The Copenhagen interpretation is the most authorized interpretation of quantum mechanics, but there are a number of ideas that are associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. It is ceratin that this fact is not necessarily desirable. Thus, we propose a new interpretation of measurement theory, which is the linguistic aspect (or, the mathematical generalization) of quantum mechanics. Although this interpretation is superficially similar to a part of so-called Copenhagen interpretation, we show that it has a merit to be applicable to both quantum and classical systems. For example, we say that Bell’s inequality is broken even in classical systems.
The Copenhagen interpretation is the most authorized interpretation of quantum mechanics, but there are a number of ideas that are associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. It is ceratin that this fact is not necessarily desirable. Thus, we propose a new interpretation of measurement theory, which is the linguistic aspect (or, the mathematical generalization) of quantum mechanics. Although this interpretation is superficially similar to a part of so-called Copenhagen interpretation, we show that it has a merit to be applicable to both quantum and classical systems. For example, we say that Bell’s inequality is broken even in classical systems.
About twenty years ago, we proposed the mathematical formulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and further, we concluded that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and EPR-paradox are not contradictory. This is true, however we now think that we should have argued about it under a certain firm interpretation of quantum mechanics. Recently we proposed the linguistic quantum interpretation (called quantum and classical measurement theory), which was characterized as a kind of metaphysical and linguistic turn of the Copenhagen interpretation. This turn from physics to language does not only extend quantum theory to classical systems but also yield the quantum mechanical world view (i.e., the philosophy of quantum mechanics, in other words, quantum philosophy). In fact, we can consider that traditional philosophies have progressed toward quantum philosophy. In this paper, we first review the linguistic quantum interpretation, and further, clarify the relation between EPR-paradox and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That is, the linguistic interpretation says that EPR-paradox is closely related to the fact that syllogism does not generally hold in quantum physics. This fact should be compared to the non-locality of Bell's inequality.
Bell's inequality itself is usually considered to belong to mathematics and not quantum mechanics.We think that this is making our understanding of Bell' theory be confused.Thus in this paper, contrary to Bell's spirit (which inherits Einstein's spirit), we try to discuss Bell's inequality in the framework of quantum theory with the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation.And we clarify that the violation of Bell's inequality (i.e., whether or not Bell's inequality holds) does not depend on whether classical systems or quantum systems, but depend on whether a combined measurement exists or not.And further we conclude that our argument (based on the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation) should be regarded as a scientific representation of Bell's philosophical argument (based on Einstein's spirit).
Of all the many rival interpretations of quantum mechanics, none is more important or influential than the Copenhagen interpretation. Unfortunately, there is no one Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. If one uses the expression, and everyone does, one should not think of the Copenhagen interpretation as a single consistent interpretation of the theory. Philosophers of physics tend to use the expression ‘the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics’ as a label covering a variety of different interpretations all of which either originate with Niels Bohr or were invented by him, his colleagues and guests at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen beginning in the middle 1920s. Perhaps one should say that the Copenhagen interpretation in this diffuse sense goes back farther than this, back even before the rise of the new quantum mechanics. Heisenberg tells the story of a boat trip he, Bohr, and some friends took from Copenhagen to the island of Fyn around the time when the then new quantum mechanics was being developed. Bohr, ‘full of the new interpretation of quantum theory’, talked of ‘the difficulties of language, of the limitations of all our means of expressing ourselves’ and of how these limitations had been expressed ‘in the foundation of atomic theory in a mathematically lucid way’. ‘Finally,’ Heisenberg ends the story, ‘one of the friends remarked drily, “But, Niels, this is not really new, you said exactly the same ten years ago”
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.
Interpreting quantum mechanics is a hard problem basically because it means explaining why and how the mathematics exploited to formulate wave-particle duality are related to observations or reality in classical physics. Consequently, interpretation of quantum mechanics and its formalism should involve proper physical mathematics, physical logic and classical physics, which is not the case from the Copenhagen interpretation. Here, we shall revisit all the postulates of quantum mechanics with proper physics and physical logic and reconstruct them to establish the less-complex interpretation of quantum mechanics with additional new postulates from classical physics. A new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) is also introduced to understand the meaning of the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels and/or electron orbitals in atoms that is valid for molecules and condensed matter based on quantum mechanics that is technically well-defined and experimentally observable. Here, we tackle all the problems arise from the Copenhagen interpretation systematically by revising and/or extending them with proper classical and quantum physics without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.