, that evolves deterministically under a nonlocal guiding equation. The evolution of a physical organisation is given at all times past the Schrödinger equation together with the guiding equation; there is never a collapse of the wave function.[91] The transactional interpretation is as well explicitly nonlocal.[92]

Some physicists espoused views in the "Copenhagen spirit" and and so went on to advocate other interpretations. For example, David Bohm and Alfred Landé both wrote textbooks that put forth ideas in the Bohr–Heisenberg tradition, and afterwards promoted nonlocal hidden variables and an ensemble estimation respectively.[58] : 453 John Archibald Wheeler began his career as an "apostle of Niels Bohr";[93] he then supervised the PhD thesis of Hugh Everett that proposed the many-worlds interpretation. Subsequently supporting Everett's work for several years, he began to distance himself from the many-worlds estimation in the 1970s.[94] [95] Late in life, he wrote that while the Copenhagen estimation might adequately be called "the fog from the n", it "remains the all-time estimation of the breakthrough that we accept".[96]

Other physicists, while influenced by the Copenhagen tradition, have expressed frustration at how it took the mathematical formalism of quantum theory every bit given, rather than trying to understand how it might arise from something more key. This dissatisfaction has motivated new interpretative variants as well as technical work in quantum foundations.[63] [97] Physicists who have suggested that the Copenhagen tradition needs to be built upon or extended include Rudolf Haag and Anton Zeilinger.[84] [98]

Encounter as well [edit]

  • Bohr–Einstein debates
  • Einstein's idea experiments
  • Fifth Solvay Conference
  • Philosophical interpretation of classical physics
  • Concrete ontology
  • Popper's experiment

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ As Heisenberg wrote in Physics and Philosophy (1958): "I retrieve discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very tardily at night and ended most in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be and then absurd every bit it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?"
  2. ^ "There seems to be at least every bit many unlike Copenhagen interpretations equally people who use that term, probably at that place are more. For example, in two classic articles on the foundations of quantum mechanics, Ballentine (1970) and Stapp (1972) give diametrically contrary definitions of 'Copenhagen.'"[33]
  3. ^ Bohr declared, "In the get-go place, nosotros must recognize that a measurement tin mean nothing else than the unambiguous comparison of some belongings of the object nether investigation with a respective belongings of another system, serving as a measuring musical instrument, and for which this property is direct determinable co-ordinate to its definition in everyday linguistic communication or in the terminology of classical physics."[37] Heisenberg wrote, "Every description of phenomena, of experiments and their results, rests upon language as the only means of communication. The words of this linguistic communication stand for the concepts of ordinary life, which in the scientific language of physics may be refined to the concepts of classical physics. These concepts are the simply tools for an unambiguous communication about events, about the setting up of experiments and about their results."[38] : 127
  4. ^ Heisenberg wrote, "It is well known that the 'reduction of the wave packets' always appears in the Copenhagen estimation when the transition is completed from the possible to the actual. The probability function, which covered a wide range of possibilities, is all of a sudden reduced to a much narrower range by the fact that the experiment has led to a definite result, that actually a certain consequence has happened. In the formalism this reduction requires that the then-called interference of probabilities, which is the most feature phenomena [sic] of quantum theory, is destroyed past the partly undefinable and irreversible interactions of the system with the measuring appliance and the rest of the world."[38] : 125 Bohr suggested that "irreversibility" was "characteristic of the very concept of ascertainment", an idea that Weizsäcker would later elaborate upon, trying to formulate a rigorous mathematical notion of irreversibility using thermodynamics, and thus bear witness that irreversibility results in the classical approximation of the world.[4] See also Stenholm.[31]
  5. ^ While Born himself described his contribution as the "statistical interpretation" of the wave office,[45] [46] the term "statistical estimation" has too been used as a synonym for the ensemble interpretation.[47] [48]
  6. ^ The meaning of "larger" is not easy to quantify. Equally Omnès writes, "One cannot fifty-fifty expect a sweeping theorem stating once and for all that every macroscopic object obeys classical physics every bit presently as information technology is big enough, when, for instance, the number of its atoms is large enough. There are two reasons for this. The first i comes from cluttered systems: it turns out that their classical dynamical development ends up showing significant differences at the level of Planck's constant after a finite fourth dimension. Another even more cogent reason is that one now knows examples of superconducting macroscopic systems behaving in a quantum mode under special circumstances ... The theorems predicting classical behavior of a macroscopic quantum organisation must therefore rely upon specific dynamical conditions, which will have to exist made clear, though they concord very ofttimes."[eight] : 202
  7. ^ The published course of the EPR argument was due to Podolsky, and Einstein himself was non satisfied with it. In his ain publications and correspondence, Einstein used a different statement to insist that breakthrough mechanics is an incomplete theory.[76] [77] [78] [79]
  8. ^ Bohr recollected his reply to Einstein at the 1927 Solvay Congress in his essay "Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Bug in Atomic Physics", in Albert Einstein, Philosopher–Scientist, ed. Paul Arthur Shilpp, Harper, 1949, p. 211: "...in spite of all divergencies of approach and stance, a most humorous spirit blithe the discussions. On his side, Einstein mockingly asked us whether we could really believe that the providential authorities took recourse to dice-playing ("ob der liebe Gott würfelt"), to which I replied past pointing at the great caution, already called for by ancient thinkers, in ascribing attributes to Providence in everyday language." Werner Heisenberg, who also attended the congress, recalled the commutation in Encounters with Einstein, Princeton University Printing, 1983, p. 117: "But he [Einstein] still stood past his watchword, which he clothed in the words: 'God does not play at dice.' To which Bohr could only respond: 'But withal, it cannot be for us to tell God, how he is to run the globe.'"

