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

International Journal of Physics

Reexamine Copenhagen Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Zhonglin Bo

Published Nov 16, 2021• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We reexamined the Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics from the perspectives of mathematical deduction, logic reasoning process and intrinsic physical nature of wave function. We conclude that all the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Born rule, and Bohr’s complimentary principle were not correct. Even for a quantum particle, at specific time, it must be classically localized but not non-local. Based on our analysis and deduction, the right interpretations to quantum mechanics were also developed.

DOI
10.12691/ijp-9-6-3

Related papers

Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Shall Be Considered Complete

Zhonglin BO

After the deduction and comparison of wave motions of classical particles and quantum particles, we prove that there are two restrictions applied to both classical particles and quantum particles. Both restrictions are just to ensure energy conservation principle of the wave motion. The Heisenberg’s famous inequality was nothing to do with the measurements of particle’s position or mentum, the restriction of the inequality is just the lower limit of the wave motion. His uncertainty principle was not correct from both mathematical and physical perspective. Based on the mathematic analysis and logic reasoning process review, we conclude that all the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Born rule and Bohr’s complimentary principle were not correct. Even for a quantum particle, at any time, it must be classically localized instead of non-local. Without the Copenhagen interpretations, the quantum mechanics shall still be considered complete according to EPR’s criteria which are used to verify the completeness of a physics theory. The particle-wave duality of quantum particles comes from their inner features of electric vector(s).

International Journal of Physics•Aug 25, 2022•4 citations

Consistent Interpretation of Quantum and Classical Mechanics

Andrew Das Arulsamy

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 (due to Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, gravity and entropy). Here, we first prove the limitation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by invoking the wave-particle duality and apply it to revise and/or extend the Copenhagen postulates. In particular, even though the said uncertainty exists due to non-commuting operators, but these operators do not commute simply because one of the operators is well-defined in classical physics (particle-like), while the other is wave-like (well-defined in quantum mechanics), or the eigenvalue is not at all defined in classical physics. We also construct a new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) to deduce why the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels should exist in atoms, molecules and condensed matter phases. In fact, we tackle all the problems arising from the Copenhagen interpretation without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.

•May 15, 2023•0 citations

Early attempts at interpretation of the theory

Robert Golub, S. K. Lamoreaux

Abstract While the theory proved successful at describing a broad range experimental results, from the black body spectrum to the hydrogen atom, the question arose as to what the theory was telling us about the nature of physical reality. Schrödinger’s attempt to represent particles as wave packets failed because of the spreading of the wave packets. Max Born, investigating how the theory could be applied to scattering processes, was led to introduce the probability interpretation of the wave function. In an attempt to summarize the physical meaning of the theory, Heisenberg introduced the uncertainty principle. Niels Bohr and his Copenhagen school developed the philosophical position known as “complementarity.” There was a bitter dispute between Schrödinger and the “Copenhageners” over the necessity of quantum jumps in the theory.

•Feb 28, 2023•0 citations

The interpretation of quantum mechanics

Malcolm S. Longair

In completing the story of spin, we have run far ahead of the continued development of the understanding of the matrix, operator and wave mechanical approaches to quantum mechanics. The reconciliation of these approaches was described in Chap. 15, but there remained the issue of the interpretation of the wavefunction and the deeper implications of the theory. The understanding came gradually with Born's interpretation of the wavefunction, Ehrenfest's demonstration of the equivalence of the classical and quantum pictures and Heisenberg's enunciation of the uncertainty principle. These led to what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. At the same time, the formal mathematical foundations of the different approaches to quantum phenomena were set on a secure foundation thanks to the efforts of Hilbert and many others. These developments resulted in what may be referred to as the completion of quantum mechanics, in the sense that it laid the foundations for all the future development of physics at the atomic and subatomic level – some of these achievements are summarised in Chap. 18. Schrödinger's interpretation (1926) Schrödinger regarded wave mechanics as superior to the matrix mechanical approach to quantum physics, not only because it was based upon the well-known eigenfunction techniques of classical physics, but also because it was much more visualisable. His first attempt at interpreting the wavefunction appeared in the final Sect. 7 of the fourth part of his great series of papers (Schrödinger, 1926f) and was entitled On the physical significance of the field scalar.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 31, 2013•1 citation

The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics

J. G. Cramer

The interpretational problems of quantum mechanics are considered. The way in which the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics deals with these problems is reviewed. A new interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics, the transactional interpretation, is presented. The basic element of this interpretation is the transaction describing a quantum event as an exchange of advanced and retarded waves, as implied by the work of Wheeler and Feynman, Dirac, and others. The transactional interpretation is explicitly nonlocal and thereby consistent with recent tests of the Bell inequality, yet is relativistically invariant and fully causal. A detailed comparison of the transactional and Copenhagen interpretations is made in the context of well-known quantum-mechanical Gedankenexperimente and "paradoxes." The transactional interpretation permits quantum-mechanical wave functions to be interpreted as real waves physically present in space rather than as "mathematical representations of knowledge" as in the Copenhagen interpretation. The transactional interpretation is shown to provide insight into the complex character of the quantum-mechanical state vector and the mechanism associated with its "collapse." It also leads in a natural way to justification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Born probability law ($P=\ensuremath{\psi}{\ensuremath{\psi}}^{*}$), basic elements of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Reviews of Modern Physics•Jul 1, 1986•854 citations

A Consistent Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Roland L. Omnes

Some mostly recent theoretical and mathematical advances can be linked together to yield a new consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. It relies upon a unique and universal interpretative rule of a logical character which is based upon Griffiths consistent historie. Some new results in semi-classical physics allow to derive classical physics from this rule, including its logical aspects, and to prove accordingly the existence of determinism within the quantum framework. Together with decoherence, this can be used to retrieve the existence of facts, despite the probabilistic character of the theory. Measurement theory can then be made entirely deductive. It is accordingly found that wave packet reduction is a logical property, whereas one can always choose to avoid using it. The practical consequences of this interpretation are most often in agreement with the Copenhagen formulation but they can be proved never to give rise to any logical inconsistency or paradox.

