By revisiting two famous questions about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, this article presents a concise analysis of the quantum measurement problem concerning both microscopic and macroscopic objects. The method used here is mainly based on the concept ``isolated point'' in ``point-set topology''. The findings reported are as follows. (a) Einstein's argument has been misunderstood; he was opposed to the so-called ``inherently probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics'' in the Copenhagen interpretation rather than to the use of probability in quantum mechanics. (b) Probability used in Einstein's ensemble interpretation is identical to the quantum-mechanically calculated probability. (c) The wave-functions in Einstein's ensemble interpretation neither describe any single quantum object purportedly possessing mutually exclusive properties simultaneously when nobody looks nor collapse abruptly when an observer performs a measurement.
By revisiting two famous questions concerning the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, this article presents a concise analysis of the quantum measurement problems with measuring both microscopic and macroscopic objects. The method used here is mainly based on the concept ``isolated point'' in ``point-set topology''. The findings reported are as follows. (a) Einstein's argument has been misunderstood; he was opposed to the so-called ``inherently probabilistic nature'' attached by the Copenhagen interpretation to quantum mechanics rather than to the use of probability in quantum mechanics. (b) Probability used in Einstein's ensemble interpretation is identical to the quantum-mechanically calculated probability. (c) The wave-functions in Einstein's ensemble interpretation neither describe any single quantum object purportedly possessing mutually exclusive properties simultaneously when nobody looks nor collapse abruptly when an observer performs a measurement.
We present an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation of the formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The basic difference is that the new interpretation is formulated in the language of epistemological realism. It involves a change in some basic physical concepts. Elementary particles are considered as extended objects and nonlocal effects are included. The role of the new concepts in the problems of measurement and of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations is described. Experiments to distinguish the proposed interpretation from the Copenhagen one are pointed out.