References [edit]

  1. ^ See, for example:
    • Przibram, K., ed. (2015) [1967]. Letters on Wave Mechanics: Correspondence with H. A. Lorentz, Max Planck, and Erwin Schrödinger. Translated by Klein, Martin J. Philosophical Library/Open Road. ISBN9781453204689. the Copenhagen Estimation of quantum mechanics, [was] developed principally by Heisenberg and Bohr, and based on Born'southward statistical estimation of the wave office.
    • Buckley, Paul; Peat, F. David; Bohm; Dirac; Heisenberg; Pattee; Penrose; Prigogine; Rosen; Rosenfeld; Somorjai; Weizsäcker; Wheeler (1979). "Leon Rosenfeld". In Buckley, Paul; Peat, F. David (eds.). A Question of Physics: Conversations in Physics and Biology. Academy of Toronto Press. pp. 17–33. ISBN9781442651661. JSTOR 10.3138/j.ctt15jjc3t.v. The Copenhagen estimation of breakthrough theory, ... grew out of discussions between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg...
    • Gbur, Gregory J. (2019). Falling Felines and Fundamental Physics. Yale University Press. pp. 264–290. doi:10.2307/j.ctvqc6g7s.17. S2CID 243353224. Heisenberg worked under Bohr at an plant in Copenhagen. Together they compiled all existing knowledge of breakthrough physics into a coherent system that is known today equally the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
  2. ^ See, for example:
    • Siddiqui, Shabnam; Singh, Chandralekha (2017). "How diverse are physics instructors' attitudes and approaches to pedagogy undergraduate level quantum mechanics?". European Journal of Physics. 38 (3): 035703. Bibcode:2017EJPh...38c5703S. doi:10.1088/1361-6404/aa6131.
    • Stapp, Henry Pierce (1997). "The Copenhagen Interpretation". The Journal of Mind and Behavior. Institute of Heed and Behavior, Inc. 18 (two/three): 127–54. JSTOR 43853817. led by Bohr and Heisenberg ... was nominally accepted by nearly all textbooks and applied workers in the field.
    • Bell, John Due south. (1987). Speakable and Unspeakable in quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing.
  3. ^ a b c d due east Faye, January (2019). "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". In Zalta, Edward North. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Enquiry Lab, Stanford University.
  4. ^ a b c d e f yard Camilleri, K.; Schlosshauer, M. (2015). "Niels Bohr as Philosopher of Experiment: Does Decoherence Theory Challenge Bohr'south Doctrine of Classical Concepts?". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 49: 73–83. arXiv:1502.06547. Bibcode:2015SHPMP..49...73C. doi:x.1016/j.shpsb.2015.01.005. S2CID 27697360.
  5. ^ a b Pauli, Wolfgang (1994) [1958]. "Albert Einstein and the evolution of physics". In Enz, C. P.; von Meyenn, K. (eds.). Writings on Physics and Philosophy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Bibcode:1994wpp..book.....P.
  6. ^ a b c Bell, John (1990). "Against 'measurement'". Physics World. 3 (8): 33–41. doi:10.1088/2058-7058/3/8/26. ISSN 2058-7058.
  7. ^ Omnès, Roland (1999). "The Copenhagen Interpretation". Understanding Quantum Mechanics. Princeton Academy Press. pp. 41–54. doi:ten.2307/j.ctv173f2pm.9. S2CID 203390914. Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli recognized its chief difficulties and proposed a first essential answer. They often met in Copenhagen ... 'Copenhagen interpretation has not always meant the same affair to dissimilar authors. I will reserve it for the doctrine held with modest differences by Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli.