CRC Press eBooks•Oct 19, 2017•1 citation
We reexamined the Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics from the perspectives of mathematical deduction, logic reasoning process and intrinsic physical nature of wave function. We conclude that all the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Born rule, and Bohr’s complimentary principle were not correct. Even for a quantum particle, at specific time, it must be classically localized but not non-local. Based on our analysis and deduction, the right interpretations to quantum mechanics were also developed.
After the deduction and comparison of wave motions of classical particles and quantum particles, we prove that there are two restrictions applied to both classical particles and quantum particles. Both restrictions are just to ensure energy conservation principle of the wave motion. The Heisenberg’s famous inequality was nothing to do with the measurements of particle’s position or mentum, the restriction of the inequality is just the lower limit of the wave motion. His uncertainty principle was not correct from both mathematical and physical perspective. Based on the mathematic analysis and logic reasoning process review, we conclude that all the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Born rule and Bohr’s complimentary principle were not correct. Even for a quantum particle, at any time, it must be classically localized instead of non-local. Without the Copenhagen interpretations, the quantum mechanics shall still be considered complete according to EPR’s criteria which are used to verify the completeness of a physics theory. The particle-wave duality of quantum particles comes from their inner features of electric vector(s).
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 (due to Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, gravity and entropy). Here, we first prove the limitation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by invoking the wave-particle duality and apply it to revise and/or extend the Copenhagen postulates. In particular, even though the said uncertainty exists due to non-commuting operators, but these operators do not commute simply because one of the operators is well-defined in classical physics (particle-like), while the other is wave-like (well-defined in quantum mechanics), or the eigenvalue is not at all defined in classical physics. We also construct a new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) to deduce why the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels should exist in atoms, molecules and condensed matter phases. In fact, we tackle all the problems arising from the Copenhagen interpretation without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.
Abstract While the theory proved successful at describing a broad range experimental results, from the black body spectrum to the hydrogen atom, the question arose as to what the theory was telling us about the nature of physical reality. Schrödinger’s attempt to represent particles as wave packets failed because of the spreading of the wave packets. Max Born, investigating how the theory could be applied to scattering processes, was led to introduce the probability interpretation of the wave function. In an attempt to summarize the physical meaning of the theory, Heisenberg introduced the uncertainty principle. Niels Bohr and his Copenhagen school developed the philosophical position known as “complementarity.” There was a bitter dispute between Schrödinger and the “Copenhageners” over the necessity of quantum jumps in the theory.
In completing the story of spin, we have run far ahead of the continued development of the understanding of the matrix, operator and wave mechanical approaches to quantum mechanics. The reconciliation of these approaches was described in Chap. 15, but there remained the issue of the interpretation of the wavefunction and the deeper implications of the theory. The understanding came gradually with Born's interpretation of the wavefunction, Ehrenfest's demonstration of the equivalence of the classical and quantum pictures and Heisenberg's enunciation of the uncertainty principle. These led to what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. At the same time, the formal mathematical foundations of the different approaches to quantum phenomena were set on a secure foundation thanks to the efforts of Hilbert and many others. These developments resulted in what may be referred to as the completion of quantum mechanics, in the sense that it laid the foundations for all the future development of physics at the atomic and subatomic level – some of these achievements are summarised in Chap. 18. Schrödinger's interpretation (1926) Schrödinger regarded wave mechanics as superior to the matrix mechanical approach to quantum physics, not only because it was based upon the well-known eigenfunction techniques of classical physics, but also because it was much more visualisable. His first attempt at interpreting the wavefunction appeared in the final Sect. 7 of the fourth part of his great series of papers (Schrödinger, 1926f) and was entitled On the physical significance of the field scalar.
The interpretational problems of quantum mechanics are considered. The way in which the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics deals with these problems is reviewed. A new interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics, the transactional interpretation, is presented. The basic element of this interpretation is the transaction describing a quantum event as an exchange of advanced and retarded waves, as implied by the work of Wheeler and Feynman, Dirac, and others. The transactional interpretation is explicitly nonlocal and thereby consistent with recent tests of the Bell inequality, yet is relativistically invariant and fully causal. A detailed comparison of the transactional and Copenhagen interpretations is made in the context of well-known quantum-mechanical Gedankenexperimente and "paradoxes." The transactional interpretation permits quantum-mechanical wave functions to be interpreted as real waves physically present in space rather than as "mathematical representations of knowledge" as in the Copenhagen interpretation. The transactional interpretation is shown to provide insight into the complex character of the quantum-mechanical state vector and the mechanism associated with its "collapse." It also leads in a natural way to justification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Born probability law ($P=\ensuremath{\psi}{\ensuremath{\psi}}^{*}$), basic elements of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Some mostly recent theoretical and mathematical advances can be linked together to yield a new consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics. It relies upon a unique and universal interpretative rule of a logical character which is based upon Griffiths consistent historie. Some new results in semi-classical physics allow to derive classical physics from this rule, including its logical aspects, and to prove accordingly the existence of determinism within the quantum framework. Together with decoherence, this can be used to retrieve the existence of facts, despite the probabilistic character of the theory. Measurement theory can then be made entirely deductive. It is accordingly found that wave packet reduction is a logical property, whereas one can always choose to avoid using it. The practical consequences of this interpretation are most often in agreement with the Copenhagen formulation but they can be proved never to give rise to any logical inconsistency or paradox.