Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- From: "Fizyk" <L.J.FrasinskiNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:49:04 +0000 (UTC)
"J. Horta":
I can't for the life of me figure out what an "interpretation" of QM
is. Why do people feel QM needs extra interpretation beyond this
is the formalism and this is how to use it?
The need for interpretation arises when you want to perform a measurement on
a quantum system. When does the wavefunction collapse? Never? When the
observer intervenes? Intelligent observer? A dumb camera?
Is GR interpreted? Classical mechanics?
Yes - their interpretation is trivially simple. Not so with QM.
--
Fizyk
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- From: google03
- Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- From: Hendrik van Hees
- Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- References:
- Prev by Date: Classical and Quantum Doppler Shifted Energies.
- Next by Date: Volume of free-falling dust
- Previous by thread: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- Next by thread: Re: Super Copenhagen Interpretation (Consistent Histories)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|