Kevin's Watch

Just out of interest.......

Murrin wrote:

I believe the Copenhagen interpretation of the theory of Quantum Mechanics (as formulated bu Bhor et al sometime prior 1932) is still the interpretation adhered to by most theoretical physisists to this day, but it's boarderline 'instrumentalist' position is to some extent being challanged by a more 'realist' position in the form of the 'multiverse' adherants who are dissatisfied ith the 'shut up and calculate' approach of the Copenhagenists. (nb Einstein never accepted Copenhagen and Schrodinger himself gave a rather apologetic lecture in which he almost embarasedly granted that his ridiculous equations re the multiverse (not called that at the time) option 'might be true'.

I'm interested (as a lay observer of what goes on in this feild) as to whether this leaning toward Bhor's answer to the riddle (wraped up in an enigma and stamped with a pradox) that is quantum mechanics is reflected in the views of Watchers who seem in my view (and you Murrin are one of them ) to know an almost unhealthy amount about this sort of stuff.

you are all a dream that i am having - so there.

As far as I can tell, the Copenhagen interpretation has been rejected by a good majority. It doesn't seem prominent among the chemists at my University, anyway.

At the same time, I think the multi-universe interpretation is largely ignored as well. At least in chemistry, it's more of a numbers game.

We never really went into the subject at University. We were taught the mathematics and the principles of quantum mechanics but didn't touch on interpretations. My inclination is that Copenhagen (from what little I understand) is not (and doesn't really attempt to be) an explanation for the actual reality of what is occuring, and only offers a framework for describing the outcomes.

Murrin wrote:We never really went into the subject at University. We were taught the mathematics and the principles of quantum mechanics but didn't touch on interpretations. My inclination is that Copenhagen (from what little I understand) is not (and doesn't really attempt to be) an explanation for the actual reality of what is occuring, and only offers a framework for describing the outcomes.

That could be it. It may even just be something they use to talk about it publicly. Heisenberg once stated that everything in quantum mechanics makes sense in the mathematics, but once you tried to translate that into words, it became very difficult if not impossible.

plus since reality is subjective i have decided to live forever.

Yeah, I've always quite liked the Copenhagen interpretation myself. I'm nowhere near qualified to even think about the mathematics, so I never go there. In terms of words though, I like it. Probably appeals to the atheist/solipsist/subjectivist in me.

The multiverse idea bugs me for some reason I can't quite articulate yet.

--A

Avatar wrote: The multiverse idea bugs me for some reason I can't quite articulate yet.

--A

It bothers me because it is a complete cop-out (kinda like what Hashi was saying. Oh, we don't know the path of the particle, so instead of saying that is because of the limitations of the quantum mechanical technique they come up with some crap about how it actually does several different paths in different universes, all of which revolve around a Dark Tower. Like I said, a cop-out).

Yeah...sorta like "our calculations aren't working out, so we'll posit an extra dimension, 'cause then they will."

--A

Avatar wrote:Yeah...sorta like "our calculations aren't working out, so we'll posit an extra dimension, 'cause then they will."

--A

some scientist ask me to believe as a matter of faith...

I don't understand the question, let alone the answers! I suspect I'm not the only one either

The question arises from (probably unwisely) reading two books simultaniously, one about the events leading up to the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of the new (at the time) theory of quantum Mechanics, the other about the open ended nature of 'progress' which is scathing of the above, regarding it as a major 'cop-out' and bad science to boot. David Deutsch, the author of the second book and a strong proponent of the multiverse option even goes so far as to refer to the great Richard Feynmans comment "If you think you understand quantum mechanics - you don't" as nonsense (sic). For Deutsch, the problems associated with QM's are just that - problems - and they will be solved, but not by the taking of the safe route of denying the theorys more 'outlandish' aspects, but by embracing them and working through them.

One thing that has come out of the reading of these books for me is that I had always assumed quantum mechanics was something that had come out of the study of the atomic nucleus, but from my reading of the first book it appears that it is a theory that was applied to this area after its formulation. Am I right in assuming then that in it's first appearence then the theory dealt only with the way that energy should be viewed (ie as coming in these little indivisable packets or 'quanta') and as such can be 'applied' to other areas of physics other than just nuclear?

Quantum mechanics was, I think, formulated to try to explain certain behaviour of light and particles (like double slit particle diffraction and the photoelectric effect). The implications of that first idea, wave-particle duality and existance of quanta of light, led to a whole mess of predictions of how everything else should behave. Over the last hundred years almost every prediction has been shown to be true.

As far as I can tell from limited reading, the Copenhagen interpretation is not well defined but generally holds that quantum mechanics tells you nothing meaningful about what is actually happening but just offers a mathematical solution to make observations and predictions. The other interpretations try to find explanations for how the quantum mechanical theories do work in reality.

Iolanthe wrote:I don't understand the question, let alone the answers! I suspect I'm not the only one either

peter, you forgot the poll option for "WTF?"

don't you mean the one for WGAF Ali

peter wrote:don't you mean the one for WGAF Ali

Well, but *you* obviously GAF...

aliantha wrote:

peter wrote:don't you mean the one for WGAF Ali

Well, but *you* obviously GAF...

You are right Ali - though why it should be the case don't ask me.