arXiv:quant-ph/0509089

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Incorrect

Guang-Liang Li, Victor O. K. Li

Published Sep 13, 2005• 0 citations

Abstract

(A point-by-point response to a comment (quant-ph/0509130) on our paper (quant-ph/0509089) is added as Appendix C. We find the comment incorrect.) Einstein's criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is an important part of his legacy. Although most physicists consider Einstein's criticism technically unfounded, we show that the Copenhagen interpretation is actually incorrect, since Born's probability explanation of the wave function is incorrect due to a false assumption on "continuous probabilities" in modern probability theory. "Continuous probability" means a "probability measure" that can take every value in a subinterval of the unit interval (0, 1). We prove that such "continuous probabilities" are invalid. Since Bell's inequality also assumes "continuous probabilities", the result of the experimental test of Bell's inequality is not evidence supporting the Copenhagen interpretation. Although successful applications of quantum mechanics and explanation of quantum phenomena do not necessarily rely on the Copenhagen interpretation, the question asked by Einstein 70 years ago, i.e., whether a complete description of reality exists, still remains open.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0509089

Related papers

Comment on ''Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Incorrect''

Markus Bier

It is shown that ''Theorem 1'' of the article ''Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Incorrect'' by G.-L. Li and V.O.K. Li (see quant-ph/0509089) is false. Therefore the assertion expressed in the title of that article is untenable.

arXiv:quant-ph/0509130Sep 20, 20050 citations

Two different physical interpretations of Schroedinger equation

M. V. Lokajíček, V. Kundrát, J Procházka

The assumptions added by Bohr and concerning the Hilbert space (formed by all solutions of Schroedinger equation) changed fundamentally the original physical interpretation of these solutions proposed earlier by Schroedinger. This new alternative was refused by Einstein on the basis of the EPR Gedankenexperiment, but accepted fully for microscopic reality by scientific community. Both the quantum alternatives were discussed, however, again later. Bell tried to find a possibility how to decide between them; he generalized Einstein's Gedankenexperiment assuming that also spins of two detected particles would be measured. He derived then some inequality for a special combination of four coincidence probabilities, and it was commonly assumed that his inequality held for the original Schroedinger interpretation but not in Bohr's Copenhagen quantum mechanics; without any actual proof having been given. Corresponding experiments were proposed and finished in 1982. The violation of Bell's inequality was then interpreted as decisive victory of Bohr's theory. However, it will be shown that Bell's inequality has been interpreted mistakenly. It has been based always on some assumption that does not hold in any probabilistic theory (i.e., in the given spin experiment) but only in deterministic classical theory. There is not any argument for preferring the Copenhagen quantum mechanics and against Einstein's critical standpoint. Some other consequences will be mentioned, too.

arXiv:1305.5503May 22, 20134 citations

On the Copenhagen Interpretation and Its Alternative Theories

Haiwen Zhang

Quantum mechanics has become the rising trend in modern physics and has completely changed people’s views of physics. This essay delves into the once-existing problems underlying quantum mechanics such as the conflict between substantiality and completeness in quantum mechanics and the relationship between causality and observation and analyzes the solutions to the controversies. The Copenhagen Interpretation is widely considered the most orthodox explanation of quantum mechanics; therefore, this paper focuses on the Copenhagen Interpretation and examines how it delicately manages to explain quantum mechanics. It also examines its alternative theories, such as Einstein’s local hidden variable theory, and disproves them with Bell’s inequality and other reasonings. The essay aims to clarify and systematize the historical development of quantum mechanics, showing the current progress of quantum mechanics.

Theoretical and Natural ScienceFeb 20, 20230 citations

Quantum nonlocality does not exist

Frank J. Tipler

Quantum nonlocality is shown to be an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation, in which each observed quantity has exactly one value at any instant. In reality, all physical systems obey quantum mechanics, which obeys no such rule. Locality is restored if observed and observer are both assumed to obey quantum mechanics, as in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI). Using the MWI, I show that the quantum side of Bell's inequality, generally believed nonlocal, is really due to a series of three measurements (not two as in the standard, oversimplified analysis), all three of which have only local effects. Thus, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the MWI. The mistaken interpretation of nonlocality experiments depends crucially on a question-begging version of the Born interpretation, which makes sense only in "collapse" versions of quantum theory, about the meaning of the modulus of the wave function, so I use the interpretation based on the MWI, namely that the wave function is a world density amplitude, not a probability amplitude. This view allows the Born interpretation to be derived directly from the Schrödinger equation, by applying the Schrödinger equation to both the observed and the observer.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesJul 11, 201478 citations

Anti-Bell - Refutation of Bell's theorem

Ilija Barukčić

In general, Albert Einstein as one of "the founding fathers of quantum mechanics" had some problems to accept especially the Copenhagen dominated interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein's dissatisfaction with Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics, the absence of locality and causality within the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics lead to the well known Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen thought experiment. According to Einstein et al., the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics cannot be regarded as a complete physical theory. The Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen thought experiment was the origin of J. S. Bell's publication in 1964; known as Bell's theorem. Meanwhile, some dramatic violations of Bell's inequality (by so called Bell test experiments) have been reported which is taken as an empirical evidence against local realism and causality at quantum level and as positive evidence in favor of the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics. Thus far, Quantum mechanics is still regarded as a "strictly" non-local theory. The purpose of this publication is to refute Bell's original theorem. Thus far, if we accept Bell's theorem as correct, we must accept that +0> = +1. We can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell's theorem, Bell's theorem is refuted.

AIP conference proceedingsJan 1, 201215 citations

Je kodaňská interpretace kvantové mechaniky tabu?

Jan Fikatchek

This article analyzes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics with regard to its historical role, logical consistency, and ontological assumptions. It argues that the Copenhagen interpretation has been extraordinarily successful as a practical framework connecting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics with experimental results, but that its positivist restriction to observable quantities does not provide a complete physical explanation of quantum wave behaviour. The analysis of other interpretations suggests that no interpretation of quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen interpretation, can avoid some form of hidden entity. The central argument is based on the double-slit experiment: probability or mere possibility cannot by themselves physically cause interference, and therefore some real wave-like entity must exist whose effect is only probabilistically described by the wave function. The wave function is therefore not understood as a physical wave itself, but as an epistemic description of the interaction between a particle and a deeper hidden wave structure. The Copenhagen interpretation need not be simply rejected; rather, it can be understood as a successful simplification of a deeper interpretation. It accurately describes measurable results, but it does not explain the real mechanism that produces them. The article suggests that inspiration for such a deeper view can be found in quantum field theory: particles are perturbations of fields, and quantum entanglement may indicate the existence of a deeper nonlocal field of entanglement.

Jun 24, 20260 citations