  8. ^ a b c d east f grand h Omnès, R. (1994). The Estimation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-03669-4. OCLC 439453957.
  9. ^ a b Chevalley, Catherine (1999). "Why Do We Find Bohr Obscure?". In Greenberger, Daniel; Reiter, Wolfgang L.; Zeilinger, Anton (eds.). Epistemological and Experimental Perspectives on Quantum Physics. Springer Scientific discipline+Business Media. pp. 59–74. doi:ten.1007/978-94-017-1454-9. ISBN978-ix-04815-354-one.
  10. ^ van der Waerden, B. L. (1968). "Introduction, Part II". Sources of Breakthrough Mechanics. Dover. ISBN0-486-61881-1.
  11. ^ Bernstein, Jeremy (2005). "Max Born and the Quantum Theory". American Journal of Physics. 73 (eleven): 999–1008. Bibcode:2005AmJPh..73..999B. doi:ten.1119/1.2060717.
  12. ^ a b c d Howard, Don (2004). "Who invented the Copenhagen Interpretation? A study in mythology" (PDF). Philosophy of Scientific discipline. 71 (v): 669–682. CiteSeerXx.1.ane.164.9141. doi:10.1086/425941. JSTOR ten.1086/425941. S2CID 9454552.
  13. ^ Dolling, Lisa K.; Gianelli, Arthur F.; Statile, Glenn Due north., eds. (2003). "Introduction". The Tests of Fourth dimension: Readings in the Development of Physical Theory. Princeton Academy Press. pp. 359–370. doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4h07.52. The generally accepted estimation of Quantum Theory was formulated by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Wolfgang Pauli during the early on part of the twentieth century at Bohr's laboratory in Copenhagen, Denmark. This account, ordinarily referred to as the "Copenhagen Interpretation"...
  14. ^ Brush, Stephen G. (1980). "The Chimerical Cat: Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective". Social Studies of Science. Sage Publications, Ltd. 10 (4): 393–447. doi:10.1177/030631278001000401. JSTOR 284918. S2CID 145727731. On the other side, Niels Bohr was the leading spokesman for the new movement in physics, and thus information technology acquired the proper noun 'Copenhagen Interpretation.'
  15. ^ Bacciagaluppi, Guido; Valentini, Antony (2009-10-22). Breakthrough Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Briefing. Cambridge University Printing. p. 408. ISBN978-0-521-81421-viii. (This book contains a translation of the entire authorized proceedings of the 1927 Solvay briefing from the original transcripts.)
  16. ^ a b Bokulich, Alisa (2006). "Heisenberg Meets Kuhn: Airtight Theories and Paradigms". Philosophy of Science. 73 (1): 90–107. doi:10.1086/510176. ISSN 0031-8248. JSTOR 10.1086/510176. S2CID 170902096.
  17. ^ Mehra, J.; Rechenberg, H. (2001). The Historical Evolution of Quantum Theory: Book iv. Springer-Verlag. p. 266. ISBN9780387906423. OCLC 928788723.
  18. ^ See, for example:
    • Smith, Quentin (1997). "The Ontological Estimation of the Wave Office of the Universe". The Monist. Oxford University Press. 80 (1): 160–185. doi:ten.5840/monist19978015. JSTOR 27903516. Since the belatedly 1920s, the orthodox interpretation was taken to exist the Copenhagen Estimation
    • Weinberg, Steven (2018). "The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics". Tertiary Thoughts. Harvard University Press. pp. 124–142. ISBN9780674975323. JSTOR j.ctvckq5b7.17. 1 response to this puzzle was given in the 1920s past Niels Bohr, in what came to exist called the Copenhagen interpretation of breakthrough mechanics.
    • Hanson, Norwood Russell (1959). "V Cautions for the Copenhagen Estimation's Critics". Philosophy of Science. The Academy of Chicago Press, Philosophy of Scientific discipline Association. 26 (4): 325–337. doi:10.1086/287687. JSTOR 185366. S2CID 170786589. Feyerabend and Bohm are almost exclusively concerned with the inadequacies of the Bohr-Interpretation (which originates in Copenhagen). Both understress a much less incautious view, which I shall telephone call 'the Copenhagen Estimation' (which originates in Leipzig and presides at Göttingen, Munich, Cambridge, Princeton,―and nigh everywhere else too).
  19. ^ Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden' Variables. I & Ii". Physical Review. 85 (2): 166–193. Bibcode:1952PhRv...85..166B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166.
