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

"Proof" of the Copenhagen Interpretation

Kazuyuki Fujii

Published Apr 5, 2013• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In this paper we give a reasonable explanation (not proof) to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from the view point of decoherence theory. Mathematical physicists with strong mission must prove {\bf the Copenhagen interpretation} at all costs.

Related papers

Decoherence and Copenhagen Interpretation : A Scenario

Kazuyuki Fujii

In this paper we give a reasonable explanation (not proof) to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics from the view point of decoherence theory. Mathematical physicists with strong mission must prove {\bf the Copenhagen interpretation} at all costs.

arXiv:1304.1591•Apr 5, 2013•1 citation

Foreword

Enrico G. Beltrametti, Gianni Cassinelli, Peter Carruthers

For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 28, 1984•0 citations

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory

Norwood Russell Hanson

The theoretical and experimental context within which the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum theory was generated is underemphasized by recent critics of the Bohr-Heisenberg philosophy. When an interpretation of a theory has been as successful as this one has been, there is little practical warrant for the “alternative interpretations” which have, since Bohm, been receiving prominence. Indeed, these are not even genuine alternatives; although rich in provocative prose, they provide not a scrap of algebra with which to organize the practical physicist's thinking. Several objections to the Bohr interpretation are critically examined, as is also a particular use of the correspondence principle which has seemed to cast doubt on the Copenhagen ideas.

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 1959•50 citations

The Copenhagen interpretation (I)

Peter Gibbins

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”

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 25, 1987•0 citations

Why Copenhagen?

Cook, Daniel Reed

Why Copenhagen? Why did we physicists of Earth choose to create the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics during the wild days of the 1920’s? And why did most of us scientists continue to believe in it for nearly a whole century afterwards? Why would we actually do such a thing to ourselves? Did we have any other alternatives? Do any of the other interpretations of quantum physics make any more sense? Why would anyone want to discover a “correct” interpretation? Why do some of us still seek for a “complete” interpretation? Is quantum physics a real physical thing, that can be physically studied, in a real physical laboratory? Or is quantum physics just a mathematical statistical probabilistic thing, that can only be contemplated intellectually inside our human brains? This brief article attempts to ask some of these important questions, in the hope that it might further encourage others to continue to ask their wise scientific questions, and even to start asking much better questions, until that bright joyful day finally arrives, when we scientists of Earth, can all wisely agree together on the very best answers.

•Sep 20, 2023•0 citations

About quantum mechanics interpretation

Alexander G. Kyriakos

There is a certainty that the modern (Copenhagen's) interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. However, the some physicist had the opinion that the modern quantum mechanics is a phenomenological theory. The suggested theory is the new quantum mechanics interpretation that is entirely according to the modern interpretation and gives a number of results, which naturally explain the postulates of the modern quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0204037•Apr 7, 2002•0 citations
For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.
The theoretical and experimental context within which the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum theory was generated is underemphasized by recent critics of the Bohr-Heisenberg philosophy. When an interpretation of a theory has been as successful as this one has been, there is little practical warrant for the “alternative interpretations” which have, since Bohm, been receiving prominence. Indeed, these are not even genuine alternatives; although rich in provocative prose, they provide not a scrap of algebra with which to organize the practical physicist's thinking. Several objections to the Bohr interpretation are critically examined, as is also a particular use of the correspondence principle which has seemed to cast doubt on the Copenhagen ideas.
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”
Why Copenhagen? Why did we physicists of Earth choose to create the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics during the wild days of the 1920’s? And why did most of us scientists continue to believe in it for nearly a whole century afterwards? Why would we actually do such a thing to ourselves? Did we have any other alternatives? Do any of the other interpretations of quantum physics make any more sense? Why would anyone want to discover a “correct” interpretation? Why do some of us still seek for a “complete” interpretation? Is quantum physics a real physical thing, that can be physically studied, in a real physical laboratory? Or is quantum physics just a mathematical statistical probabilistic thing, that can only be contemplated intellectually inside our human brains? This brief article attempts to ask some of these important questions, in the hope that it might further encourage others to continue to ask their wise scientific questions, and even to start asking much better questions, until that bright joyful day finally arrives, when we scientists of Earth, can all wisely agree together on the very best answers.