Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is criticized for its semantic inconsistence.The minimal ensemble interpretation,ontological interpretation,many-worlds interpretation,modal interpretation and decoherence interpretation reconstruct quantum mechanics interpretation.They have different additional requirements and explanation force.Comparing the six interpretations from additional requirements and explanation force can deepen our understandings,which is not only the need of whole science knowledge,but also the need of semantic consistence.
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is criticized for its semantic inconsistence.The minimal ensemble interpretation,ontological interpretation,many-worlds interpretation,modal interpretation and decoherence interpretation reconstruct quantum mechanics interpretation.They have different additional requirements and explanation force.Comparing the six interpretations from additional requirements and explanation force can deepen our understandings,which is not only the need of whole science knowledge,but also the need of semantic consistence.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics expands quantum theory,and it embodies quantum theory's consistence semantically.Copenhagen interpretation,the minimal ensemble interpretation,ontological interpretation,many-worlds interpretation,modal interpretation and decoherence interpretation have different additional requirements and force.Comparing the six interpretations from between the tension of additional requirement and force is not only the need of the whole scientific knowledge,but also the need of consistence semantically.
In the present paper I describe a general formal semantic scheme for the interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) , and on the basis of this scheme I examine the modal interpretation of QM — both the Copenhagen and the anti-Copenhagen variants — proposed by van Fraassen [19, 20, 21], This is intended to be a fragment of a larger work [12] which additionally investigates a number of closely related interpretations, including ones proposed by Bub and Demopoulos [1, 2, 3, 4], Fine [5, 6], and Krips [16, 17]. Formal semantically speaking (see, e.g., Thomason [18]), a logic L may be characterized as an ordered pair <SYN,SEM>, where SYN is the underlying syntax (language) of L, and SEM is the semantics of L, which consists of a class of semantic assignments on SYN.
The form of quantum mechanics is established ahead of of a system of physics interpretation,which is a realistic possibility premise for the group explained of quantum mechanics.But quantum mechanics and the classical physics language system contain different noumenon suppose.It is intrinsically different between the classical physics which describes the macro world and quantum mechanism which describes the micro world in the function mechanism,particle abstract,the probability application.Thus,the concept of classical physics language describing the micro-world will be no adaptation in essence,just as using Euclidean geometry can not explain non-Euclidean geometry.In this context,we believe there is no any interpretation system which is better than the Copenhagen School on the whole,though it has some shortage.
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.
Abstract Quantum Mechanics (QM) stands alone as a (very) successful physical theory, but the meaning of its variables and the status of many quantities in the mathematical formalism is obscure. This unique situation prompted the need for attribution of a physical meaning to the latter, a procedure known as interpretation. On the other hand, the study of QM is usually presented, even to future scientists, within the only framework developed by Bohr and the Copenhagen researchers, known as the Copenhagen interpretation. As a contribution to the understanding and teaching of Quantum Mechanics, aimed to a broader and deeper appreciation of its fundamentals, including contemplating alternatives and updated interpretations for physicists and philosophers interested in the study of exact sciences (through Ontology, Epistemology, Logic or the Theory of Knowledge), we present a set of Conceptual Diagrams elaborated and designed to expose and facilitate the visualization of elements intervening in any interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and apply them to several well‐developed cases of the latter.
Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of the quantum objects, but the description and the interpretation of its basic principles; (nature of the wave, interpretations of: superposition principle, complementary principle, and uncertainly principle), these latter have had many debates concerning their meanings and their concepts between the scientists. Since\nthe beginning of its appearance until today, many different interpretations between many schools and scientists have emerged, about the descriptions of quantum mechanics. In our present contribution, a modest modeling for many worlds interpretation is presented, followed by solving and interpreting a famous example “particle in an infinite square potential\nwell”, using our modeling and then, a comparison between Copenhagen and many world interpretations.