  20. ^ Kragh, H. (1999). Breakthrough Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press. p. 210. ISBN978-0-691-01206-3. OCLC 450598985. In fact, the term 'Copenhagen interpretation' was not used in the 1930s but first entered the physicists' vocabulary in 1955 when Heisenberg used it in criticizing certain unorthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics.
  21. ^ a b Camilleri, Kristian (May 2009). "Amalgam the Myth of the Copenhagen Interpretation". Perspectives on Scientific discipline. 17 (one): 26–57. doi:10.1162/posc.2009.17.1.26. ISSN 1063-6145. S2CID 57559199.
  22. ^ a b Heisenberg, Werner (1958). Physics and Philosophy. Harper.
  23. ^ "I avow that the term 'Copenhagen interpretation' is not happy since it could propose that there are other interpretations, like Bohm assumes. We agree, of course, that the other interpretations are nonsense, and I believe that this is clear in my book, and in previous papers. Anyway, I cannot at present, unfortunately, change the book since the printing began enough time ago." Quoted in Freire Jr., Olival (2005). "Science and exile: David Bohm, the hot times of the Cold War, and his struggle for a new interpretation of quantum mechanics". Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences. 36 (i): 31–35.
  24. ^ Rosenfeld, Léon (1960). "Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy". Nature. 186 (4728): 830–831. Bibcode:1960Natur.186..830R. doi:10.1038/186830a0. S2CID 12979706.
  25. ^ a b Cramer, John Chiliad. (1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (iii): 649. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.58.647. Archived from the original on 2012-xi-08.
  26. ^ Maleeh, Reza; Amani, Parisa (December 2013). "Pragmatism, Bohr, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 27 (iv): 353–367. doi:ten.1080/02698595.2013.868182. ISSN 0269-8595. S2CID 170415674.
  27. ^ Boge, Florian J. (2018). Quantum Mechanics Betwixt Ontology and Epistemology. Cham: Springer. p. 2. ISBN978-3-319-95765-iv. OCLC 1086564338.
  28. ^ Scheibe, Erhard (1973). The Logical Analysis of Quantum Mechanics. Pergamon Press. ISBN9780080171586. OCLC 799397091. [T]here is no bespeak in looking for the Copenhagen interpretation every bit a unified and consistent logical structure. Terms such equally "Copenhagen interpretation" or "Copenhagen school" are based on the history of the evolution of quantum mechanics; they course a simplified and often convenient way of referring to the ideas of a number of physicists who played an of import part in the establishment of quantum mechanics, and who were collaborators of Bohr's at his Constitute or took function in the discussions during the crucial years. On closer inspection, one sees quite easily that these ideas are divergent in item and that in particular the views of Bohr, the spiritual leader of the school, class a carve up entity which can now be understood only past a thorough written report of equally many every bit possible of the relevant publications by Bohr himself.
  29. ^ Camilleri, Kristian (September 2007). "Bohr, Heisenberg and the divergent views of complementarity". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 38 (3): 514–528. Bibcode:2007SHPMP..38..514C. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2006.10.002.
  30. ^ Bohr, Niels (1985) [May sixteen, 1947]. Kalckar, Jørgen (ed.). Niels Bohr: Collected Works. Vol. 6: Foundations of Quantum Physics I (1926-1932). pp. 451–454.
  31. ^ a b Stenholm, Stig (1983). "To fathom infinite and time". In Meystre, Pierre (ed.). Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation, and Measurement Theory. Plenum Printing. p. 121. The role of irreversibility in the theory of measurement has been emphasized by many. Simply this style can a permanent record be obtained. The fact that separate pointer positions must be of the asymptotic nature usually associated with irreversibility has been utilized in the measurement theory of Daneri, Loinger and Prosperi (1962). It has been accepted as a formal representation of Bohr's ideas by Rosenfeld (1966).
  32. ^ Haake, Fritz (April 1, 1993). "Classical motion of meter variables in the quantum theory of measurement". Physical Review A. 47 (4): 2506–2517. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.2506H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.2506. PMID 9909217.
  33. ^ Peres, Asher (2002). "Popper'due south experiment and the Copenhagen estimation". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 33: 23. arXiv:quant-ph/9910078. Bibcode:1999quant.ph.10078P. doi:10.1016/S1355-2198(01)00034-X.
  34. ^ Mermin, Due north. David (1989). "What'southward Wrong with this Pillow?". Physics Today. 42 (iv): ix. Bibcode:1989PhT....42d...9D. doi:10.1063/1.2810963.
  35. ^ Mermin, N. David (2004). "Could Feynman have said this?". Physics Today. 57 (5): 10–eleven. Bibcode:2004PhT....57e..10M. doi:10.1063/1.1768652.
