4
$\begingroup$

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is nowadays the interpretation that prevails over other interpretations (or theories). Basically, it states that all processes in Nature are inherently probabilistic. Contrary to, for example, the pilot wave theory, of which Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, 7th Duc de Broglie and David Bohm (who revived the theory) are proponents. This theory sees Nature as inherently probabilistic. Quantum stuff is seen as governed by the deterministic motion of a wave accompanying the stuff (like a Brownian particle is accompanied by the fluid it moves in). So, such a theory (it's not an interpretation, I guess) explains the strange behavior of stuff in quantum mechanics by the introduction of maybe even stranger things as a pilot wave or hidden variables (introduced by Bohm).

Now I can imagine that this vision could be taught in present-day schools or where ever. But this isn't the case. The Copenhagen interpretation rules supreme, so to speak. Why is this? Is it because a bunch of physicists (like Bohr, Heisenberg, and Born) decided in Copenhagen that this view should be the view? Einstein struggled against the view (god doesn't play dice) but to no avail. Was it powerplay that decided the faith of quantum mechanics?

New contributor
Methadont is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
9
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A good question for which I see no good answer. Lee Smolin recently discussed the topic in his Unfinished revolution (2019). A quote paraphrasing M.Bitbol: " had Grete Hermann's critique not remained nearly unknown for decades, her ideas would have put in question the unequivocal acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, by providing a credible basis for the further development of nonlocal hidden variable theories, which would have changed the historical development of quantum mechanics." $\endgroup$ – sand1 Jun 10 at 20:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I strongly believe this is not a genuine answerable history question, but an ontological discussion properly belonging to the philosophy SE. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Jun 11 at 16:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As Poincare wrote, there is no difference between the theory that the Sun rotates around the Earth and the theory that the Earth rotates around the Sun. This is a matter of convenience. Same for different models of QM. $\endgroup$ – Mark Sapir Jun 11 at 17:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Methadont: Poincare showed that there is none. Of course you may disagree. $\endgroup$ – Mark Sapir Jun 11 at 17:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Methadont: There is no universal coordinate system even if you believe in one. Poincare is long dead and cannot answer comments on HSM-SE. $\endgroup$ – Mark Sapir Jun 11 at 18:02

Your Answer

Methadont is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.