Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Foundations of Physics

Inconsistency of the Copenhagen interpretation

C. I. J. M. Stuart

Published May 1, 1991• 3 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf00733260

Related papers

Interpretation of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’

Badis Ydri

Institute of Physics eBooks•Oct 1, 2021•0 citations

Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

The problems of modern physics are man made.The Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics is formulated in a vague prosaic way, inconsistencies and paradoxes are the price.New interpretations try to solve the problem, however a reformulation rather than an interpretation is needed.In this manuscript I will point out, where the Copenhagen formulation of quantum mechanics is flawed and how one can make sense out of it.Then I will show, that it is possible to give a precise formulation of quantum mechanics without losing its compelling ability in describing experiments.

IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS eBooks•Oct 1, 2011•0 citations

Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Peter Pickl

The problems of modern physics are man made. The Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics is formulated in a vague prosaic way, inconsistencies and paradoxes are the price. New interpretations try to solve the problem, however a reformulation rather than an interpretation is needed. In this manuscript I will point out, where the Copenhagen formulation of quantum mechanics is flawed and how one can make sense out of it. Then I will show, that it is possible to give a precise formulation of quantum mechanics without losing its compelling ability in describing experiments.

EPJ Web of Conferences•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations

Later Criticism of the Copenhagen Interpretation

H. Capellmann

SpringerBriefs in history of science and technology•Jan 1, 2017•1 citation

Copenhagen Interpretation

Andrey Anatoljevich Grib, Waldyr A. Rodrigues

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1999•2 citations

I think, therefore

Jim Baggott

Abstract The orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is silent on the question of the collapse of the wave function. The field is therefore wide open. If we choose to reject the strict Copenhagen interpretation, we are, given our present level of understanding, free to choose exactly how we wish to fill the void. Any suggestion, no matter how strange, is in principle legitimate, provided that it does not produce a theory inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory known to have been upheld so far by experiment. We are not constrained to a specific solution. Our choice is therefore a matter of personal taste.

•Nov 6, 2003•0 citations
The problems of modern physics are man made.The Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics is formulated in a vague prosaic way, inconsistencies and paradoxes are the price.New interpretations try to solve the problem, however a reformulation rather than an interpretation is needed.In this manuscript I will point out, where the Copenhagen formulation of quantum mechanics is flawed and how one can make sense out of it.Then I will show, that it is possible to give a precise formulation of quantum mechanics without losing its compelling ability in describing experiments.
The problems of modern physics are man made. The Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics is formulated in a vague prosaic way, inconsistencies and paradoxes are the price. New interpretations try to solve the problem, however a reformulation rather than an interpretation is needed. In this manuscript I will point out, where the Copenhagen formulation of quantum mechanics is flawed and how one can make sense out of it. Then I will show, that it is possible to give a precise formulation of quantum mechanics without losing its compelling ability in describing experiments.
Abstract The orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is silent on the question of the collapse of the wave function. The field is therefore wide open. If we choose to reject the strict Copenhagen interpretation, we are, given our present level of understanding, free to choose exactly how we wish to fill the void. Any suggestion, no matter how strange, is in principle legitimate, provided that it does not produce a theory inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory known to have been upheld so far by experiment. We are not constrained to a specific solution. Our choice is therefore a matter of personal taste.