  36. ^ Mermin, N. David (2017-01-01). "Why QBism Is Not the Copenhagen Interpretation and What John Bong Might Have Thought of It". In Bertlmann, Reinhold; Zeilinger, Anton (eds.). Breakthrough [Un]Speakables II. The Frontiers Collection. Springer International Publishing. pp. 83–93. arXiv:1409.2454. doi:10.1007/978-three-319-38987-5_4. ISBN9783319389851. S2CID 118458259.
  37. ^ Bohr, Due north. (1939). "The Causality Problem in Diminutive Physics". New Theories in Physics. Paris: International Establish of Intellectual Co-operation. pp. eleven–30. OCLC 923465888.
  38. ^ a b Heisenberg, Werner (1971) [1959]. "Criticism and counterproposals to the Copenhagen estimation of breakthrough theory". Physics and Philosophy: the Revolution in Modern Scientific discipline. London: George Allen & Unwin. pp. 114–128.
  39. ^ a b c Peres, Asher (1998-12-01). "Interpreting the Breakthrough World". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modernistic Physics. 29 (iv): 611–620. arXiv:quant-ph/9711003. Bibcode:1997quant.ph.11003P. doi:10.1016/S1355-2198(98)00017-3. ISSN 1355-2198.
  40. ^ Camilleri, G. (2006). "Heisenberg and the moving ridge–particle duality". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 37 (2): 298–315. Bibcode:2006SHPMP..37..298C. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2005.08.002.
  41. ^ Camilleri, K. (2009). Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: the Physicist as Philosopher. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-88484-6. OCLC 638813030.
  42. ^ Bohr, N. (1928). "The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Evolution of Atomic Theory". Nature. 121 (3050): 580–590. Bibcode:1928Natur.121..580B. doi:10.1038/121580a0. , p. 586: "there can exist no question of an immediate connection with our ordinary conceptions".
  43. ^ Heisenberg, W. (1959/1971). 'Language and reality in modernistic physics', Chapter 10, pp. 145–160, in Physics and Philosophy: the Revolution in Modern Scientific discipline, George Allen & Unwin, London, ISBN 0-04-530016 X, p. 153: "our mutual concepts cannot be applied to the structure of the atoms."
  44. ^ Bohr, Northward. (1928). "The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory". Nature. 121 (3050): 580–590. Bibcode:1928Natur.121..580B. doi:10.1038/121580a0. , p. 586: "In this connection [Born] succeeded in obtaining a statistical interpretation of the wave functions, allowing a calculation of the probability of the private transition processes required by the quantum postulate."
  45. ^ Born, Yard. (1955). "Statistical estimation of breakthrough mechanics". Scientific discipline. 122 (3172): 675–679. Bibcode:1955Sci...122..675B. doi:10.1126/science.122.3172.675. PMID 17798674.
  46. ^ "... the statistical estimation, which I have start suggested and which has been formulated in the virtually general way by von Neumann, ..." Born, Thousand. (1953). The interpretation of breakthrough mechanics, Br. J. Philos. Sci., 4(14): 95–106.
  47. ^ Ballentine, Fifty.E. (1970). "The statistical interpretation of breakthrough mechanics". Rev. Modern. Phys. 42 (4): 358–381. Bibcode:1970RvMP...42..358B. doi:10.1103/revmodphys.42.358.
  48. ^ Born, G. (1949). Einstein's statistical theories, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist, ed. P.A. Schilpp, Open up Court, La Salle IL, volume 1, pp. 161–177.
  49. ^ West. Heisenberg "Ãœber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik," Zeitschrift für Physik, Volume 43, 172–198 (1927), as translated by John Wheeler and Wojciech Zurek, in Quantum Theory and Measurement (1983), p. 74. ("[The] determination of the position selects a definite "q" from the totality of possibilities and limits the options for all subsequent measurements. ... [T]he results of later measurements can just be calculated when one once again ascribes to the electron a "smaller" wavepacket of extension λ (wavelength of the light used in the observation). Thus, every position determination reduces the wavepacket back to its original extension λ.")
  50. ^ "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to exist brought into the description of nature." Heisenberg, W. (1959/1971). Criticism and counterproposals to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, Chapter viii, pp. 114–128, in Physics and Philosophy: the Revolution in Mod Science, tertiary impression 1971, George Allen & Unwin, London, at p. 121.
  51. ^ Run across, for case:
    • Zeh, H. Dieter (1970). "On the Estimation of Measurement in Quantum Theory". Foundations of Physics. 1 (1): 69–76. Bibcode:1970FoPh....1...69Z. doi:10.1007/BF00708656. S2CID 963732.
    • Zurek, Wojciech H. (1981). "Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into what Mixture does the Wave Package Plummet?". Physical Review D. 24 (6): 1516–1525. Bibcode:1981PhRvD..24.1516Z. doi:ten.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516.
    • Zurek, Wojciech H. (1982). "Environment-Induced Superselection Rules". Concrete Review D. 26 (eight): 1862–1880. Bibcode:1982PhRvD..26.1862Z. doi:ten.1103/PhysRevD.26.1862.
  52. ^ Schlosshauer, 1000. (2019). "Quantum Decoherence". Physics Reports. 831: 1–57. arXiv:1911.06282. Bibcode:2019PhR...831....1S. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.x.001. S2CID 208006050.
  53. ^ Jammer, Thou. (1982). 'Einstein and breakthrough physics', pp. 59–76 in Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives; the Centennial Symposium in Jerusalem, edited by Yard. Holton, Y. Elkana, Princeton University Printing, Princeton NJ, ISBN 0-691-08299-5. On pp. 73–74, Jammer quotes a 1952 letter of the alphabet from Einstein to Besso: "The present quantum theory is unable to provide the description of a existent country of physical facts, but but of an (incomplete) knowledge of such. Moreover, the very concept of a existent factual state is debarred by the orthodox theoreticians. The situation arrived at corresponds almost exactly to that of the good old Bishop Berkeley."
  54. ^ Heisenberg, West. (1927). Ãœber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, Z. Phys. 43: 172–198. Translation as 'The actual content of breakthrough theoretical kinematics and mechanics' hither: "Since the statistical nature of quantum theory is so closely [linked] to the uncertainty in all observations or perceptions, one could be tempted to conclude that backside the observed, statistical world a "real" world is hidden, in which the law of causality is applicative. We want to country explicitly that we believe such speculations to be both fruitless and pointless. The only task of physics is to depict the relation between observations."
  55. ^ Jammer, One thousand. (1982). 'Einstein and quantum physics', pp. 59–76 in Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives; the Centennial Symposium in Jerusalem, edited by Thousand. Holton, Y. Elkana, Princeton University Printing, Princeton NJ, ISBN 0-691-08299-5, p. 72.
  56. ^ Belousek, D.W. (1996). "Einstein's 1927 unpublished hidden-variable theory: its background, context and significance". Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 21 (4): 431–461. Bibcode:1996SHPMP..27..437B. doi:10.1016/S1355-2198(96)00015-9.
  57. ^ Holland, P (2005). "What'south wrong with Einstein'due south 1927 hidden-variable estimation of quantum mechanics?". Foundations of Physics. 35 (2): 177–196. arXiv:quant-ph/0401017. Bibcode:2005FoPh...35..177H. doi:10.1007/s10701-004-1940-7. S2CID 119426936.
  58. ^ a b c d due east Jammer, Max (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN0-471-43958-4.
  59. ^ a b Mermin, N. David (2019-01-01). "Making ameliorate sense of breakthrough mechanics". Reports on Progress in Physics. 82 (ane): 012002. arXiv:1809.01639. Bibcode:2019RPPh...82a2002M. doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aae2c6. ISSN 0034-4885. PMID 30232960. S2CID 52299438.
  60. ^ a b Peierls, Rudolf (1991). "In defence of "measurement"". Physics World. 4 (1): 19–21. doi:10.1088/2058-7058/4/1/nineteen. ISSN 2058-7058.
  61. ^ a b Peres, Asher (1993). Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer. pp. 373–374. ISBN0-7923-2549-4. OCLC 28854083.
  62. ^ a b Streater, R. F. (2007). Lost causes in and beyond physics. Berlin: Springer. ISBN978-3-540-36582-2. OCLC 185022108.
  63. ^ a b Appleby, D. M. (2005). "Facts, Values and Quanta". Foundations of Physics. 35 (4): 637. arXiv:quant-ph/0402015. Bibcode:2005FoPh...35..627A. doi:x.1007/s10701-004-2014-six. S2CID 16072294.
  64. ^ Max Tegmark (1998). "The Interpretation of Breakthrough Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?". Fortschr. Phys. 46 (6–eight): 855–862. arXiv:quant-ph/9709032. Bibcode:1998ForPh..46..855T. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1521-3978(199811)46:half-dozen/viii<855::Aid-PROP855>3.0.CO;two-Q.
  65. ^ a b M. Schlosshauer; J. Kofler; A. Zeilinger (2013). "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Mod Physics. 44 (3): 222–230. arXiv:1301.1069. Bibcode:2013SHPMP..44..222S. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004. S2CID 55537196.
  66. ^ Trimmer, John D. (1980). "The Nowadays Situation in Quantum Mechanics: A Translation of Schrödinger's "True cat Paradox" Newspaper". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Lodge. 124 (5): 323–338. ISSN 0003-049X.
  67. ^ Fuchs, Christopher A.; Mermin, Northward. David; Schack, Rüdiger (August 2014). "An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics". American Journal of Physics. 82 (8): 749–754. arXiv:1311.5253. Bibcode:2014AmJPh..82..749F. doi:10.1119/i.4874855. ISSN 0002-9505.
  68. ^ a b Nurgalieva, Nuriya; Renner, Renato (2020-07-02). "Testing breakthrough theory with thought experiments". Contemporary Physics. 61 (three): 193–216. arXiv:2106.05314. Bibcode:2020ConPh..61..193N. doi:ten.1080/00107514.2021.1880075. ISSN 0010-7514.
  69. ^ Plotnitsky, Arkady (2012). Niels Bohr and Complementarity: An Introduction. U.s.a.: Springer. pp. 75–76. ISBN978-1461445173.
  70. ^ Rosenfeld, Fifty. (1953). "Strife about Complementarity". Science Progress (1933- ). 41 (163): 393–410. ISSN 0036-8504.
  71. ^ Nairz, Olaf; Brezger, Björn; Arndt, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton (2001). "Diffraction of Complex Molecules by Structures Made of Calorie-free". Physical Review Letters. 87 (16): 160401. arXiv:quant-ph/0110012. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..87p0401N. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.160401. PMID 11690188. S2CID 21547361.
  72. ^ Brezger, Björn; Hackermüller, Lucia; Uttenthaler, Stefan; Petschinka, Julia; Arndt, Markus; Zeilinger, Anton (2002). "Matter-Wave Interferometer for Large Molecules". Physical Review Letters. 88 (10): 100404. arXiv:quant-ph/0202158. Bibcode:2002PhRvL..88j0404B. doi:ten.1103/PhysRevLett.88.100404. PMID 11909334. S2CID 19793304.
  73. ^ Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, Due north (1935-05-15). "Tin can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?" (PDF). Concrete Review. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:ten.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
  74. ^ a b Bohr, N. (1935-10-13). "Tin can Quantum-Mechanical Clarification of Physical Reality be Considered Consummate?" (PDF). Physical Review. 48 (8): 696–702. Bibcode:1935PhRv...48..696B. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.48.696.
  75. ^ Pais, Abraham (1979). "Einstein and the quantum theory". Reviews of Modern Physics. 51 (iv): 863–914. Bibcode:1979RvMP...51..863P. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.51.863.
  76. ^ Harrigan, Nicholas; Spekkens, Robert W. (2010). "Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states". Foundations of Physics. 40 (2): 125. arXiv:0706.2661. Bibcode:2010FoPh...xl..125H. doi:ten.1007/s10701-009-9347-0. S2CID 32755624.
  77. ^ Howard, D. (1985). "Einstein on locality and separability". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Office A. xvi (3): 171–201. Bibcode:1985SHPSA..16..171H. doi:x.1016/0039-3681(85)90001-nine.
  78. ^ Sauer, Tilman (2007-12-01). "An Einstein manuscript on the EPR paradox for spin observables". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 38 (4): 879–887. Bibcode:2007SHPMP..38..879S. CiteSeerX10.ane.1.571.6089. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2007.03.002. ISSN 1355-2198.
  79. ^ Einstein, Albert (1949). "Autobiographical Notes". In Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed.). Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Open Courtroom Publishing Visitor.
  80. ^ Alphabetic character to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters. Translated by Born, Irene. New York: Walker and Company. 1971. ISBN0-8027-0326-7. OCLC 439521601.
  81. ^ Weinberg, Steven (November 2005). "Einstein's Mistakes". Physics Today. 58 (eleven): 31. Bibcode:2005PhT....58k..31W. doi:x.1063/1.2155755.
  82. ^ Weinberg, Steven (19 January 2017). "The Problem with Quantum Mechanics". New York Review of Books . Retrieved 8 Jan 2017.
  83. ^ 'Since the Universe naturally contains all of its observers, the trouble arises to come up with an interpretation of quantum theory that contains no classical realms on the key level.', Claus Kiefer (2002). "On the interpretation of quantum theory – from Copenhagen to the present day". Time. p. 291. arXiv:quant-ph/0210152. Bibcode:2003tqi..conf..291K.
  84. ^ a b Haag, Rudolf (2010). "Some people and some problems met in half a century of delivery to mathematical physics". The European Concrete Periodical H. 35 (3): 263–307. Bibcode:2010EPJH...35..263H. doi:10.1140/epjh/e2010-10032-four. S2CID 59320730.
  85. ^ Jaynes, Eastward. T. (1989). "Clearing upward Mysteries – The Original Goal" (PDF). Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods: 7.
  86. ^ Jaynes, E. T. (1990). "Probability in Quantum Theory". In Zurek, Westward. H. (ed.). Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information. Addison-Wesley. pp. 381–404. ISBN9780201515060. OCLC 946145335.
  87. ^ Hohenberg, P. C. (2010-10-05). "Colloquium : An introduction to consistent breakthrough theory". Reviews of Modernistic Physics. 82 (4): 2835–2844. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2835. ISSN 0034-6861.
  88. ^ Healey, Richard (2016). "Breakthrough-Bayesian and Pragmatist Views of Quantum Theory". In Zalta, Edward North. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  89. ^ See, for example:
    • van Fraassen, Bas C. (April 2010). "Rovelli's World". Foundations of Physics. forty (4): 390–417. Bibcode:2010FoPh...40..390V. doi:10.1007/s10701-009-9326-5. ISSN 0015-9018. S2CID 17217776.
    • Prescod-Weinstein, Chanda (2021-07-07). "No man is an island – the early days of the quantum revolution". Physics World . Retrieved 2022-02-03 . In brusk, the relational interpretation insists that the quantum state of a system depends on the observer, and information technology is a concept that Rovelli has helped to formalize and convert into an area of active research.
  90. ^ Becker, Kate (2013-01-25). "Breakthrough physics has been rankling scientists for decades". Boulder Daily Photographic camera . Retrieved 2013-01-25 .
  91. ^ Goldstein, Sheldon (2017). "Bohmian Mechanics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  92. ^ Kastner, R. E. (May 2010). "The Breakthrough Liar Experiment in Cramer's transactional interpretation". Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 41 (two). doi:ten.1016/j.shpsb.2010.01.001.
  93. ^ Gleick, James (1992). Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. Vintage Books. ISBN978-0-679-74704-viii. OCLC 223830601.
  94. ^ Wheeler, John Archibald (1977). "Include the observer in the wave part?". In Lopes, J. Leite; Paty, M. (eds.). Quantum Mechanics: A One-half Century Later. D. Reidel Publishing.
  95. ^ Byrne, Peter (2012). The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family. Oxford Academy Press. ISBN978-0-199-55227-half dozen. OCLC 809554486.
  96. ^ Wheeler, John Archibald (2000-12-12). "'A Practical Tool,' Only Puzzling, Too". New York Times . Retrieved 2020-12-25 .
  97. ^ Fuchs, Christopher A. (2018). "Copenhagen Interpretation Delenda Est?". American Journal of Physics. 87 (4): 317–318. arXiv:1809.05147. Bibcode:2018arXiv180905147F. doi:10.1119/1.5089208. S2CID 224755562.
  98. ^ Zeilinger, Anton (1999). "A foundational principle for quantum mechanics". Foundations of Physics. 29 (4): 631–643. doi:ten.1023/A:1018820410908. Suffice it to say here that, in my view, the principle naturally supports and extends the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is evident that ane of the firsthand consequences is that in physics nosotros cannot talk about reality contained of what tin can be said near reality. Likewise it does non brand sense to reduce the job of physics to just making subjective statements, because any statements nigh the physical world must ultimately be field of study to experiment. Therefore, while in a classical worldview, reality is a primary concept prior to and contained of ascertainment with all its properties, in the emerging view of quantum mechanics the notions of reality and of data are on an equal ground. I implies the other and neither one is sufficient to obtain a complete understanding of the world.

Farther reading [edit]

  • Folse, H.; Faye, J., eds. (2017). Niels Bohr and the Philosophy of Physics. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN978-1-350-03511-9. OCLC 1006344483.
  • van der Waerden, B. L., ed. (2007). Sources of Breakthrough Mechanics. Dover. ISBN978-0-486-45892-2. OCLC 920280519.
  • Fine, Arthur (1986). The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory. University of Chicago Press. ISBN978-0-226-24946-9. OCLC 988425945.
  • Wheeler, J. A.; Zurek, Due west. H., eds. (1983). Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-08316-2. OCLC 865311103.
  • Petersen, A. (1968). Quantum Physics and the Philosophical Tradition. MIT Press. OCLC 43596.
  • Petersen, A. (1963). "The Philosophy of Niels Bohr". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 19 (7): eight–14. Bibcode:1963BuAtS..19g...8P. doi:10.1080/00963402.1963.11454520.
  • Margeneau, H. (1950). The Nature of Physical Reality. McGraw-Loma. OCLC 874550860.

lewisadmily.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

0 Response to "Physics and the Quantum Mechanical Model 53 Section Review"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel